`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: December 6, 2018
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`DAIMLER NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION, MERCEDES-BENZ
`USA, LLC, and MERCEDES-BENZ U.S. INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`STRAGENT, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01503
`Patent 8,566,843 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, PATRICK M. BOUCHER, and
`CARL L. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01503
`Patent 8,566,843 B2
`
`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 2–46 and 52–59 of U.S. Patent No. 8,566,843 B2
`(Ex. 1001, “the ’843 patent”). Paper 8 (“Dec.”). During the trial, Stragent,
`LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Response (Paper 11, “PO Resp.”) to which
`Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 19, “Pet. Reply”). An oral hearing was held
`on September 11, 2018, and a copy of the transcript was entered into the
`record. Paper 24 (“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
`shows by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 2–37, 39–46, and 52–
`59 are unpatentable, but does not show by a preponderance of the evidence
`that claim 38 is unpatentable.
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`A. The ’843 Patent
`The ’843 patent describes systems and methods “for sharing
`information in a distributed system.” Ex. 1001, 1:29–30. Such systems and
`methods are illustrated for system architectures such as “may be situated in
`automotive electronics or industrial control and monitoring systems.” Id. at
`3:11–13. An example is provided in Figure 1 of the ’843 patent, which is
`reproduced below.
`
`
`1 The hearing was a consolidated hearing for IPR2017-01502,
`IPR2017-01503, and IPR2017-01504.
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01503
`Patent 8,566,843 B2
`
`
`
`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,
`and chassis.” Id. at 3:19–21. With a hierarchical organization that includes
`gateways 101, 103, 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
`’843 patent noting several examples that include Controller Area Network
`(“CAN”), Local Interconnect Network (“LIN”), and Flexray. Id. at 3:26–33.
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01503
`Patent 8,566,843 B2
`
`At the highest level in the hierarchy, “the system level,” system
`gateway 101 is connected via various buses 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.
`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 ’843 patent, “heterogeneous networks may refer
`to any different communication networks with at least one aspect that is
`different.” Id. at 7:27–29. Figure 7 of the ’843 patent, reproduced below,
`illustrates a logical architecture between three heterogeneous network
`controllers using such a bulletin board. Id. at 6:33–35.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01503
`Patent 8,566,843 B2
`
`
`Figure 7 illustrates a system architecture in which a bulletin board acts as a
`shared memory interacting with multiple communication buses, with data
`received from one communication bus stored on the bulletin board and
`shared as a new message with other network types. Id. at 7:4–37.
`The illustrated architecture includes four principal components:
`(1) network controllers 702, 703, and 704 (first column) for each of multiple
`heterogeneous networks; (2) associated operating system interfaces 705 for
`each of the heterogeneous networks (second column); (3) remote message
`communication processes 706 for stripping out network-specific information
`(third column); and (4) the bulletin board, which may contain events 607,
`real-time variables 608, configuration parameters, and firmware. Id. at 5:3–
`67, 6:33–37. In operation, external event 701, such as a flag indicating that
`data from a sensor are available, is transmitted on a network to a
`communication bus controller, such as network controller 703 in Figure 7.
`Id. at 7:4–9. This causes an operating system interface (such as
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01503
`Patent 8,566,843 B2
`
`communication interface 709) to notify a remote message communication
`process (such as remote message conversion method 710) that data are
`available, with notification provided in turn to application process 606.
`Id. at 7:4–17.
`
`B. Prosecution History
`The application that matured into the ’843 patent is a continuation of
`the application that matured into U.S. Patent No. 8,209,705 B2 (“the
`’705 patent”), filed July 30, 2008. Ex. 1001, at [63]. The ’705 patent is a
`continuation of U.S. Patent No. 7,802,263 B2 (“the ’263 patent”), filed
`December 15, 2003. Id.
`At the time of filing the application that matured into the ’263 patent,
`independent claim 1 recited the following:
`1. A method for sharing information in a distributed system,
`comprising:
`receiving information;
`storing the information on a bulletin board; and
`sharing, in real-time, the information among a plurality
`of heterogeneous processes.
`
`Ex. 1002, 649. Although certain amendments were made to the claim during
`prosecution, allowance was secured only after an interview with the
`Examiner in which the applicants authorized the addition of several
`limitations: (1) “requesting a bulletin board resource of one or more bulletin
`boards”; (2) “determining whether the bulletin board resource is available”;
`(3) “in the event the bulletin board resource is not available, re-requesting
`the bulletin board resource until a threshold has been reached”; and
`(4) storing the information on the bulletin board resource “in the event the
`bulletin board resource is available.” Id. at 250–52.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01503
`Patent 8,566,843 B2
`
`Independent claim 1 was filed in the same original form at the time of
`filing the application that matured into the ’705 patent. Ex. 1003, 255.
`During prosecution, the applicants amended the claims to add limitations
`similar to those that secured allowance of the claims of the ’263 patent:
`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; [and]
`in the event the timeout has been reached, causing an error
`notification to be sent.
`
`Id. at 84–85 (underscoring in original to identify material added by
`amendment). These added limitations were among those identified by the
`Examiner in allowing the application as not “disclose[d] or suggest[ed]”
`“when taken in the context of [the] claims as a whole.” Id. at 98–99.
`Independent claim 1 was again filed in the same original form at the
`time of filing the application that matured into the ’843 patent. Ex. 1004,
`220. The originally filed claims were subsequently canceled during
`prosecution and applicants submitted new claims that included limitations
`similar to those that secured allowance in the prior applications. Id. at 116–
`31. The amended claims were subsequently allowed without express
`Reasons for Allowance by the Examiner. Id. at 63–94. Newly added
`claim 33 issued as independent claim 1, and newly added claim 83 issued as
`independent claim 51. Compare Ex. 1001, 12:16–62, with Ex. 1004, 118–
`119, and Ex. 1001, 18:29–19:5, with Ex. 1004, 129–30.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Challenged claims 2–46 depend from independent claim 1, and
`challenged claims 52–59 depend from independent claim 51. Claim 51,
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01503
`Patent 8,566,843 B2
`
`which is illustrative of the subject matter of the challenged claims, is
`reproduced below, with lettering and formatting added to identify claim
`limitations in accordance with the scheme used by Petitioner. See Pet. 4–5,
`10–37.
`51. [a] An apparatus, comprising:
`[b] a control unit configured for:
`
`[c] identifying information associated with a message
`received utilizing a first network protocol associated with a first
`network;
`[d] issuing a storage resource request in connection
`
`with a storage resource and determining whether the storage
`resource is available;
`
`[e] determining whether a threshold has been reached
`in association with the storage resource request;
`
`[f] in the event the storage resource is not available and
`the threshold associated with the storage resource request has not
`been reached, issuing another storage resource request in
`connection with the storage resource;
`
`[g] in the event the storage resource is not available and
`the threshold associated with the storage resource request has
`been reached, sending a notification; and
`
`[h] in the event the storage resource is available, storing
`the information utilizing the storage resource;
`
`[i] wherein the apparatus is operable such that the
`information is capable of being shared in real-time utilizing a
`second network protocol associated with a second network, and
`the control unit includes:
`
`
`[j] a first interface for interfacing with the first
`network,
`[k] the first interface including a first interface-
`
`
`
`related first component for receiving first data units and a first
`interface-related second component, the control unit being
`operable such that the first data units are processed after which
`processed first data units are provided,
`
`
`
`[l] where the first network is at least one of a
`Controller Area Network type, a Flexray type, or a Local
`Interconnect Network type; and
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01503
`Patent 8,566,843 B2
`
`[m] a second interface for interfacing with the
`
`
`second network,
`
`
`
`[n] the second interface including a second
`interface-related first component for receiving second data units
`and a second interface-related second component, the control
`unit being operable such that the second data units are processed
`after which processed second data units are provided,
`
`
`
`[o] where the second network is at least one of
`the Controller Area Network type, the Flexray network type, or
`the Local Interconnect Network type.
`
`Ex. 1001, 18:29–19:5.
`
`D. Evidence
`Petitioner relies upon the following references (Pet. 8–10):
`J.L. Posadas et al., Communications Structure for Sensor
`Fusion in Distributed Real Time Systems, ALGORITHMS AND
`ARCHITECTURES FOR REAL-TIME CONTROL 2000, PROC. FROM
`THE 6TH IFAC WORKSHOP, May 15–17, 2000, at 151 (Ex. 1007,
`“Posadas”);
`David B. Stewart et al., Integration of Real-Time
`Software Modules for Reconfigurable Sensor-Based Control
`Systems, 1 PROC. OF THE 1992 IEEE/RSJ INT’L CONF. ON
`INTELLIGENT ROBOTS AND SYSTEMS 325 (1992) (Ex. 1008,
`“Stewart”);
`H.-C. von der Wense & A.J. Pohlmeyer, Building
`Automotive LIN Applications, Advanced Microsystems for
`Automotive Applications 2001, at 279 (Ex. 1009, “Wense”);
`Zhao, U.S. Patent Publ’n No. US 2002/0124007 A1,
`published Sept. 5, 2002 (Ex. 1039, “Zhao”); and
`Upender, U.S. Patent No. 5,854,454, issued Dec. 29,
`1998 (Ex. 1038, “Upender”).
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01503
`Patent 8,566,843 B2
`
`In addition, Petitioner provides Declarations by Philip Koopman,
`PhD. Exs. 1005, 1042. No cross-examination testimony of Dr. Koopman
`was filed in the proceeding.
`Patent Owner provides a Declaration by Jeffrey A. Miller, PhD.
`Ex. 2001. Dr. Miller was cross-examined, and a transcript of his deposition
`was entered into the record. Ex. 1043. In addition, a transcript of
`Dr. Miller’s deposition in Case IPR2017-00457 was entered into the record
`in this proceeding. Ex. 1044.
`
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner contends that claims 2–46 and 52–59 of the ’843 patent are
`unpatentable based on the following specific grounds (Pet. 8):
`
`References
`Posadas, Stewart, and
`Wense
`Posadas, Stewart,
`Wense, and Zhao
`Posadas, Stewart,
`Wense, and Upender
`
`
`Basis
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`2–29, 31–46, and 52–58
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`30 and 59
`
`52 and 53
`
`F. Real Parties-in-Interest
`Petitioner identifies Daimler AG, Daimler North America
`Corporation, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, and Mercedes-Benz U.S.
`International, Inc. as real parties-in-interest in this proceeding. Pet. 83.
`Patent Owner identifies only itself as a real party-in-interest. Paper 5, 1.
`
`G. Related Proceedings
`The parties identify the following district court proceedings as
`involving the ’843 patent: (1) Stragent, LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC,
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01503
`Patent 8,566,843 B2
`
`No. 6:16-cv-00447 (E.D. Tex.); (2) Stragent, LLC v. BMW of North
`America, LLC, No. 6:16-cv-00446 (E.D. Tex.); and (3) Stragent, LLC v.
`Volvo Cars of North America, LLC, No. 6:16-cv-00448 (E.D. Tex.). Pet. 85;
`Paper 4, 1–2.
`The following inter partes review proceedings also involve the
`’843 patent: IPR2017-00457, IPR2017-00677, IPR2017-01504,
`IPR2017-01519, and IPR2017-01520. The following inter partes review
`proceedings involve the related ’705 patent: IPR2017-00458, IPR2017-
`00676, IPR2017-01502, IPR2017-01521, and IPR2017-01522.
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`A. Claim Construction
`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).2 Consistent with the broadest reasonable
`construction, claim terms are presumed to have their ordinary and customary
`meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in the context
`
`
`2 The Office recently promulgated changes to the claim-construction
`standard applied in inter partes review proceedings. Changes to the Claim
`Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before
`the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340 (Oct. 11, 2018).
`Because the Petition was filed before November 13, 2018, the effective date
`of the rule change, those changes do not apply to this proceeding. Id. at
`51,345 (“The Office will continue to apply the BRI standard for construing
`unexpired patent claims . . . in AIA proceedings where a petition was filed
`before the effective date of the rule.”).
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01503
`Patent 8,566,843 B2
`
`of the entire patent disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249,
`1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). An inventor may provide a meaning for a term that is
`different from its ordinary meaning by defining the term in the specification
`with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
`1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`In this section we address the claim terms for which the parties
`expressly propose constructions. To the extent necessary, we consider the
`meaning of other claim language in the context of our unpatentability
`analysis.
`
`1. “real-time”
`Independent claim 51 recites “the information is capable of being
`shared in real-time,” and independent claim 1 similarly recites “in real-time,
`sharing the information.” Ex. 1001, 12:33, 18:49–50. Both Petitioner and
`Patent Owner argue that the written description of the ’843 patent expressly
`defines “real-time”: “In the context of the present description, real-time may
`include any response time that may be measured in milli- or microseconds,
`and/or is less than one second.” Pet. 5–6; PO Resp. 15; Ex. 1001, 3:35–38.
`We construe “real-time” as including responses that occur in less than
`one second. The first part of the quotation above (“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.
`
`2. Information Sharing
`Independent claim 51 recites “the information is capable of being
`shared in real-time utilizing a second network protocol associated with a
`second network.” Ex. 1001, 18:49–52. Independent claim 1 similarly
`recites “in real-time, sharing the information utilizing at least one message
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01503
`Patent 8,566,843 B2
`
`format corresponding to a second network protocol associated with a second
`network.” Id. at 12:33–35. Patent Owner contends that “the words ‘the
`information’ clearly refer to information previously identified in the claims.”
`PO Resp. 14. In claim 51, Patent Owner asserts that the previously
`identified “information” is “the ‘information associated with a message
`received utilizing a first network protocol associated with a first network’
`(limitation 51c) which was caused to be stored utilizing the storage resource
`(limitation 51h) – i.e., it is information whose storage was completed to the
`bulletin board or the storage area.” Id. Patent Owner thus contends that
`information sharing, as recited in the independent claims, requires
`completion of storage to the recited storage resource. Patent Owner also
`cites a general-dictionary definition of “share” as “to partake of, use,
`experience, occupy, or enjoy with others; to have in common.” Id. (quoting
`Ex. 2003).
`We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention. Claim 51 first
`recites “information” as part of “a control unit configured for: identifying
`information associated with a message received utilizing a first network
`protocol associated with a first network.” Ex. 1001, 30–33. The claimed
`control unit also must be configured to perform potentially different actions
`depending on the satisfaction of different conditions. For example, it must
`be configured for “determining whether [a] storage resource is available”
`and “in the event the storage resource is available, storing the information
`utilizing the storage resource.” Id. at 18:35–36, 18:47–48. But the control
`unit also must be configured for “determining whether a threshold has been
`reached” and “in the event the storage resource is not available and the
`threshold has been reached, sending a notification.” Id. at 18:37, 18:44–46.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01503
`Patent 8,566,843 B2
`
`Thus, the plain language of the claim 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 apparatus to be “operable such that the information is capable of
`being shared in real-time utilizing a second network protocol associated with
`a second network.” Id. at 18:49–52. Nothing in this limitation requires “the
`information” to have been stored using the storage resource. Moreover, the
`’843 patent describes an embodiment in which information is shared without
`using a shared storage resource. Id. at 8:51–59, 7:38–49.
`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.
`Ex. 2004.3 We find the technical dictionary provided by Patent Owner to be
`more probative than the general-purpose dictionary relied on by Patent
`Owner.
`
`
`3 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).
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01503
`Patent 8,566,843 B2
`
`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 ’843 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 ’843 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.
`
`3. “the second network”
`Limitations 51m, 51n, and 51o recite:
`
`
`[m] a second interface for interfacing with the
`second network,
`
`
`
`[n] the second interface including a second
`interface-related first component for receiving second data units
`and a second interface-related second component, the control
`unit being operable such that the second data units are processed
`after which processed second data units are provided,
`
`
`
`[o] where the second network is at least one of
`the Controller Area Network type, the Flexray network type, or
`the Local Interconnect Network type.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01503
`Patent 8,566,843 B2
`
`Ex. 1001, 18:63–19:5 (formatting modified). Claim 1 recites similar
`limitations. Patent Owner contends that “the second network” in these
`limitations “refers to the second network described in the antecedent
`limitations, which is the network referenced in limitation 51i as the second
`network utilizing a second different protocol which is the recipient of the
`‘shared’ information connected to the storage resource.” PO Resp. 16.
`Although we agree with Patent Owner that “the second network”
`refers back to “a second network” in limitation 51i, we disagree with other
`aspects of Patent Owner’s proposed construction. First, unlike some of the
`dependent claims (e.g., claim 56), claim 51 does not require the second
`network protocol to be different from the first network protocol. Compare
`Ex. 1001, 18:49–19:5 (limitations 51i–51o), with id. at 19:19–21 (claim 56
`reciting “wherein the apparatus is operable such that the second network
`protocol is different than the first network protocol”). Second, nothing in
`the claim language requires the second network to be the “recipient” of
`information or to be connected to a storage resource. We agree with
`Petitioner that the additional limitations proposed by Patent Owner should
`not be read into the claim and that “the second network” requires no further
`construction. See Pet. Reply 5.
`
`B. Legal Principles
`A claim is unpatentable for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01503
`Patent 8,566,843 B2
`
`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) when in evidence, objective
`indicia of non-obviousness (i.e., secondary considerations).4 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. 2016) (requiring “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning
`to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”)).
`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,” but “must instead articulate specific reasoning, based on
`
`4 The parties do not address secondary considerations, which therefore do
`not constitute part of our analysis.
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01503
`Patent 8,566,843 B2
`
`evidence of record, to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. In re
`Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Petitioner contends 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.” Pet. 5. Dr. Koopman’s testimony supports Petitioner’s proposal.
`Ex. 1005 ¶ 46. Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the
`art
`
`would have had at least the qualifications of or 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.
`PO Resp. 16. Dr. Miller’s testimony supports Patent Owner’s proposal.
`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 ’843 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.
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01503
`Patent 8,566,843 B2
`
`D. Overview of Asserted References
`
`1. Posadas
`Posadas describes a real-time communications system implemented in
`an autonomous industrial robot referred to as YAIR (Yet Another Intelligent
`Robot). Ex. 1007, 8.5 According to Petitioner, YAIR includes a number of
`sensors that are interconnected using two different, real-time networks.
`Pet. 8; see Ex. 1007, 8, Fig. 1. Figure 1 of Posadas (highlighting added by
`Petitioner) is reproduced below:
`
`Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1007, Fig. 1). Figure 1 of Posadas illustrates a
`communication system structure that includes a “reactive system,” described
`as “Hard Real Time,” which uses distributed CAN objects on a CAN bus, in
`
`
`
`
`5 For the Posadas, Stewart, and Wense references, we cite to the exhibit page
`numbers added by Petitioner rather than to the native page numbers of the
`underlying references.
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01503
`Patent 8,566,843 B2
`
`communication with a “deliberative system,” described as “Soft Real Time.”
`Ex. 1007, 8, Fig. 1. Posadas also discloses a “distributed blackboard
`structure” for data storage, referred to as “SC,” that enables the main robot
`controller to “communicate through different channels: CAN, [E]thernet,
`DDE, RS232, and so on.” Id. at 8. Figure 4 of Posadas is reproduced
`below:
`
`
`Id. at 10–11, Fig. 4. Figure 4 illustrates Posadas’s distributed blackboard
`structure (SC), which can be accessed by the hard real time network, using a
`CAN bus and distributed CAN object system, and processes in the soft real
`time (i.e., deliberative) network via, for example, an Ethernet. Id.
`
`2. Stewart
`Stewart discloses a framework for integrating real-time software
`control modules that comprise a reconfigurable multi-sensor based system.
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01503
`Patent 8,566,843 B2
`
`Ex. 1008, 6. The framework is based on a global database of state
`information through which real-time software modules exchange
`information. Id. Stewart describes a “spin-lock” synchronization method in
`the context of its global state variable table mechanism that uses a
`“test-and-set (TAS)” operation to determine memory availability. Id. at 11.
`
`3. Wense
`Wense describes the use of different networks in automobiles,
`including CAN, LIN, and Flexray. Ex. 1009, 11. In particular, Wense
`describes the use of CAN and LIN in a single automotive network. Id. at 13,
`Fig. 3.
`
`4. Upender
`Upender discloses a control system that “utilizes standard Control
`Area Network (CAN) hardware and message protocols.” Ex. 1038, at [57].
`Specifically, Upender discloses a “CAN protocol which will support
`hierarchical communications between many nodes [and] between nodes
`capable of transmitting same message types.” Id. at 2:17–20. Upender uses
`“standard CAN hardware” that employs a “standard CAN message.” Id. at
`2:34–37, 2:45–50, Fig. 1.
`
`5. Zhao
`Zhao describes a network server for establishing communication
`between devices and a network. Ex. 1039 ¶ 1. Although Zhao’s exemplary
`system has two network servers communicating with two networks, Zhao
`explains that the system is not so limited