Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 8
`
`
`
` Entered: November 26, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`BLITZSAFE TEXAS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-01204
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, and
`MIRIAM L. QUINN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`QUINN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 8
`
`
`
` Entered: November 26, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`BLITZSAFE TEXAS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-01204
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, and
`MIRIAM L. QUINN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`QUINN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01204
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`BMW of North America, LLC (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting
`inter partes review of claims 92–94, 97, and 98 (“the challenged claims”) of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,489,786 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’786 patent”). Paper 2
`(“Pet.”). Blitzsafe Texas, LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary
`Response. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which states that inter
`partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the
`petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood
`that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims
`challenged in the petition.” Having considered the Petition and the
`Preliminary Response, and for the reasons stated below, we do not institute
`inter partes review of the ’786 patent.
`
`A. Related Matters
`The parties indicate that the ’786 patent is the subject matter of district
`court litigation pending in the Eastern District of Texas. Pet. 48–49; Paper
`6, 1–2.
`The ’786 patent has been challenged in many AIA proceedings:
`IPR2016-00421, IPR2016-00422, IPR2016-01448, IPR2016-01472,
`IPR2016-01477, IPR2018-01142, IPR2018-01203, IPR2018-01211, and
`IPR2018-01214. Pet. 49–50; Paper 6, 2.
`
`B. The ’786 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ’786 patent is entitled “Audio Device Integration System.” Ex.
`1001, [54] (emphasis omitted). According to the ’786 patent, a “particular
`problem with integrating after-market audio systems with existing car
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01204
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`stereos is that signals generated by the car stereo is in a proprietary format,
`and is not capable of being processed by the after-market system.” Id. at
`1:36–39. “Thus, in order to integrate after-market systems with car stereos,
`it is necessary to convert signals between such systems.” Id. at 1:4244.
`The ’786 patent is directed to an audio device integration system that
`allows after-market audio devices to be integrated for use with an existing
`car stereo system, such that control commands can be issued at the car stereo
`for execution by the audio device and data from the audio device can be
`displayed on the car stereo. Id. at [57], 2:12–42. More specifically, control
`commands generated at the car stereo are received, converted into a format
`recognizable by the after-market audio device, and dispatched to the device
`for execution. Id. at [57], 2:35–40. In addition, information from the audio
`device, such as track, channel, song, and artist information, is received,
`processed, converted into a format recognizable by the car stereo, and
`dispatched to the stereo for display. Id. at [57], 2:40–47. The audio device
`could, for example, comprise a “CD player, CD changer, MP3 player,
`satellite receiver, [or] digital audio broadcast (DAB) receiver.” Id. at 4:28–
`30; see id. at [57], 2:23–26. Figures 2A–2C are reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`Figures 2A–C illustrate embodiments in which a car stereo is integrated with
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01204
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`a CD player (Figure 2A), an MP3 player (Figure 2B), and a satellite radio or
`DAB receiver (Figure 2C). Id. at 3:14–23.
`In addition, an external audio device as well as auxiliary input sources
`may be integrated with a car stereo. Id. at [57], 2:53–56. A user then “can
`select between the external audio device and the auxiliary input using the
`controls of the car stereo.” Id. at 2:56–57. Figure 1 is reproduced below:
`
`
`Figure 1 illustrates an embodiment integrating a car stereo with a CD player,
`an MP3 player, and a satellite radio or DAB receiver, as well as a number of
`auxiliary input sources. Id. at 3:12–13, 5:14–27.
`As shown in the above figures, central to the ’786 patent is an
`“interface” positioned between the car stereo and the audio device(s) and
`auxiliary input(s). See, e.g., id. at Fig. 1, 2A–C, 5:33–36. The interface
`allows for the integration of the audio devices and auxiliary inputs with the
`OEM or after-market car stereo. Id. at 5:33–36.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Of the challenged claims, claim 92 is independent. Claims 93, 94, 97,
`and 98 depend directly or indirectly from claim 92.
`Claim 92, reproduced below, is illustrative:
`92. An audio device integration system comprising:
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01204
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`
`a car stereo;
`a portable audio device external to the car stereo;
`an interface connected between the car stereo and the
`portable audio device, the interface including a microcontroller
`pre-programmed to execute:
`first pre-programmed means for generating a device
`presence signal and transmitting the signal to the car stereo
`to maintain the car stereo in an operational state;
`second pre-programmed means
`for
`remotely
`controlling the portable audio device using the car stereo
`by receiving a control command from the car stereo in a
`format incompatible with the portable audio device,
`processing the control command into a formatted control
`command compatible with the portable audio device, and
`transmitting the formatted control command to the
`portable audio device for execution thereby; and
`means for transmitting audio from the portable
`audio device to the car stereo.
`Ex. 1001, 29:11–31.
`
`D. Asserted Prior Art and Grounds of Unpatentability
`The Petition identifies the following references in connection with
`Petitioner’s challenge of unpatentability (Pet. 13–17):
`a) Herley: U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2005/0262528 A1, filed
`in the record as Exhibit 1003;
`
`b) Ido: European Patent Application Pub. No. EP 0950570 A2, filed
`in the record as Exhibit 1005; and
`
`c) Lutter: U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2002/0196134 A1, filed
`in the record as Exhibit 1008.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01204
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability based on
`the afore-mentioned references (Pet. 13):
`
`Challenged Claims
`92–94, 97, and 98
`
`Basis
`§ 103(a)
`
`References
`Herley, Ido, and Lutter
`
`Petitioner also relies on a Declaration of Mr. James T. Geier, filed as
`Exhibit 1002 (“Geier Declaration”).
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`Claim Construction
`A.
`In an inter partes review, the Board interprets claims terms of an
`unexpired patent using the “broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`specification of the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs.,
`LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016). Under the broadest
`reasonable interpretation standard, claim terms generally are given their
`ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary
`skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. See In re Translogic
`Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). We note that only those
`claim terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the
`extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v.
`Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir.
`1999).
`
` “interface”
`1.
`Petitioner asserts correctly that the Board has interpreted the term
`“interface” to mean “a physical unit that connects one device to another and
`that has a functional and structural identity separate from that of both
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01204
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`connected devices.” Pet. 8 (citing Decision in IPR2016-00421; Ex. 1007,
`15). Patent Owner assumes that we will apply the Board’s prior construction
`when determining whether to institute. Prelim. Resp. 4. Therefore, there is
`no dispute as to the construction to be applied for purposes of institution,
`and, accordingly we adopt the Board’s prior construction of “interface” as
`stated above.
`
`2. Means-plus-function Terms
`Claim 92 recites multiple means-plus-function terms, for which
`Petitioner offers claim construction positions. Pet. 912. These positions
`apparently are taken from Patent Owner’s claim construction positions in the
`parallel district court litigation. Id. (citing Ex. 1009). Because it is
`dispositive, we discuss in detail the construction for the term “second pre-
`programmed means for remotely controlling the portable audio device using
`the car stereo by . . . processing the control command into a formatted
`control command compatible with the portable audio device.” Ex. 1001,
`29:21–27. Petitioner proposes that the structure corresponding to the recited
`function are “the code or algorithms illustrated in Tables 1 and 2 of the
`’786 patent.” (citing Ex. 1001, 17:3118:50).1 We agree that the code or
`algorithms illustrated in Tables 1 and 2 disclosed in the specification of the
`’786 patent are algorithms that correspond to the function of “processing the
`control command into a formatted control command compatible with the
`portable audio device.” In particular, we note that the specification
`
`
`1 Patent Owner does not dispute this. Prelim. Resp. 67 (stating that “[f]or
`the purposes of this preliminary response, Patent Owner assumes that the
`Board will apply these constructions.”).
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01204
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`describes Table 1 as “a sample code portion . . . for converting control
`signals from a BMW car stereo into a format understandable by a CD
`changer.” Ex. 1001, 17:2831. The disclosed code shows that a STOP
`command received from a BMW stereo is in a format proprietary to BMW
`stereos, and that a new command results when the procedure
`“Encode_RD_stop_msg” repetitively applies an XOR function to the STOP
`command. Id. at 17:6218:2. This new command is then stored in an output
`buffer for dispatching to the CD player. Id. at 18:12.
`But the corresponding structure is not the algorithm alone; it includes
`the microcontroller that is programmed to execute the algorithm. The
`’786 patent explains that microcontroller U1 provides the functionality of
`integrating the CD player or auxiliary input sources connected to the ports.
`Ex. 1001, 8:4649. That microcontroller, the ’786 patent states, “receives
`control commands, such as button or key sequences, initiated by a user at
`control panel of the car radio . . . processes and formats same, and
`dispatches the formatted commands to the CD player or auxiliary input
`source via connector J2A1.” Id. at 8:5055 (emphasis added). Accordingly,
`the corresponding structure is a microcontroller that executes, at a minimum,
`the algorithm disclosed in Table 1, as explained above. We apply this
`construction in the course of our determination whether to institute trial:
`Function: processing the control command into a formatted control
`command compatible with the portable audio device.
`Structure: a microcontroller programmed to execute, at a minimum,
`the algorithm disclosed in Table 1.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01204
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`
`B.
`
`Principles of Law
`
`Obviousness
`1.
`A patent claim is unpatentable 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) objective evidence of nonobviousness,
`i.e., secondary considerations.2 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–
`18 (1966).
`Petitioner asserts a “person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the
`’786 patent would have had: at least a Bachelor’s degree in electrical
`engineering or equivalent science/engineering degree and at least two years
`of experience in signal processing and/or electronic system design, or would
`have at least four years of experience in signal processing and/or electronic
`system design.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 19–22). Patent Owner agrees that
`this level of ordinary skill in the art is appropriate. Prelim. Resp. 3. We
`adopt the level of ordinary skill as articulated by Petitioner, except that we
`delete the qualifier “at least” to eliminate vagueness. The qualifier expands
`the range indefinitely without an upper bound and thus preclude a
`
`
`2 Patent Owner does not contend in its Preliminary Response that any such
`secondary considerations are present.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01204
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`meaningful indication of the level of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`Petitioner’s Burden
`2.
`“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 of persuasion never
`shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics,
`Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the burden of proof in
`inter partes review). Furthermore, Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of
`proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements.” In re
`Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`Summary of Asserted Prior Art
`C.
`The obviousness grounds rely on Herley, Ido, and Lutter. Therefore,
`we summarize these references below.
`
`Overview Herley (Ex. 1003)
`1.
`Herley is entitled “Smart Car Radio.” Ex. 1003, [54] (emphasis
`omitted). Herley relates to an audio content delivery system that can be
`portable and can include an interface that facilitates utilization in an
`automobile. Ex. 1003 ¶ 10. Figure 1 of Herley is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01204
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 1 is a block diagram of mobile audio system 100. Id. ¶ 14. System
`100 includes user interface 102, controller 104, tuner 106, storage
`component 108, high speed interface 110, media database 112, sound system
`114, and external media source 116. Id. ¶¶ 40, 42. User interface 102
`enables a user to select, control, and obtain content to be received and
`played, and can include a touch screen or physical push buttons. Id. ¶¶ 41,
`58. Controller 104 interfaces and/or controls other components of system
`100. Id. Media from external media source 116 can be copied to media
`database 112 via high speed interface 110, which can be a universal serial
`bus (USB), firewire, or infrared connection. Id. ¶ 42. Sound system 114,
`which can be a car radio or speaker system, receives and plays the media
`audio stream. Id. ¶ 48. External media source 116 can be a portable
`compact disc (CD) player, portable digital video disc (DVD) player, portable
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01204
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`hard drive, flash memory, personal digital assistant, or MP3 player. Id.
`¶¶ 44, 137.
`
`Overview of Ido (Ex. 1005)
`2.
`Ido is entitled “Automotive Information System, Automotive
`Computer System, and Method of Controlling the Automotive Information
`System.” Ex. 1005, [54] (emphasis omitted). Ido relates to an automobile
`information system that consolidates a plurality of information apparatuses,
`such as a car audio system, car navigation system, voice recognition system,
`hands-free mobile telephone, and security system, by providing a means to
`convert data between different types of data buses. Id. ¶ 1. Figure 2 of Ido
`is reproduced below:
`
`
`Figure 2 is a block diagram of the automotive information system,
`illustrating CPU module 11, support module 12, external unit 30, and option
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01204
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`unit 40. Id. ¶ 80. A user can operate the system via external unit faceplate
`15, for example, by pressing a key to select the CD player source. Id. ¶¶ 72,
`118. Option unit 40 devices, such as CD-ROM auto-changer unit 7, are
`connected to the system via USB serial bus B3. Id. ¶ 77. Each of the
`devices connected to the USB, such as CD-ROM auto-changer unit 7, “is
`adapted to transmit and receive [data] to and from other [devices] in a form
`that conforms with the USB” protocol. Id. ¶ 78. Data read from the CD-
`ROM device is converted from ATAPI parallel form to a serial form that
`conforms with USB. Id. Ido discloses that “all kinds of data are exchanged
`[and] processed in the form of digital data through, for example, the USB,
`regardless of whether the data is audio data or character or other data.” Id.
`¶ 160.
`
`Overview of Lutter (Ex. 1008)
`3.
`Lutter is entitled “Method and Apparatus for Managing Audio
`Devices.” Ex. 1008, [54] (emphasis omitted). Lutter is directed to a vehicle
`audio manager system, which detects different portable audio sources that
`brought into the vehicle and connects the sources to output devices such as
`speakers or headsets. Id. ¶¶ 14–15. Figure 2 of Lutter is reproduced below:
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01204
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 2 depicts an example of a graphical user interface (GUI) 30
`that is coupled to the audio manager system. Id. ¶ 16. The GUI 30 displays
`audio sources, such as cellular phone 38 (shown as icon 32 on the GUI), CD
`player 24 (icon 34), and radio 37 (icon 36), that are connected wirelessly or
`hardwired to the audio manager of vehicle 12. Id. The audio manager
`allows a user to selectively connect the different audio sources to the
`different output devices by dragging and dropping source icons over the
`output icons. Id. ¶ 20. For example, “to output a cellular telephone
`conversation over the car Speakers 20A–20D and the headset 29, an operator
`simply drags icon 32 over the speaker icons 20A–20D and the headset icon
`29. Id.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01204
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`
`Alleged Obviousness of Independent Claim 92
`D.
`After considering Petitioner’s contentions and Patent Owner’s
`arguments in opposition, we are persuaded that Petitioner has not
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that claims
`92–94, 97, and 98 would have been obvious over Herley, Ido, and Lutter.
`Because it is dispositive, we focus on Petitioner’s contentions
`regarding the second pre-programmed means for remotely controlling the
`portable audio device using the car stereo by. . . processing the control
`command into a formatted control command compatible with the portable
`audio device,” as recited in claim 92. As discussed above, the structure
`corresponding to this means-plus-function term is a microcontroller
`programmed to execute the algorithms disclosed in, at a minimum, Table 1
`of the ’786 patent. The algorithm of Table 1 includes a procedure that
`applies a function to convert the received command (from the car stereo)
`into another command that is compatible with the portable audio device.
`Petitioner advances two arguments. The first argument is that Herley,
`in view of Ido and Lutter, discloses “an equivalent structure that performs
`the same function.” Pet. 32. In particular, Petitioner points to Herley’s
`controller 104 (id. at 3233) in combination with Ido’s “form conversion.”
`Pet. 34 (citing Ex. 1005, ¶¶ 60, 61). Ido, according to Petitioner, teaches
`transmitting data through the USB and subjecting that data “to a form
`conversion so as to be changed into data of a form that is suitable for
`transmission and processing th[r]ough the PCI Bus.” Id. (emphasis added).
`Petitioner’s second argument relies on Ido’s faceplate commands. Id.
`at 3536. For instance, Petitioner argues that Ido discloses commands input
`through faceplate 15 and received by support module 12 (alleged interface),
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01204
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`which provides those commands to either CD-ROM unit 14 or CD-ROM
`auto-changer 7 to initiate playback. Id. at 3536. According to Petitioner,
`and in line with the first argument, the communication between support
`module 12 and the connected devices undergo format conversion to or from
`USB. Id. at 36 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 72).
`We are not persuaded by these arguments. As to the first argument,
`Petitioner has not shown that Ido’s “form conversion” of data involves an
`algorithm that is the same as or equivalent to the algorithm disclosed in
`Table 1. Ido’s formatting is for transmission of data from USB to a PCI
`Bus. The claim, however, requires that the car stereo command is converted
`to a “new command that is in a format compatible with the after-market CD
`player.” Ex. 1001, 18:12 (referring to the algorithm disclosed in Table 1)
`(emphasis added). Thus, in a system where the car stereo and the after-
`market CD player are not compatible because they do not understand each
`other’s commands, the formatting from PCI bus to USB bus format (and
`vice versa) alone does not address the incompatibility problem. Ido’s
`formatting of data from one bus protocol to another may solve part of the
`incompatibility—that is, Ido modifies the signal carrying the car stereo
`command so that the command may be transported to a different type of data
`bus. But unless the car stereo command itself is changed to a new command
`that the after-market CD player can execute, the command from the car
`stereo will not be understood by the CD player, even though the format of
`the signal carrying the command is changed from one data bus protocol
`format to another. Ido does not disclose that any command is changed into a
`new command that is compatible with the device being controlled. And the
`Petition does not make any attempt to show that Table 1’s algorithm, which
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01204
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`Petitioner identified in connection with the corresponding structure, is in any
`way used in Ido’s form conversion.
`As to the second argument, the same failure discussed above
`regarding the lack of the Table 1 algorithm pervades. The Petition relies on
`Ido’s support module converting data to or from USB, not on converting an
`incompatible command to a new, compatible command. Id. at 3536. In
`addition to the lack of an algorithm, Petitioner has failed to identify a
`microcontroller as required. Although Petitioner states that Ido’s support
`module and Herley’s controller are an “interface” (id. at 32 (“Herley
`discloses controller 104 (the interface) receiving a control command from
`user interface 102”); id. at 35 (“commands input through faceplate 15 (part
`of Ido’s car stereo) and received by the support module 12 (Ido’s
`interface)),” Petitioner does not identify any particular microcontroller in
`either Ido or Herley that is programmed to perform the identified “form
`conversion” of Ido, much less the Table 1 algorithm that the claim requires.
`Patent Owner points out some of the above identified deficiencies in
`the Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 15. But more importantly, Patent
`Owner points out that Petitioner has relied on an erroneous interpretation of
`Patent Owner’s position regarding claim scope. Id. Specifically, Petitioner
`bases its contention—that the claim language is met by a mere conversion
`from USB format to another format—on Petitioner’s narrow interpretation
`of Patent Owner’s infringement contentions. Id.; Pet. 34 (Petitioner arguing
`that Patent Owner’s district court infringement contentions are that
`converting commands to USB format meets the limitation). Patent Owner
`responds that its infringement contentions identify code or algorithms (not
`yet discovered), in accordance with Patent Owner’s position that the claim
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01204
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`requires algorithms of Table 1 (and, also, of Table 2). Prelim. Resp. 1516.
`We also note that the infringement contentions in the record are not limited
`to USB format conversion, but also describe the conversion of a command
`under BMW’s protocol to a device-specific protocol understandable to the
`after-market audio device. Ex. 1013, 7374. Thus, we are persuaded by
`Patent Owner’s arguments that Petitioner “misreads” Patent Owner’s district
`court contentions, and fails to identify, in any of the asserted references, the
`required microcontroller programmed to execute the required algorithm.
`Prelim. Resp. 15.
`We determine, therefore, on this record, that Petitioner has failed to
`demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that claim
`92 of the ’786 patent is unpatentable over any of the asserted references, and
`particularly, Herley and Ido.
`
`Alleged Obviousness of Dependent Claims 93, 94, 97, and 98
`E.
`Challenged dependent claims 93, 94, 97, and 98 depend directly or
`indirectly from claim 92. Petitioner presents argument and evidence
`mapping the limitations further recited in these dependent claims to Herley
`and/or Ido. Pet. 46–48. None of Petitioner’s additional mappings cure the
`deficiencies identified above. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has
`not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that
`claims 93, 94, 97, and 98 of the ’786 patent are unpatentable over Herley,
`Ido, and Lutter.
`
`III. ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that the Petition is denied.
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01204
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Lead Counsel
`Lionel M. Lavenue
`lionel.lavenue@finnegan.com
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Cory C. Bell
`cory.bell@finnegan.com
`Kai Rajan
`kai.rajan@finnegan.com
`
`
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Lead Counsel
`Peter Lambrianakos
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Alfred R. Fabricant
`Vincent J. Rubino, III
`Timothy J. Rousseau
`Enrique W. Iturralde
`plambrianakos@brownrudnick.com
`afabricant@brownrudnick.com
`vrubino@brownrudnick.com
`trousseau@brownrudnick.com
`eiturralde@brownrudnick.com
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
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
