`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`In re Inter Partes Review of:
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,342
`Issued: April 10, 2012
`Application No.: 11/475,847
`Filing Date: June 27, 2006
`
`For: Multimedia Device Integration System
`
`FILED VIA E2E
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,155,342
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. Mandatory Notices under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ..................................................... 2
`A.
`Real Parties-in-Interest .......................................................................... 2
`B.
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 2
`C.
`Grounds for Standing ............................................................................ 4
`D.
`Lead and Backup Counsel and Service Information ............................. 4
`E.
`Fee for Inter Partes Review .................................................................. 5
`Identification of Challenges (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)) ..................................... 5
`III.
`IV. Background ...................................................................................................... 5
`A.
`The ’342 Patent (Ex. 1001) ................................................................... 5
`B.
`The Prosecution History (Ex. 1002) ...................................................... 8
`C.
`The Challenged Claims Are Entitled To An Effective Filing
`Date No Earlier Than March 3, 2005 .................................................... 9
`The Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art ............................................ 12
`Claim Construction ............................................................................. 12
`1.
`“integration subsystem” ............................................................ 13
`2.
`“car audio/video system” .......................................................... 13
`3.
`“device presence signal” ........................................................... 14
`The Asserted Prior Art ................................................................................... 14
`A.
`Simonds (Ex. 1005) ............................................................................. 14
`B.
`Ekstrom (Ex. 1006) ............................................................................. 17
`C. MOST Specification (Ex. 1007) ......................................................... 20
`
`D.
`E.
`
`V.
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`7.
`
`E.
`
`
`VI. Ground 1: Claims 49-57, 62-64, 66, 68, 70, 71, 73-80, 83, 86-88, 94,
`95, 97, 99-103, 106, 109-111, 113, 115, 120 Are Unpatentable Under
`35 U.S.C. § 103 Over Simonds (Ex. 1005), Ekstrom (Ex. 1006) And
`The MOST Specification (Ex. 1007) ............................................................. 22
`A. Overview of the Challenged Claims ................................................... 22
`B.
`Overview of the Combination ............................................................. 23
`C. Motivation to Combine ....................................................................... 25
`D.
`Independent claims 49 and 73 ............................................................. 27
`1.
`49/73[a]: Preambles .................................................................. 28
`2.
`49/73[b]: Integration subsystem ............................................... 28
`3.
`49/73[c]: Wireless interface in communication with a
`portable device .......................................................................... 35
`49/73[d(i)]: Obtaining information about an audio file
`[stored on/received by] the portable device .............................. 38
`49/73[d(ii)]: Transmit information for display by
`audio/video system .................................................................... 41
`49/73[d(iii)]: Instruct portable device to play audio file .......... 42
`49/73[d(iv)]: Receive audio generated by portable device
`via wireless link ........................................................................ 44
`Independent claim 97 .......................................................................... 46
`1.
`97[a]: Preamble ......................................................................... 46
`2.
`97[b]: First and second wireless interfaces establish link
`between audio/video system and a portable device .................. 46
`97[c]: Integration subsystem ..................................................... 46
`97[d]: Channel audio generated by portable device to the
`audio/video system via the wireless link .................................. 47
`97[e(i)]: Integration subsystem receives user’s command ....... 47
`
`3.
`4.
`
`5.
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`6.
`
`3.
`4.
`5.
`
`6.
`7.
`
`8.
`
`2.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`97[e(ii)]: Process command into format for portable
`device ........................................................................................ 49
`97[e(iii)]: Send command to portable device ........................... 49
`7.
`Independent Claim 120 ....................................................................... 50
`1.
`120[a]: Preamble ....................................................................... 51
`2.
`120[b]: First and second wireless interfaces establish link
`between audio/video system and portable device ..................... 51
`120[c]: Integration subsystem ................................................... 51
`120[d]: Instruct portable device to play audio file .................... 51
`120[e]: Channel audio generated by portable device to
`the audio/video system via the wireless link ............................ 52
`120[f(i)]: Receive data from portable device ............................ 52
`120[f(ii)]: Process data into format for audio/video
`system ........................................................................................ 53
`120[f(iii)]: Transmit data to audio/video system for
`display ....................................................................................... 54
`Integration Subsystem Dependent Claims .......................................... 54
`1.
`Claims 53, 77: Receive, process, and send user’s
`command to portable device ..................................................... 54
`Claims 54, 70, 78: Receive data from portable device,
`process and send to audio/video system for display ................. 54
`Claims 66 and 94: Obtain information and play video file ...... 55
`3.
`Claim 113: Channel video generated by portable device ......... 55
`4.
`H. Device Presence Signal Dependent Claims (56, 83, 106) ................... 55
`I.
`After-Market Device Dependent Claims ............................................ 57
`1.
`Claims 62, 86, 109: Portable digital media player .................... 57
`
`iii
`
`

`

`J.
`
`L.
`
`2.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Claims 63, 87, 110: Portable digital media player
`comprises . . . an MP3 player .................................................... 57
`Claims 64, 88, 111: Cellular telephone ..................................... 58
`3.
`File Type Dependent Claims ............................................................... 58
`1.
`Claims 71, 95: Audio file is a song ........................................... 58
`2.
`Claims 68, 115: Video file includes a picture ........................... 58
`K. Voice Recognition Dependent Claims ................................................ 58
`1.
`Claims 55, 79, 102: Integration system includes a voice
`recognition subsystem ............................................................... 59
`Claims 57, 80, 103: Play desired file in response to
`spoken command....................................................................... 59
`Location Dependent Claims ................................................................ 60
`1.
`Claims 50, 74, 99: Integration subsystem within
`audio/video system .................................................................... 60
`Claims 100, 101: Audio file is [stored on / received by]
`the portable device .................................................................... 60
`Claims 51, 75: First wireless interface positioned within
`audio/video system .................................................................... 60
`Claims 52, 76: Second wireless interface positioned
`within portable device ............................................................... 61
`VII. Secondary Considerations ............................................................................. 61
`VIII. Institution Is Appropriate Under §§ 314(a) And 325(d) ............................... 61
`A.
`Background ......................................................................................... 62
`B.
`Legal Principles ................................................................................... 64
`C.
`The General Plastic Factors Permit Institution .................................. 65
`IX. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 68
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit List
`Ex.
`Description
`No.
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,155,342 (the “’342 patent”)
`
`1002 File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,342
`
`
`
`1003 Declaration of Dr. John M. Strawn in Support of Petition for Inter
`Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,342 (“Strawn Decl.”)
`1004 Curriculum Vitae of Dr. John M. Strawn
`
`1005 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0093155 (“Simonds”)
`
`1006 Peter Ekstrom & Fredrik Hoel, Audio over Bluetooth and MOST,
`Department of Science and Technology, Linkoping University (Mar. 7,
`2002) (“Ekstrom”)
`1007 Media Oriented System Transport (MOST) Specification – Version 2.2-
`00, MOST Cooperation (Nov. 2002) (“MOST Spec”)
`1008 Media Oriented System Transport (MOST) Specification Framework –
`Version 1.1-07, MOST Cooperation (1999) (“MOST Framework”)
`1009 Declaration of Dr. Ingrid Hsieh-Yee, Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 (“Hsieh-
`Yee Decl.”)
`1010 Affidavit of Christopher Butler regarding the MOST Specification from
`the Internet Archive
`1011 Affidavit of Christopher Butler regarding Ekstrom from the Internet
`Archive
`1012 Declaration of Alex Planidin regarding the translation of Swedish text in
`Ekstrom
`1013 Highlighted version of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,342 identifying material
`added to the original application in the chain
`1014 Charles J. Murray, Automakers Pick MOST as High-Speed In-Car Bus,
`EE TIMES (Nov. 13, 2000)
`1015 Akram M. Mufid, Future Automotive Multimedia Subsystem
`Interconnect Technologies, SAE Paper 2000-01-C028 (2000)
`1016 Rolf Juergen Bruess, Open Systems and Open Mindsets: Entertainment,
`Information and Communication Systems for the Automotive Future,
`SAE Paper 2000-01-C085 (2000)
`1017 Hasse Johansson & Anders Ellasson, Mobile Information Systems
`Overview: The End to End Solution, SAE Paper 2000-01-C028 (2000)
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`1018 OS8104 Preliminary Product Data Sheet (Sep. 2000)
`
`1019 Karen Parnell, Put the Right Bus in Your Car, XCELL JOURNAL
`(2004
`1020 Convergence 2000 International Congress on Transportation Electronics
`– Main Page, www.convergence2000.org:80 (Jun. 15, 2000) available
`at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20000615131506/http:/www.convergence2
`000.org:80/ (last visited Jan. 26, 2018)
`1021 Convergence 2000 International Congress on Transportation Electronics
`- Technical Sessions, www.convergence2000.org:80/techsessions.html
`(Aug. 18, 2000), available at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20000818231705/http://www.convergence2
`000.org:80/techsessions.html (last visited Jan. 26, 2018)
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,155,342
`
`Engineers routinely integrate multiple systems with incompatible formats or
`
`protocols. The well-known, conventional solution: build a subsystem that connects
`
`the multiple systems, translating the data and commands from one system into the
`
`format of the other, and vice versa. This conventional solution allows the
`
`otherwise incompatible systems to exchange information and access each other’s
`
`services.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,342 (Ex. 1001, the “’342 patent”) does nothing more
`
`than apply this conventional system integration technique to integrate a car
`
`audio/video system with portable devices such as PDAs and MP3 players.
`
`Specifically, the challenged claims are directed to an integration subsystem
`
`allowing a car audio/video system to wirelessly control and play audio from a
`
`portable device. This conventional integration task was within the skill of the
`
`ordinary artisan.
`
`In fact, the automotive industry had already developed multiple integrated
`
`solutions by the time of alleged invention of the ’342 patent in 2005. The MOST
`
`Cooperation, a consortium of automakers and suppliers founded in 1997,
`
`developed an open standard to integrate OEM and after-market devices in vehicles.
`
`And Bluetooth had already been around for more than a decade with automotive
`
`special working groups well-established.
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,155,342
`
`Multimedia systems, like the infotainment system of U.S. Patent Pub. No.
`
`2004/0093155 (Ex. 1005, “Simonds”), used MOST and Bluetooth technology to
`
`implement an “integrated electronics system” allowing portable devices to
`
`communicate wirelessly with a car audio/video system, just as claimed in the ’342
`
`patent, but years earlier. Simonds, [0002].
`
`This petition demonstrates that the challenged claims are unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 (pre-AIA). Accordingly, petitioners Jaguar Land Rover North
`
`America, LLC and Jaguar Land Rover Ltd. (collectively, “Jaguar Land Rover”)
`
`respectfully asks the Board to institute review of all challenged claims and find
`
`them unpatentable.
`
`II. Mandatory Notices under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`
`A. Real Parties-in-Interest
`
`Petitioners Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC and Jaguar Land Rover
`
`Ltd. are the real parties-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`The ’342 patent is asserted in the following pending district court cases by
`
`the Patent Owner, Blitzsafe Texas, LLC (“Blitzsafe”) that may be affected by a
`
`decision in this proceeding: Blitzsafe Texas, LLC v. Jaguar Land Rover Ltd., et al.,
`
`Case No. 2:2017-cv-00424 (E.D. Tex.); Blitzsafe Texas, LLC v. Robert Bosch LLC,
`
`et al., Case No. 2:2017-cv-00105 (E.D. Tex.); Blitzsafe Texas, LLC v. Bayerische
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`Motoren Werke AG, et al., Case No. 2:2017-cv-00418 (E.D. Tex.); Blitzsafe Texas,
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,155,342
`
`LLC v. Zhejiang Geely Holding Grp. Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 2:2017-cv-00420
`
`(E.D. Tex.); Blitzsafe Texas, LLC v. Subaru Corp., et al., Case No. 2:2017-cv-
`
`00421 (E.D. Tex.); Blitzsafe Texas, LLC v. Daimler AG, et al., Case No. 2:2017-
`
`cv-00422 (E.D. Tex.); Blitzsafe Texas, LLC v. Mazda Motor Corp., et al., Case No.
`
`2:2017-cv-00423 (E.D. Tex.); Blitzsafe Texas, LLC v. Mitsubishi Electric Corp., et
`
`al., Case No. 2:2017-cv-00430 (E.D. Tex.).
`
`The ’342 patent is also subject to a pending inter partes review petition
`
`IPR2018-00090. The Patent Owner’s preliminary response in that proceeding is
`
`due on January 30, 2018.
`
`The ’342 patent was further asserted in the following district court cases that
`
`are no longer pending: Blitzsafe Texas, LLC v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd., et al., Case
`
`No. 2:2015-cv-01274 (E.D. Tex.); Blitzsafe Texas, LLC v. Hyundai Motor Co., et
`
`al., Case No. 2:2015-cv-01275 (E.D. Tex.); Blitzsafe Texas, LLC v. Nissan Motor
`
`Co., Ltd., et al., Case No. 2:2015-cv-01276 (E.D. Tex.); Blitzsafe Texas, LLC v.
`
`Toyota Motor Corp., et al., Case No. 2:2015-cv-01277 (E.D. Tex.); Blitzsafe
`
`Texas, LLC v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc., et al., Case No. 2:2015-cv-01278
`
`(E.D. Tex.).
`
`The ’342 patent was also subject to the following inter partes review
`
`proceedings that are no longer pending: IPR2016-00118, IPR2016-00418,
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`IPR2016-00419, IPR2016-01473, IPR2016-01476, IPR2016-01533, IPR2016-
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,155,342
`
`01557, IPR2016-01560.
`
`C. Grounds for Standing
`Jaguar Land Rover certifies that the ’342 patent is available for inter partes
`
`review and that Jaguar Land Rover is not barred from requesting this proceeding.
`
`D. Lead and Backup Counsel and Service Information
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3), 42.8(b)(4), and 42.10(a), Jaguar Land
`
`Rover designates the following lead counsel:
`
`• Matthew J. Moore (Reg. No. 42,012), matthew.moore@lw.com,
`
`Latham & Watkins LLP; 555 Eleventh Street, NW, Ste. 1000;
`
`Washington, DC 20004-1304; 202-637-2278.
`
`Jaguar Land Rover also designates the following backup counsel:
`
`• Jonathan M. Strang (Reg. No. 61,724), jonathan.strang@lw.com,
`
`Latham & Watkins LLP; 555 Eleventh Street, NW, Ste. 1000;
`
`Washington, DC 20004-1304; 202-637-2362;
`
`• Clement Naples (Reg. No. 50,663), clement.naples@lw.com, Latham
`
`& Watkins LLP; 885 Third Avenue, New York, NY, 10022-4834,
`
`212-906-1331;
`
`• Lisa K. Nguyen (Reg. No. 58,018), lisa.nguyen@lw.com, Latham &
`
`Watkins LLP; 140 Scott Drive, Menlo Park, CA 94025-1008; 650-
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`470-4848.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,155,342
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), a Power of Attorney from Jaguar Land Rover is
`
`attached. Jaguar Land Rover consents to electronic service.
`
`E.
`
`Fee for Inter Partes Review
`
`The Director is authorized to charge the fee specified by 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.15(a) to Deposit Account No. 506269.
`
`III.
`
`Identification of Challenges (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B))
`
`Ground 1: Claims 49-57, 62-64, 66, 68, 70, 71, 73-80, 83, 86-88, 94, 95,
`
`97, 99-103, 106, 109-111, 113, 115, 120 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`over Simonds (Ex. 1005) in view of Ekstrom (Ex. 1006) and the MOST
`
`Specification (Ex. 1007).
`
`IV. Background
`A. The ’342 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ’342 patent is directed to integrating a car’s original audio/video system
`
`with portable devices such as MP3 players and cell phones. ’342 patent at
`
`Abstract, 1:54-56 (“integrating after-market audio and video systems with existing
`
`car stereo and video systems.”). “[S]ignals generated by both systems are in
`
`proprietary formats, and are not capable of being processed by” each other, and
`
`therefore a subsystem needs to be placed between the two to act as a translator. Id.
`
`at 1:54-58.
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,155,342
`
`The ’342 patent applies a conventional system integration technique—it
`
`provides a subsystem or module “to convert signals between such systems.” Id.;
`
`Strawn Decl., ¶¶ 27-29. This signal conversion “allows for information to be
`
`exchanged between the after-market device and car stereo or video system,”
`
`information to be “transmitted and displayed on both hardwired car stereo and
`
`video systems,” and for “full remote control of the portable device . . . at the
`
`controls of the car system.” Id. at 1:57-60, 2:21-43.
`
`In annotated Figure 19 below, the patent’s “integration subsystem” is shown
`
`in the red box. It converts signals sent between the car audio/video system (green
`
`box) and the portable device (yellow box), whether they are sent via a wireless
`
`communication link (blue box) or the wired communication link 1030:
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,155,342
`
`
`
`
`
`Like the prior art presented herein, the ’342 patent explains that MOST can
`
`be used for non-wireless interconnections. See, e.g., ’342 patent at 35:12-14 (“the
`
`non-wireless connection 930 could include a fiber-optic connection, such as a D2B
`
`or MOST fiber-optic connection.”); 36:46-51 (“a non-wireless connection 1330
`
`with the external interface port 1314 (which could include any suitable wired
`
`connection, such as FIREWIRE, CAN/CAN2, USB/USB2, IE Bus, T Bus, I Bus,
`
`etc., or any suitable optical connection, such as D2B or MOST).”).
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,155,342
`
`Again like the prior art presented herein, the ’342 patent contemplates using
`
`Bluetooth for its wireless connections. ’342 patent at 38:15-18 (using “any suitable
`
`wireless communications link, such as a Bluetooth wireless link, an IEEE 802.11
`
`link, or any other suitable link.”); see also 28:3-6 (“[I]n all embodiments of the
`
`present invention, communication between the after-market device and a car stereo
`
`or video system can be accomplished using known wireless technologies, such as
`
`Bluetooth.”).
`
`B.
`The Prosecution History (Ex. 1002)
`The application that issued as the ’342 patent was filed on June 27, 2006
`
`
`
`with 91 claims. Ex. 1002, 85-104. During prosecution of the ’342 patent, the
`
`Examiner repeatedly rejected the pending claims of the ’342 patent over prior art
`
`that disclosed an integration subsystem between a portable device and a car
`
`audio/video system. To overcome these rejections, the Applicant pointed to
`
`conventional system integration techniques that were not expressly disclosed in the
`
`prior art. For example, in a response to Office Action filed on August 15, 2011,
`
`the Applicant acknowledged that the prior art disclosed “bi-directional
`
`transmissions” by a subsystem for “control purposes.” The Applicant argued,
`
`however, that the prior art “does not say that the ‘control purposes’ may include
`
`allowing a user to instruct, through the car audio/video system, the portable device
`
`to play file.” Ex. 2002, 937. On February 16, 2012, the Examiner issued a Notice
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`of Allowance. The Examiner did not indicate a reason for allowance in the Notice.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,155,342
`
`See id., 1079-1083.
`
`C. The Challenged Claims Are Entitled To An Effective Filing Date
`No Earlier Than March 3, 2005
`The challenged claims of the ’342 patent are entitled to an effective priority
`
`date of no earlier than March 3, 2005.1
`
`As petitioner, Jaguar Land Rover bears the ultimate burden of demonstrating
`
`unpatentability. But where the patent-at-issue claims priority through
`
`continuations-in-part and the Examiner did not expressly address the priority issue,
`
`the burden of production shifts to the patent owner once the petitioner provides
`
`invalidating art. PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1305-06
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2008); Research Corp. Techs. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859, 871
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2010).
`
`Merely claiming to have priority alone is insufficient. “[A] patent’s claims
`
`are not entitled to an earlier priority date merely because the patentee claims
`
`priority.” In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “Rather, for a
`
`patent’s claims to be entitled to an earlier priority date, the patentee must
`
`
`1 Jaguar Land Rover does not concede that all (or any) of the challenged claims are
`
`entitled to the March 3, 2005, effective filing date. For the purpose of this petition,
`
`it is unnecessary to break the priority chain at any later date.
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`demonstrate that the claims meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 120.” Id.; see
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,155,342
`
`also Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1380 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2015) (no presumption that a continuation-in-part is entitled to earlier
`
`priority).
`
`Here, the ’342 patent claims priority through a chain of continuations-in-part
`
`as shown in the family tree below. The ’667 application (the third application in
`
`the chain) filed on March 3, 2005 is the first to provide any support for the wireless
`
`communication with portable devices recited in all of the challenged claims.
`
`Figure A: Family Tree
`
`
`
`Each challenged claim requires a “wireless communication link . . . with a
`
`portable device” (claims 49, 73) or “wireless communication link between a car
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`audio/video system and a portable device” (claims 97, 120). As illustrated in Ex.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,155,342
`
`1013, a copy of the ’342 patent highlighting the new matter added at each
`
`successive link in the priority chain, support for the wireless communication link
`
`with a portable device was not added until the ’667 application (the third
`
`application in the chain).2
`
`Specifically, portions highlighted in pink were added in the U.S. App. No.
`
`10/732,909 (second application in the chain), portions in turquoise were added in
`
`U.S. App. No. 11/071,667 (third application in the chain), and portions highlighted
`
`in green were added in the U.S. App. No. 11/475,847 (fourth application in the
`
`chain which issued into the ’342 patent). The first mentions of wireless
`
`communications with a portable device are in turquoise, i.e., new matter added
`
`when the ’667 application was filed. Ex. 1013 at 28:3-6; Strawn Decl. ¶¶ 32-36.
`
`As a result, the ’342 patent’s claims are entitled to an effective filing date no
`
`earlier than the ’667 patent’s actual filing date, March 3, 2005. Lockwood v. Am.
`
`Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“each application in the chain
`
`
`2 There is one reference to “wirelessly communicate” at 27:39-40 that was added
`
`on December 10, 2003, but it states that “the integration subsystem could
`
`wirelessly communicate with the car stereo” and includes no discussion of
`
`wirelessly communicating with the portable device. Strawn Decl. ¶ 35.
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`leading back to the earlier application must comply with the written description
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,155,342
`
`requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112.”).
`
`D. The Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art
`At the date of alleged invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, or equivalent degree
`
`and at least two years of experience in signal processing and/or electronic system
`
`design. More education can supplement relevant experience and vice versa.
`
`Strawn Decl., ¶¶ 24-26.
`
`E. Claim Construction
`Because the ’342 patent has not expired, the Board applies the “broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it
`
`appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). This claim construction standard is different
`
`from—and broader than—that applied in district court. Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v.
`
`SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1327-28 (Fed. Cir. 2015).3
`
`All claim terms, including those not specifically addressed in this section,
`
`have been accorded their broadest reasonable interpretation.
`
`
`3 Jaguar Land Rover does not contend that the meaning of any claim term is
`
`necessarily as broad under Phillips as they are under the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation. Jaguar Land Rover reserves the right to argue alternative and
`
`narrower definitions before a district court.
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,155,342
`
`1.
`“integration subsystem”
`Each challenged independent claim requires an “integration subsystem.”
`
`Under the broadest reasonable construction, an “integration subsystem” means a
`
`“subsystem to perform at least: (1) connecting one or more portable devices or
`
`inputs to the car audio/video system via an interface, (2) processing and handling
`
`signals, audio, and/or video information, (3) allowing a user to control the one or
`
`more portable devices via the car audio/video system, and (4) displaying data from
`
`one or more portable devices on the car audio/video system.” A subsystem is “a
`
`system that is subordinate to another system.”
`
`The Board adopted this construction for “integration subsystem” in
`
`IPR2016-00418, and this construction for “subsystem” in IPR2016-1473.
`
`2.
` “car audio/video system”
`Each challenged independent claim requires an “integration subsystem” in
`
`communication with a “car audio/video system” through a wireless link.
`
`Dependent claims 50, 74, 99 require that the “integration subsystem is positioned
`
`within the car audio/video system.”
`
`Under the broadest reasonable construction, the “car audio/video system”
`
`means “car audio system, car video system, or car audio and video system.”
`
`The Board adopted this construction for “car audio/video system” in
`
`IPR2016-00418.
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,155,342
`
`3.
`“device presence signal”
`Dependent claims 56, 83, and 106 further require the “integration subsystem
`
`generates a device presence signal and transmits the device presence signal to the
`
`car audio/video system to maintain the car audio/video system in a state responsive
`
`to the portable device.”
`
`Under the broadest reasonable construction, “device presence signal” means
`
`“signal indicating that a portable device is connected to the car audio/video system
`
`through the integration subsystem.”
`
`The Board adopted this construction for “device presence signal” in
`
`IPR2016-00418.
`
`V. The Asserted Prior Art
`A.
`Simonds (Ex. 1005)
`U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2004/0093155 (“Simonds”) is entitled “System and
`
`method for providing vehicle context information.” Simonds was published on
`
`May 13, 2004, and is prior art at least under § 102(a). Simonds discloses an
`
`“infotainment system . . . which efficiently manages and provides for the
`
`availability of information onboard a vehicle.” Simonds, Abstract. “[T]he system
`
`advantageously makes available information to onboard vehicle devices (including
`
`services) from various sources.” Id., [0012].
`
`Simonds addresses the problem that “[c]urrent and future automotive
`
`vehicles are being equipped with increasing numbers of electronic controllers and
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`related devices.” Id., [0003]. “These devices and communication systems
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,155,342
`
`collectively provide multiple sources of data and information [that] . . . are
`
`typically implemented within separate and distinct independent systems.”
`
`Simonds, [0006].
`
`Simonds solves this problem by providing an “integrated electronics system”
`
`using an integration subsystem it calls “a vehicle consumer services interface
`
`(VCSI).” Simonds, [0002], [0037] (describing disclosed “electronic (e.g.,
`
`infotainment) system [which] includes various electronic host devices” coupled to
`
`the VCSI). “The VCSI . . . serves as a bridge between different protocols” and
`
`uses “application programming interfaces (APIs)” to “enabl[e] compatibility and
`
`communication between devices (services) provided by a variety of different
`
`suppliers.” Simonds, [0038]. Like the ’342 patent, Simonds used MOST for its
`
`non-wireless connections and Bluetooth for its wireless ones. Simonds, FIG. 2.
`
`Through the VCSI, a user is able to control a portable device, like a cell
`
`phone, through the controls of the car audio/video system:
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,155,342
`
`Simonds, FIG. 1
`
`
`
`To do so, Simonds’s VCSI includes a gateway that manages messages and
`
`data communicated through the VCSI. Simonds, [0038], [0039], [0083] (“by way
`
`of the vehicle services gateway . . . , the status of various personal devices brought
`
`into the vehicle, including the cell phone, PDA, MP3 player, can be monitored . . .
`
`to determine what devices, including services, are in the vehicle and available for
`
`communication, and how to access these devices (services).”)
`
`In annotated Figure 2 below, the VCSI (red box) is shown connecting one or
`
`more portable devices (yellow boxes) via a wireless link (blue box), processing the
`
`devices’ signals and audio information, allowing the user to control those devices
`
`from, and displaying data, on the car audio/video system (green boxes):
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,155,342
`
`
`
`Simonds, FIG. 2 (annotated)
`
`See Strawn Decl. ¶¶ 44-49.
`
`B.
`Ekstrom (Ex. 1006)
`“Audio over Bluetooth and MOST” is a master’s thesis authored by Peter
`
`Ekstrom and Fredrik Hoel. (“Ekstrom”).4 It is prior art under §§ 102(a) and (b)
`
`
`4 The first five pages of Ekstrom used for cataloging purposes includes text in
`
`Swedish. The text on the first two pages are translated in Ex. 1012, Exhibit B and
`
`the Swedish text on the remaining pages reflect the Swedish translation of the
`
`English text on the same pages.
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`because it was made publicly available no later than August 2, 2003, well over one
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,155,342
`
`year before ’342 patent’s earliest effective filing date of March 3, 2005.
`
`According to the Internet Archive, Ekstrom was available on the Interne