Paper 25
`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 IPR2017-01504
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 IPR2017-01504
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01504
`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 7 (“Dec.”). During the trial, Stragent,
`LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Response (Paper 10, “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, 40–46, and 52–
`59 are unpatentable, but does not show by a preponderance of the evidence
`that claims 38 and 39 are 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
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01504
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01504
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01504
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01504
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01504
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01504
`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. 5,
`13–39.
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01504
`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. 8–12):
`Miesterfeld, U.S. Patent No. 6,141,710, issued Oct. 31,
`2000 (Ex. 1010, “Miesterfeld”);
`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”).
`In addition, Petitioner provides Declarations by Philip Koopman,
`PhD. Exs. 1005, 1042. No cross-examination testimony of Dr. Koopman
`was filed in the proceeding.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01504
`Patent 8,566,843 B2
`
`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
`Miesterfeld, Stewart, and
`Wense
`Miesterfeld, Stewart,
`Wense, and Zhao
`Miesterfeld, 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. 84.
`Patent Owner identifies only itself as a real party-in-interest. Paper 4, 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,
`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.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01504
`Patent 8,566,843 B2
`
`Volvo Cars of North America, LLC, No. 6:16-cv-00448 (E.D. Tex.). Pet. 85;
`Paper 3, 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 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
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01504
`Patent 8,566,843 B2
`
`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. 6; PO Resp. 13; 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
`format corresponding to a second network protocol associated with a second
`network.” Id. at 12:33–35. Patent Owner contends that “the words ‘the
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01504
`Patent 8,566,843 B2
`
`information’ clearly refer to information previously identified in the claims.”
`PO Resp. 12. 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.
`Thus, the plain language of the claim does not require that “the information”
`be stored using the “storage resource” under all conditions.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01504
`Patent 8,566,843 B2
`
`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.
`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
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01504
`Patent 8,566,843 B2
`
`“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.
`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
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01504
`Patent 8,566,843 B2
`
`network utilizing a second different protocol which is the recipient of the
`‘shared’ information connected to the storage resource.” PO Resp. 14.
`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
`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
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01504
`Patent 8,566,843 B2
`
`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
`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).
`
`
`4 The parties do not address secondary considerations, which therefore do
`not constitute part of our analysis.
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01504
`Patent 8,566,843 B2
`
`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 ¶ 48. 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. 14. 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
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01504
`Patent 8,566,843 B2
`
`D. Overview of Asserted References
`
`1. Miesterfeld
`Miesterfeld discloses a system for interfacing a vehicle data bus
`(“VDB”) to an intelligent transportation system (“ITS”) data bus. Ex. 1010,
`1:5–6. More particularly, Miesterfeld discloses a gateway including a
`shared memory that both the VDB and ITS data bus may access so that the
`data buses may exchange data. Id. at 1:7–10, Fig. 1. Miesterfeld’s system is
`shown, for example, in Figure 1, reproduced below:
`
`
`
`Figure 1 illustrates one embodiment of Miesterfeld’s gateway system.
`Vehicle 12 includes VDB 14, which provides a mechanism for data
`exchange among a plurality of connected devices (e.g., devices 16 and 18 in
`Figure 1), and ITS data bus 24, which provides a mechanism for data
`exchange among a plurality of connected devices (e.g., ancillary devices 20
`and 22 in Figure 1). Id. at 3:1–17. VDB 14 and ITS data bus 24 can
`exchange data via VDB Interface 26 and ITS Data Bus Interface 28, each of
`which can read from or write to memory 30. Id. at 3:18–47. ITS data
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01504
`Patent 8,566,843 B2
`
`bus 24 may be one of several different types of ITS data buses, such as
`“D2B, USB, IDB, Firewall [sic: FireWire], and the like.” Id. at 9:55–58.
`VDB 14 preferably implements the J1850 protocol. Id. at 4:6–10.
`
`2. Stewart
`Stewart discloses a framework for integrating real-time software
`control modules that comprise a reconfigurable multi-sensor based system.
`Ex. 1008, 6.5 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
`
`
`5 For the 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.
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01504
`Patent 8,566,843 B2
`
`“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 and may include “any number of”
`network servers and networks. Id. ¶ 26. Networks in Zhao can use a variety
`of protocols, including RS-232, RS-485, MODEM, IEEE 1394, USB,
`CANBus, CEBus, and Bluetooth. Id. ¶ 28. A shared database envi
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
