Trials@uspto.gov Paper 24
`571-272-7822 Entered: December 6, 2018
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`DAIMLER AG, DAIMLER NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION,
`MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, AND MERCEDES-BENZ U.S.
`INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`STRAGENT, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017–01502
`Patent 8,209,705 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, PATRICK M. BOUCHER, and
`CARL L. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822 Entered: December 6, 2018
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`DAIMLER AG, DAIMLER NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION,
`MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, AND MERCEDES-BENZ U.S.
`INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`STRAGENT, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017–01502
`Patent 8,209,705 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, PATRICK M. BOUCHER, and
`CARL L. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01502
`Patent 8,209,705 B2
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`In response to a Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”) filed by Daimler North
`America Corporation, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, and Mercedes-Benz U.S.
`International, Inc. (collectively, “Petitioner”), we instituted an inter partes
`review of claims 8–19 of U.S. Patent No. 8,209,705 B2 (“the ’705 patent”).
`Paper 7 (“Dec.”).
`During the trial, Stragent, LLC (“Patent Owner”) timely filed a
`Response (Paper 10, “PO Resp.”), to which Petitioner timely filed a Reply
`(Paper 18, “Reply”). An oral hearing was held on September 11, 2018, and
`a copy of the transcript was entered into the record. Paper 23 (“Tr.”).1
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This Decision is a Final
`Written Decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) as to the patentability of the
`claims on which we instituted trial. Based on the record before us, Petitioner
`has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 8–19 are
`unpatentable.
`
`
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Real Parties in Interest and Related Matters
`The real party-in-interest for Patent Owner is Stragent, LLC, the
`
`assignee of U.S. Patent No. 8,209,705. Paper 4.
`
`
`1 The hearing was a consolidated hearing for IPR2017-01502, IPR2017-
`01503, and IPR2017-01504.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01502
`Patent 8,209,705 B2
`
`
`The real parties-in-interest for Petitioner are Daimler AG, Daimler
`
`North America Corporation, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, and Mercedes-
`Benz U.S. International, Inc. Pet. 87.
`IPR2017-00458, also filed by Petitioner, challenges claims of U.S.
`Patent No. 8,209,705 (“the ’705 patent”). IPR2017-00457, also filed by
`Petitioner, challenges claims of related U.S. Patent No. 8,566,843 (“the ’843
`patent”), the application that issued as the ’843 patent being a continuation
`of the application that issued as the ’705 patent.
`The following inter partes reviews challenge claims of the ’843 patent
`or the ’705 patent: IPR2017-00676, IPR2017-00677, IPR2017-01502,
`IPR2017-01503, IPR2017-01504, IPR2017-01519, IPR2017-01520,
`IPR2017-01521, and IPR2017-01522.
`Patent Owner has asserted the ’705 Patent in three separate suits:
`Stragent, LLC, v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, No. 6:16-cv-00447 (E.D. Tex.
`May, 20, 2016); Stragent, LLC v. BMW of North America, LLC, Civ. No.
`6:16-CV-00446 (E.D. Tex. May 20, 2016); and Stragent, LLC v. Volvo Cars
`of North America, LLC, Civ. No. 6:16-CV-00448 (E.D. Tex. May 20, 2016).
`Pet. 87; Paper. 4.
`
`B. The ’705 Patent
`The ’705 patent relates to sharing information in a distributed system.
`
`Ex. 1001, Abstract. Data between networks is shared using a common
`“bulletin board” memory. Id. The system includes at least two different
`networks, each of which is either a Controller Area Network (“CAN”),
`FlexRay, or Local Interconnect Network (“LIN”). Id. at 3:24–33. The
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01502
`Patent 8,209,705 B2
`
`
`system described in the ’705 patent may be used in “vehicle communication
`and control systems, real-time monitoring systems, industrial automation
`and control systems, as well as any other desired system.” Id. at 1:22–25.
`An example is provided in Figure 1 of the ’705 patent, which is reproduced
`below.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 generally depicts elements of a distributed embedded
`communication and computing system. Id. at 3:9–11.
`In an automotive environment, various electronic control units
`(“ECUs”) control such applications as engine control, brake control, or
`diagnostics through connections to various sensors and actuators organized
`into separate subnetworks. Id. at 3:13–18. Such applications are themselves
`grouped into backbone system functions, such as “body control, power train,
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01502
`Patent 8,209,705 B2
`
`
`and chassis.” Id. at 3:19–21. With a hierarchical organization that includes
`gateways 101, 104, 105, messages are relayed up and down through the
`system layers. Id. at 3:24–26. Each layer may contain multiple ECUs
`connected through wired serial multiplexing bus systems, with the ’705
`patent noting several examples that include Controller Area Network
`(“CAN”), Local Interconnect Network (“LIN”), and Flexray. Id. at 3:26–33.
`At the highest level in the hierarchy, “the system level,” system
`gateway 101 is connected via various busses to other system-level ECUs, to
`subsequent gateways 103, and to external components 120. Id. at 3:60–67.
`In addition, system gateway 101 may be connected to external gateway 131
`to link the system to remote device 132. Id. at 4:1–6. “Subsequent to the
`system level may be several layers of groups and subgroups that are link[ed]
`to the higher levels via gateways (101, 103, 104, 105).” Id. at 4:7–9.
`In operation, ECU 102 receives “real-time” input variables from local
`sensors 108 or from networked sensors 106, respectively via signal lines 113
`or multiplexing bus system 112. Id. at 3:39–42. “[R]eal-time may include
`any response time that may be measured in milli- or microseconds, and/or is
`less than 1 second.” Id. at 3:36–38. ECU 102 processes the input variables
`and generates output variables that may be shared with other ECUs 102. Id.
`at 3:46–51. Two relevant modes of sharing are described.
`First, ECUs 102 “typically share information with devices that are
`connected on the same physical multiplexing system. This method of
`information sharing is called horizontal information sharing in a hierarchical
`system.” Id. at 3:51–55.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01502
`Patent 8,209,705 B2
`
`
`
`Second, a bulletin board may be used so that “the information is
`shared, in real-time, among a plurality of heterogeneous processes.” Id. at
`1:31–33. According to the ’705 patent, “heterogeneous networks may refer
`to any different communication networks with at least one aspect that is
`different.” Id. 7:27–29.
`The logical architecture of the system described in the ’705 patent is
`described below in annotated Figure 72 (Pet. 31):
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2 Figures from the ’705 patent and cited references are shown with
`Petitioner’s annotations as set forth in the Petition. Petitioner contends
`identified features are shown in the annotations. We rely on the Figures as
`presented in the ’705 patent and the references.
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01502
`Patent 8,209,705 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 7 depicts a bulletin board that interacts with multiple
`communication buses.
`The system architecture includes four main components: (1) network
`interfaces for each of the heterogeneous networks (red); (2) operating
`interfaces for each of the heterogeneous networks (yellow); (3) remote
`message processes for stripping out network-specific information (green);
`and (4) a real-time, bulletin board-type shared memory (blue). Ex. 1001,
`6:33–7:3.
`In operation, an external event (for example, a flag indicating that data
`from a sensor is available) is transmitted on a network to a communication
`bus controller (e.g., 703). Id. at 7:5–8. This causes an operating system
`interface (e.g., 709) to notify the message communication process (e.g., 710)
`that data is available. Id. The data is sent over the network as a network
`specific message. Id. at 7:4–49.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`All the challenged claims 8–19, depend from independent claim 7,
`which was a challenged claim in IPR2017-00458 (“’458 IPR”). In the Final
`Decision in that case (“’458 FD”), we concluded that claim 7 had been
`shown to be unpatentable over the same combinations of prior art references
`asserted in this proceeding. Daimler AG v. Stragent, LLC, Case IPR2017-
`00458, (PTAB June 13, 2018) (Paper 31). Claim 7 is thus illustrative of the
`claims challenged in this proceeding and reads:
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01502
`Patent 8,209,705 B2
`
`
`
`[(a)3] A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a
`7.
`computer program product for sharing information, the computer
`program product comprising:
`[(b)] computer code for allowing receipt of information
`associated with a message, utilizing a first network protocol
`associated with a first network;
`[(c)] computer code for causing a determination as to whether a
`storage resource is available;
`[(d)] computer code for, in the event the storage resource is not
`available, determining whether a timeout has been reached and
`causing a re-request in connection with the storage resource;
`[(e)] computer code for, in the event the storage resource is
`available and the timeout has not been reached, causing storage
`of the information utilizing the storage resource;
`[(f)] computer code for, in the event the timeout has been
`reached, causing an error notification to be sent; and
`[(g)] computer code for causing the information to be shared
`by: in real-time, sharing the information utilizing at least one
`message format corresponding to a second network protocol
`associated with a second network which is different from the
`first network protocol;
`[(h)] wherein the computer program product is associated with
`an electronic control unit with at least one gateway function,
`and a plurality of interface portions including:
`[(i)] a first interface portion for interfacing with the first
`network, [(j)] the first interface portion including a first
`interface-related first layer part for receiving first interface-
`related first layer messages and a first inter- face-related second
`layer part, the first interface-related first layer messages being
`processed after which first interface-related second layer
`
`
`3 Petitioner and Patent Owner use letters (a)-(n) to designate claim 7
`limitations. Where useful, we refer to these letter designations.
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01502
`Patent 8,209,705 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`messages are provided, (k)where the first network is at least one
`of a Controller Area Network, a Flexray network, or a Local
`Interconnect Network; and
`[(l)] a second interface portion for interfacing with the second
`network, [(m)] the second interface portion including a second
`interface-related first layer part for receiving second interface-
`related first layer messages and a second interface-related
`second layer part, the second interface-related first layer
`messages being processed after which second interface-related
`second layer messages are provided, [(n)] where the second
`network is different from the first network and is at least one of
`the Controller Area Network, the Flexray network, or the Local
`Interconnect Network.
`
`
` D. Instituted Grounds of Unpatentability
`We instituted trial on the following grounds (Dec. 32).
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01502
`Patent 8,209,705 B2
`
`
`
`References
`Posadas4, Stewart5, and
`Wense6
`Miesterfeld7, Stewart,
`and Wense
`
`Basis
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`8–19
`
`8–19
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`For petitions filed before November 13, 2018, the Board interprets
`claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest reasonable construction in
`light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. See 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.100(b) (2016); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131,
`2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation
`standard).
`
`
`4Posadas et al., “Communications Structure for Sensor Fusion in
`Distributed Real Time Systems,” Algorithms and Architectures for Real-
`Time Control 2000: A Proceedings volume from the 6th IFAC Workshop,
`Palma de Mallorca, Spain (May 2000)1999 (Ex. 1006, “Posadas”).
`5 Stewart et al., “Integration of Real-Time Software Modules for
`Reconfigurable Sensor-Based Control Systems,” IEEE/RSJ International
`Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Raleigh, North Carolina (July
`1992) (Ex. 1007, “Stewart”).
`6 H-C. von der Wense et al., “Building Automotive LIN
`Applications,” Advanced Microsystems for Automotive Applications, 280–
`292 (2001) (Ex. 1008, “Wense”).
`7 U.S. Patent No. 6,141,710, issued Oct. 31, 2000 (Ex. 1009, “Miesterfeld”).
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01502
`Patent 8,209,705 B2
`
`
`
`Petitioner contends only the term “real-time” requires construction
`and proposes the broadest reasonable construction of “real-time” includes
`“[a]ny response time that may be measured in milli- or microseconds, and/or
`is less than one second.” Pet. 6. Petitioner contends the ’705 patent
`specification expressly defines this term. Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 3:35–38).
`Patent Owner contends the ’705 specification defines “real-time” as “any
`response time that may be measured in milli or microseconds, and/or is less
`than [one] second.” PO Resp. 17. In light of the cited portion of the
`specification, we construe “real-time” as including responses that occur in
`less than one second. The first part of the quotation provided in the
`specification (“may be measured in milli- or microseconds”) is not limiting
`because any response time, no matter how large or small, may be measured
`in milli- or microseconds.
`As discussed more fully, infra, Patent Owner proposes construction
`for several additional terms and Petitioner proposes counter construction for
`these terms. PO Resp. 16–19. Petitioner contends, “[r]egardless of which
`construction is adopted, the prior art renders the claims unpatentable for the
`same reasons discussed below.” Reply 3 n.4 (citing Ex. 1038 ¶ 24). These
`terms include the following:
`“the information” of 7(g): Patent Owner contends “the information”
`refers to the same “information” of 7(b) and 7(e). PO Resp. 16. We agree.
`“shared” and “sharing”: Patent Owner proposes the term should be
`given its ordinary meaning and “sharing” is to “partake of, use, experience,
`occupy, or enjoy with others; to have in common.” Id. (citing Ex. 2003,
`Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 10th Edition (2002)). Petitioner contends
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01502
`Patent 8,209,705 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner’s position is in conflict with the construction for “sharing”
`adopted by the Board in the ’458 FD and that the construction for “sharing”
`previously adopted in that Final Decision should be applied here—“making
`the information available to another process.” Reply 3–4 (citing ’458 FD,
`10–11; Ex. 1038 ¶¶ 25–27).
`We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention. The plain
`language of claim 7 does not require that “the information” be stored using
`the “storage resource” under all conditions. The plain language of the claim
`does, though, always require the recited code for “causing the information to
`be shared in real-time utilizing a second network protocol associated with a
`second network.” Ex. 1001 at 18:23–27. Nothing in this limitation requires
`“the information” to have been stored using the storage resource. Moreover,
`the ’705 patent describes an embodiment in which information is shared
`without using a shared storage resource. Id. at 8:52–63, 7:40–49.
`At the oral hearing, Patent Owner argued that “the information that is
`shared is the information that is stored because that is the last antecedent.”
`Tr. 40:21–22. Patent Owner, however, is unable to identify sufficient legal
`basis for this “last antecedent” theory. Id. at 40:17–18 (“I am not aware of
`any Federal Circuit or any other governing law on this . . . .”).
`In addition, we note that Patent Owner has submitted a definition of
`“share” drawn from a technical dictionary into the record of this proceeding.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01502
`Patent 8,209,705 B2
`
`
`Ex. 2004.8 We find the technical dictionary provided by Patent Owner to be
`more probative than the general-purpose dictionary relied on by Patent
`Owner.
`The language of the general-purpose dictionary quoted by Patent
`Owner—“to partake of, use, experience, occupy, or enjoy with others; to
`have in common”—does not appear to contemplate the sharing of
`“information,” which the ’705 patent describes as “includ[ing] data, a signal,
`and/or anything else capable of being stored and shared.” See Ex. 2003
`(general definition of “share”); Ex. 1001, 3:56–59. Instead, the technical
`definition of “[t]o make files, directories, or folders accessible to other users
`over a network” is more relevant because it expressly contemplates the same
`context as the ’705 patent, i.e., sharing over a network. Ex. 2004 (technical
`definition of “share”).
`Thus, the plain language of the claim, intrinsic evidence in the form of
`the written description, and extrinsic evidence in the form of a technical-
`dictionary definition all support a construction of information sharing that
`requires making the information accessible, without requiring storage of the
`information. We accordingly construe the various recitations of information
`sharing in the claims in accordance with such requirements.
`
`
`8 We note that, even if Patent Owner had not entered Exhibit 2004 into this
`proceeding, judges are free to rely on extrinsic dictionary definitions when
`construing claim terms, so long as the dictionary definition does not
`contradict any definition found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent
`documents. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1584 n.6
`(Fed. Cir. 1996); see Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1322–23 (Fed.
`Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01502
`Patent 8,209,705 B2
`
`
`
` “protocol”: Patent Owner proposes the term means a set of rules or
`procedures utilizing preexisting agreement as to how information will be
`structured and how each side will send and receive it for transmitting
`information between electronic devices. PO Resp.17. Petitioner proposes
`“protocol” is a well-understood term in computer science: “a standard that
`specifies the format of data as well as the rules to be followed in transmitting
`it.” Reply 4 (citing Ex. 1041, Webster’s New World Computer Dictionary
`(10th ed., 2003); Ex. 1038 ¶ 28). We determine the proposed constructions
`are similar and we select Petitioner’s proposed construction as it is more
`clear. Our decision does not turn on nuanced distinctions between the
`parties’ proposed constructions.
`limitations 7(l), (m), and (n): Patent Owner contends the “second
`network” is the second network described in the antecedent limitations,
`which is the network referenced in limitation 7(g) as the second network
`utilizing a second different protocol which is the recipient of the “shared”
`information connected to the storage resource. PO Resp. 18. Petitioner
`contends there is nothing in the claim that requires the second network
`“receive” anything and nowhere in the claim is a “storage resource”
`mentioned with regard to the second network. Reply 5. According to
`Petitioner, the term “second network” is readily understood on its face, and
`does not require the additional unsupported language proposed by Patent
`Owner. Id. (citing Ex. 1038 ¶ 30).
`As discussed, infra, we construe the second network as the network
`recited in the antecedent limitations, and claim 7 does not require the second
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01502
`Patent 8,209,705 B2
`
`
`network to be the “recipient” of information or to be connected to a storage
`resource.
`“diagnostic mode”: Patent Owner contends the proper construction of
`this term is “an alternate mode of operation, distinct from normal operations,
`that still allows inspection of the system while it is running.” PO Resp. 18–
`19. Petitioner contends the specification does not state that a diagnostic
`mode must be in any way “distinct from normal operations” and instead
`refers to “multiple modes,” which include “secured configuration,”
`“upgrade,” “emergency,” “debug,” “fail-safe reduced operation” and
`“diagnostic” modes, and does not state these modes are “alternative or
`“distinct.” Reply 5–6 (citing Ex. 1001, 11:51-67; Ex. 1038 ¶ 34). Petitioner
`contends the term “diagnostic mode” is a well-understood phrase with an
`understood, ordinary meaning: “a mode that is designed to determine
`whether a computer system is functioning properly or to detect programming
`errors” and Patent Owner’s expert admitted that this was one, reasonable
`definition. Id. at 6–7 (citing Ex. 1039, 66:21–67:4; Ex. 1038 ¶¶ 32, 33).
`Petitioner observes that the specification does not define the terms as
`proposed by Patent Owner. Id.
`As discussed infra, we have considered the claim construction of the
`term “diagnostic mode” proposed by Patent Owner and Petitioner and we
`construe “diagnostic mode” as a mode, distinct from normal operation, that
`allows inspection of the system while it is running.
` “bulletin board”: Petitioner contends the ‘705 patent describes a
`bulletin board as “any data base that enables users to send and/or read
`electronic messages, file, and/or other data that are of general interest and/or
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01502
`Patent 8,209,705 B2
`
`
`addressed to no particular person/process.” Pet. 42, 77–78 (citing Ex. 1001,
`5:10–14). We adopt this construction as it is reasonable and Patent Owner
`does not specifically contest this construction.
`
`B. Legal Principles
`A claim is unpatentable for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are “such
`that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`(3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of non-
`obviousness, i.e., secondary considerations.9 Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`Additionally, the obviousness inquiry typically requires an analysis of
`“whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in
`the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (citing In
`re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (requiring “articulated
`reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
`obviousness”)); see In re Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc., 832 F.3d 1327, 1333
`
`
`9 The parties do not address secondary considerations, which, accordingly,
`do not form part of our analysis.
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01502
`Patent 8,209,705 B2
`
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG
`v. C. H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
`To prevail on its challenges, Petitioner must demonstrate by a
`preponderance of the evidence that the claims are unpatentable. 35 U.S.C.
`§ 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). “In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has
`the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it
`challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc. 815 F.3d
`1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter
`partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that
`supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden never
`shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC. v. Nat’l Graphics,
`Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Tech. Licensing Corp. v.
`Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326–27 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) (discussing the
`burden of proof in inter partes review). Furthermore, Petitioner does not
`satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory
`statements.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed.
`Cir. 2016).
`
`C. Level of Skill in the Art
`Petitioner’s declarant, Philip Koopman, Ph.D., asserts that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art “would have at least an undergraduate degree in
`Computer Engineering, Computer Science, or equivalent degree, and at least
`two years relevant experience in industry.” Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 47–48.
`Patent Owner’s Declarant, Jeffrey A. Miller, Ph.D, asserts that a
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have at least the qualifications of or
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01502
`Patent 8,209,705 B2
`
`
`equivalent to either a master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer
`science, or computer engineering with course work or research in embedded
`networking technologies or an undergraduate degree in electrical
`engineering, computer science, or computer engineering with at least two
`years of relevant work experience in industry. Ex. 2006 ¶ 20.
`The principal difference between the parties’ proposals is that, as an
`alternative to an undergraduate degree and two years of relevant work
`experience, Patent Owner’s proposal allows for a master’s degree with
`course work or research in embedded networking technologies. Based on
`our review of the ’705 patent and the prior art of record, we find that a
`master’s degree with relevant course work or research is equivalent to a
`bachelor’s degree with two years of relevant work experience. We therefore
`adopt Patent Owner’s expression of the level of skill in the art, which
`encompasses both alternative sets of qualifications.
`
`
`D. Obviousness over Posadas, Stewart, and Wense
`Claims 8–19
`Petitioner contends that claims 8–19 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) as obvious over Posadas, Stewart, and Wense. Pet. 12–51. Relying
`on the testimony of Dr. Koopman, Petitioner explains how the combination
`of Posadas, Stewart, and Wense allegedly teaches all the claim limitations
`and contends a person having ordinary skill in the art would have combined
`the teachings of the references. Id. (citing Ex. 1004).
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01502
`Patent 8,209,705 B2
`
`
`
`1. Posadas
`Posadas describes a real-time communications system implemented in
`an autonomous industrial robot referred to as YAIR (Yet Another Intelligent
`Robot). Ex. 1006, 8. YAIR includes a number of sensors that are
`interconnected using two different, real-time networks. Id. at 8–11; Fig. 1.
`The first network, referred to as the “reactive level,” is described as “Hard
`Real-Time,” and uses distributed CAN objects on a CAN bus. Id. The
`second network, referred to as the “deliberative level,” is described as “Soft
`Real-Time,” and uses the IP protocol on an Ethernet Bus. Id. The two
`networks share information using a “blackboard” shared memory. Id. at 10–
`11.
`
`2. Stewart
`Stewart discloses a framework for integrating real-time software
`control modules that comprise a reconfigurable multi-sensor based system.
`Ex. 1007, 6. Stewart discloses the use of a real time embedded system in a
`distributed environment that uses a shared, global memory. Id. at 10, 12.
`
`3. Wense
`Wense describes the use of different networks in automobiles,
`including CAN, LIN, FlexRay, and J1850, and describes the use of CAN
`and LIN in a single automotive network. Ex. 1008, Abstract, 10–13, Fig. 3.
`
`4. Analysis
`Petitioner asserts that the combination of Posadas, Stewart, and
`Wense teaches all of the limitations of independent claim 7.
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01502
`Patent 8,209,705 B2
`
`
`
`Claims 8–19 depend from independent claim 7, which is a challenged
`claim in the ’458 IPR, and not directly challenged in the current Petition.
`The references for each ground in the current Petition are the same as set
`forth in the petition filed in the ’458 IPR. The same Declarant (Prof.
`Koopman) is utilized to support Petitioner’s contentions. Exhibit 1004.
`In a Final Decision in the ’458 IPR (’458 FD), we determined claim 7
`is unpatentable over the cited references. Nevertheless, because claim 7
`must be analyzed to determine the patentability of the dependent claims, we
`begin by considering the parties’ arguments regarding claim 7.
` Generally, Petitioner contends Stewart teaches the memory-related
`limitations10 of claim 7 and relies on a combination of Posadas and Wense
`for the remaining limitations. Pet. 12–41. Specifically, Petitioner contends
`Posadas discloses two different networks wherein the first network is a CAN
`network and the second network is Ethernet. Petitioner contends the use of
`LIN or FlexRay as the second network would have been obvious to one of
`ordinary skill in the art, as demonstrated by the combination of Posadas with
`Wense. Id.
`
`
`10 By memory-related limitations, we refer generally to the limitations of
`claim 1 relating to memory (i.e., a storage resource): causing a determination
`as to whether a storage resource is available; in the event the storage
`resource is not available, determining whether a timeout has been reached
`and causing a re-request in connection with the storage resource if the
`timeout has not been reached; in the event the timeout has been reached,
`causing an error notification to be sent; and in the event the storage resource
`is available, causing storage of the information utilizing the storage resource.
`Ex. 1001, 12:21–30. Petitioner refers to these limitations as 7c–7f. Pet.
`App’x A.
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01502
`Patent 8,209,705 B2
`
`
`
`Independent claim 7 is directed to (a) “computer-readable medium
`storing a computer program product for sharing information.” Petitioner
`contends that Posadas expressly discloses the “non-transitory computer-
`readable medium,” its method is carried out by computer code, and Posadas
`describes a communications architecture used in the YAIR robot, and thus
`expressly discloses a computer program product “for sharing information.”
`Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1006, 8, Abstract; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 120–121). We agree with
`the contention, which Patent Owner does not address in its Response.
`Regarding 7(b), “computer code for allowing receipt of information
`associated with a message, utilizing a first network protocol associated with
`a first network,” Petitioner contends Posadas discloses a CAN system (the
`“first network protocol”) that is distributed over a CAN bus (the “first
`network”). Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1006, 9–10, Figs. 3, 4). We agree with the
`contention, which Patent Owner does not address in its Response.
`Regarding 7(c), Petitioner contends Posadas describes the use of a
`shared memory (“storage resource”), and “causing a determination as to
`whether a storage resource is available” prior to writing is a well-known step
`in storing information, and is disclosed by Stewart. Pet. 14–15 (citing Ex.
`1006, 10; Ex. 1007, 6, 7, 9); see Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 126–127. Specifically,
`Petitioner contends Stewart discloses the use of a real-time embedded
`system that is used in a distributed environment, that uses a shared, global
`memory and describes a “spin-lock” that uses a “test-and-set (TAS)”
`operation to determine memory availability. Id. at 15 (citing Ex. 1007, 6–7,
`9, 11). Petitioner further contends this TAS algorithm first determines
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01502
`Patent 8,209,705 B2
`
`
`whether memory is available before writing to it, then writes a “1” to a lock
`table to lock the memory for concurrent writes from other processes. Id.
`Patent Owner contends that, although determining memory
`availability may have been known in the prior art, Posadas does not
`expressly disclose the step and Petitioner has not presented any evidence that
`the step was necessarily inherent with every computer storage mechanism of
`the time of the invention. PO Resp. 27 (citing Ex. 2006 ¶ 55). Patent Owner
`contends Posadas discloses a particular distributed blackboard storage
`system that includes an undisclosed storage medium utilizing an unknown
`process and does not use a “shared memory” as each computer has a partial
`copy of the blackboard. Id. at 27–28 (citing Ex. 1006, 10). According to
`Patent Owner, in Posadas’s stora
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
