Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 26
`Entered: May 3, 2021
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`DATASPEED INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SUCXESS LLC.
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2020-00116 (Patent 9,871,671 B2)
`IPR2020-00147 (Patent 10,027,505 B2)
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: February 11, 2021
`____________
`
`Before TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, MINN CHUNG, and
`NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00116 (Patent 9,871,671 B2)
`IPR2020-00147 (Patent 10,027,505 B2)
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`PETER GOWDEY, ESQUIRE
`WAYNE HELGE, ESQUIRE
`JAMES WILSON, ESQUIRE
`Davidson Berquist Jefferson & Gowdey, LLP
`8300 Greensboro Drive, Suite 500
`McLean, Virginia 22102
`(571) 765-7700
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`AXEL NIX, ESQUIRE
`Smartpat PLC
`400 Renaissance Center, Suite 2600
`Detroit, Michigan 48243
`
`MAXWELL GOSS, ESQUIRE
`Maxwell Goss Law
`370 East Maple Road, Third Floor
`Birmingham, Michigan 48009
`
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday, February
`11, 2021, commencing at 1:01 p.m. EDT, by video/by telephone.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00116 (Patent 9,871,671 B2)
`IPR2020-00147 (Patent 10,027,505 B2)
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`- - - - -
`
` JUDGE JEFFERSON: Good afternoon. This is a combined hearing
`
`for three inter partes reviews. The Cases are IPR-2020-00116, for Patent
`
`Number 9,871,671, IPR-2020-00147, for Patent Number 10,027,505, and
`
`IPR-2020-00268, for Patent 10,454,707. I am Judge Jefferson and with me
`
`are Judges Chung and Engels. And the Petitioner in these three cases are
`
`Dataspeed, Inc. and the Patent Owner is Sucxess, LLC.
`
`I'm going to dive into with just some background housekeeping before
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`we do our appearances. I want to welcome you all and thank you for your
`
`11
`
`flexibility in conducting our hearings via teleconference. We know this is, I
`
`12
`
`guess, a now standard procedure for practice for many of you. But it's still
`
`13
`
`something that was new for a few of us and we appreciate your patience.
`
`14
`
`Our primary concern is obviously your right to be heard and present your
`
`15
`
`case on the record. If at any time during the proceeding you encounter
`
`16
`
`technical or other difficulties, you should have been given telephone
`
`17
`
`numbers for contact and our very capable hearing, remote hearing staff will
`
`18
`
`make sure you can get back connected.
`
`19
`
`If any time your ability to protect your client or to present your case is
`
`20
`
`undermined, please let us know immediately, contacting the hearing
`
`21
`
`members if you're someone unconnected or even in hand gestures if we can
`
`22
`
`see you. And let us know that you can't hear us or there's something going
`
`23
`
`on. I'm going to ask you to mute yourselves and follow the instructions
`
`24
`
`you've been given. Please identify yourself each time when speaking.
`
`25
`
`Sometimes you might not be the main person on the screen. It's helpful to
`
`26
`
`know who's speaking in case that doesn't happen.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00116 (Patent 9,871,671 B2)
`IPR2020-00147 (Patent 10,027,505 B2)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`We have your entire record before us and the demonstratives that you
`
`have filed and sent in as exhibits. Please refer to them as precisely as
`
`possible. It helps us follow along and it's also great for the record. Having
`
`read a few of these records after the fact, I'm actually enjoying the fact that
`
`everybody puts the notations as they're speaking so we know exactly what
`
`you're referring to. Please pause and give yourself -- us a little time to catch
`
`up if you're referring to parts of the record.
`
`Finally, our hearings are open to the public. We do have a public line.
`
`I'm not aware of any sealed or confidential information that is at issue in this
`
`10
`
`proceeding. But if you are discussing anything you think might be subject to
`
`11
`
`that kind of restriction, please do note it during your presentation or bring it
`
`12
`
`to our attention. Again, I don't know of anything that's in this particular
`
`13
`
`record, but I will ask parties to police themselves and to let us know if
`
`14
`
`something comes up.
`
`15
`
`So, with that in mind, I think we're through the major bookkeeping.
`
`16
`
`I'll let you know, we're going to do these -- per our order, we're going to do
`
`17
`
`these cases together, but they're going to be on separate transcripts. So, the
`
`18
`
`first two cases are going to be handled in the 45 minutes you're allotted each.
`
`19
`
`We'll take a break, a short break because this is not a marathon. We're
`
`20
`
`trying to get through this all together. And we will reconvene and come
`
`21
`
`back on the record. I'll do a smaller introduction to get us into the '268 case
`
`22
`
`and we'll finish up with that.
`
`23
`
`So, with that in mind, I'll turn to the Petitioner and ask you to make
`
`24
`
`your appearances and let us know who's with you if they're in the room with
`
`25
`
`you or otherwise on our call.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00116 (Patent 9,871,671 B2)
`IPR2020-00147 (Patent 10,027,505 B2)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`MR. HELGE: Good afternoon, Your Honor. My name is Wayne
`
`Helge, and I am backup, first backup counsel for the Petitioner Dataspeed
`
`here. In the room with me I have our lead counsel Peter Gowdey, who was
`
`standing in the frame a moment ago. I can bring him back in if you'd like to
`
`see him.
`
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: No, that's fine. Please proceed.
`
`MR. HELGE: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor. And I also have Mr.
`
`Wilson. I know that you see perhaps on the runup or the panel of
`
`participants, Mr. Wilson is listed as a guest. And the intention, Your Honor,
`
`10
`
`is for me to argue this first case, Mr. Wilson is present in the room. And
`
`11
`
`then we'll shift over to his workstation in a different office and I'll mute, or
`
`12
`
`I'll shut off camera, and we will do the '268 proceeding from his
`
`13
`
`workstation.
`
`14
`
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: That is perfectly acceptable. Thank you. And
`
`15
`
`Patent Owner, could you please make your appearances and let us know if
`
`16
`
`there are any parties participating remotely or with you.
`
`17
`
`MR. NIX: Yes, Your Honor, this is Axel Nix for the Patent Owner
`
`18
`
`Sucxess LLC, dialed in remotely. And socially distanced from me is my co-
`
`19
`
`counsel Maxwell Goss.
`
`20
`
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Thank you, Mr. Nix. And I appreciate you all
`
`21
`
`making your own arrangements and aligning yourselves to have a very safe
`
`22
`
`proceeding.
`
`23
`
`So, as you know from our trial order, we have a combined hearing for
`
`24
`
`IPR 2020-00116 and IPR 2020-00147. Each party has 45 minutes in total to
`
`25
`
`present their arguments in those cases. Petitioner has the burden to show
`
`26
`
`unpatentability of the challenged claims and will proceed first, followed by
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00116 (Patent 9,871,671 B2)
`IPR2020-00147 (Patent 10,027,505 B2)
`
`the Patent Owner. Petitioner and Patent Owner may both reserve rebuttal
`
`time. Please let me know at the outset. We do our best to -- I'll be the
`
`timekeeper for the proceeding. You're certainly encouraged to keep track of
`
`your own time as well. I will try to give you some warning as you come up
`
`against your rebuttal time. But it is your case and I will let you proceed as
`
`you see fit.
`
`So, I'll repeat for the clarity of the transcript, it's always great if you
`
`state where you are in your record, exhibit, slide, or page number that you
`
`are referring to. It's very useful for us and importantly, as I said, this is not a
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`marathon. If you do need to take a break even in the midst of this first
`
`11
`
`portion, please let us know if there's something that's going on that requires
`
`12
`
`attention. We can certainly handle that and go off the record and back on as
`
`13
`
`necessary.
`
`14
`
`So, like I said, I was -- this first case will be -- this first transcript will
`
`15
`
`be for the combined IPR 2020-00116 and IPR 2020-00147 cases. And we
`
`16
`
`will then take a break and come back on the record and start a new transcript
`
`17
`
`for the remaining cases. We've checked in with the court reporter who was
`
`18
`
`able to hear us before. I'm going to proceed straight to Petitioner who can
`
`19
`
`start and let me know if they'd like to reserve time and you can begin when
`
`20
`
`they're ready.
`
`21
`
`MR. HELGE: Thank you, Your Honor. Again, Wayne Helge for
`
`22
`
`Petitioner Dataspeed. I'd like to reserve 10 minutes for rebuttal. And, Your
`
`23
`
`Honor, I see by my clock here I've got 1:08. So, I'm going to go ahead and
`
`24
`
`mark down as I understand it's a 45-minute session. I'll mark down 35
`
`25
`
`minutes from now as a target concluding spot.
`
`26
`
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Understood.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00116 (Patent 9,871,671 B2)
`IPR2020-00147 (Patent 10,027,505 B2)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`MR. HELGE: And hopefully we do well there. So, again, thank you,
`
`Your Honor. May it please the Board, Patent Owner's preliminary responses
`
`disputed Petitioner's interpretation of the Munoz reference when we first saw
`
`Patent Owner's competing interpretation of Munoz in its Patent Owner's
`
`responses after institution. However, Patent Owner's interpretation of
`
`Munoz is legally incorrect as it fails to consider all of Munoz's teaches, and it
`
`even contradicts some of Munoz's express teachings.
`
`Today, I will be focusing a lot of my presentation -- or my intention,
`
`Your Honor, is to focus a lot of my presentation on the parties' competing
`
`10
`
`interpretations of the Munoz reference, and why Petitioner's interpretation is
`
`11
`
`the only correct interpretation before you. Of course, should the panel have
`
`12
`
`any other questions about any other issues in either of these cases dealing
`
`13
`
`with the '671 and '505 patents, I'm happy to answer any of those questions at
`
`14
`
`any time.
`
`15
`
`But, Your Honor, I've got my slides here and I'll be looking just a
`
`16
`
`little bit to my left at the slides to orient you if we have any issues here. But
`
`17
`
`I'm just looking here at Slide 1, and as you know, we do have two patents at
`
`18
`
`issue, the '671 patent and the '505 patent. And Petitioner has challenged all
`
`19
`
`claims in these -- in these two patents. And these patents both share a
`
`20
`
`common specification, deal with very related subject matter, as you know.
`
`21
`
`And that is the CAN bus technology that was prevalent in automobile usage.
`
`22
`
`And so, we're going to be talking about CAN bus technology extensively.
`
`23
`
`And for the reporter, that's C-A-N.
`
`24
`
`Your Honor, I've shifted here to Slide 2 and just briefly, we have a
`
`25
`
`summary of the asserted grounds from our petition. And as you can see here
`
`26
`
`and as I believe you know, we have two grounds based on Munoz. One
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00116 (Patent 9,871,671 B2)
`IPR2020-00147 (Patent 10,027,505 B2)
`
`dealing with Claims 1 through 15 and 19. We also include there Negley,
`
`SAE, and Bosch references. And those references lay the background for the
`
`CAN bus technology. The standards, the ways that POSITAs understood
`
`that CAN bus technology was implemented at the time, at the critical time
`
`for the obviousness analysis.
`
`We also have a challenge against Claim 16 through 18 based on
`
`Munoz. We've added the Lobaza reference in for this challenge. And as I
`
`will note in some of my later slides, Your Honor, I believe it's around 35 or
`
`36, we'll note that Patent Owner has not raised any independent challenge
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`against the Lobaza reference's inclusion in this ground, Ground 2. So, I
`
`11
`
`think what this slide shows clearly is that if the panel agrees with Petitioner's
`
`12
`
`interpretation of the Munoz reference, all of the challenged claims in the '671
`
`13
`
`patent are unpatentable.
`
`14
`
`Your Honor, I'm moving to Slide 3, briefly. And we have a very
`
`15
`
`similar situation here for the '505 patent. Once again, we know that the
`
`16
`
`patent only has 16 claims. But all of them have been challenged again in the
`
`17
`
`Grounds 1 and 2, based on the Munoz reference whether it's alone or in
`
`18
`
`combination with this background art that establishes the CAN bus structure
`
`19
`
`and protocols and technology. And in addition, we have Claims 14 through
`
`20
`
`16 challenged with Munoz and these other CAN bus references along with,
`
`21
`
`once again, the Lobaza reference. And once again, Your Honor, there is no
`
`22
`
`independent argument from Patent Owner on the Lobaza reference
`
`23
`
`incorporated in this challenge. If we are correct in Munoz, all the claims
`
`24
`
`must fall and are unpatentable.
`
`25
`
`Two other points very quickly on this slide here, Your Honor. Again,
`
`26
`
`I'm still on Slide 3. Near the bottom we have a challenge based on the Allen
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00116 (Patent 9,871,671 B2)
`IPR2020-00147 (Patent 10,027,505 B2)
`
`reference. We've brought that in against Claims 6 through 12. And then
`
`there's one additional challenge where Lobaza becomes the primary
`
`reference, and that's at the very bottom of the chart against Claims 10 and 14
`
`through 16. And I do have a couple slides if Your Honors have specific
`
`questions those grounds, we can certainly get to them as well.
`
`Moving to Slide 4, Your Honor, this is -- again, we're still a little bit
`
`high level here. I just wanted to include an overview slide, which sets forth
`
`the three independent claims of the '671 patent. And I'll be doing the same
`
`thing for the '50 patent in just a moment. But we have here we have Claim
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`1, Claim 6, Claim 10 as the three independent claims. We have the cover of
`
`11
`
`the '671 patent. And you'll perhaps recognize some of the figures there at
`
`12
`
`the bottom of the '671 patent.
`
`13
`
`Moving to Slides 5 and 6. And, Your Honors, I don't plan to spend
`
`14
`
`any great deal of time on these slides today. But we did want to provide the
`
`15
`
`panel with a little bit of a cheat sheet for the evidence that's been relied upon
`
`16
`
`and where in our Petition we addressed each of these elements from Claim
`
`17
`
`1. And that's on Slide 5. We have a similar slide for Claims 6 through 10 on
`
`18
`
`Slide 6. Once again, we're talking about where in the Petition we addressed
`
`19
`
`each of these elements and what evidence we relied upon in those portions
`
`20
`
`of the Petition.
`
`21
`
`Your Honors, moving on to Slide 7. I have a similar introductory
`
`22
`
`slide for the '505 patent. Once again, we see independent Claims 1, 6, and
`
`23
`
`10 presented there. Slides 8 and 9 are the same sort of cheat sheet
`
`24
`
`information for the panel's convenience where we address these issues in our
`
`25
`
`Petition. And once again, Your Honor, this is, of course, the '147 petition.
`
`26
`
`Whereas, the earlier Slides 5 and 6 were about the '116 petition.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00116 (Patent 9,871,671 B2)
`IPR2020-00147 (Patent 10,027,505 B2)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`But then I think importantly here, Your Honor, we come to Slide 10.
`
`And I just wanted to lay out a little bit about why we're -- I think why it
`
`makes sense to deal with these claims in a consolidated hearing. Obviously,
`
`we have the Munoz reference at issue in both of the -- in both of the
`
`proceedings. But we also have very similar claims at issue here. The '671
`
`patent and the '505 patent were both pending at the PTO at the same time.
`
`And there are actually very few differences between these claims. What I've
`
`done is on the '671 patent, I've highlighted certain language from those
`
`claims. And that language, as you can see, all deals with the concept of a
`
`10
`
`second data bus. Both, you know, Claim 1 -- well, I should say all, Claim 1,
`
`11
`
`Claim 6, Claim 10, they all include this concept of a second data bus.
`
`12
`
`In the '505 patent, those claims in effect recite the same information as
`
`13
`
`the '671 claims, except they've deleted the second data bus concept. Now, it
`
`14
`
`doesn't mean that there's any real difference in the grounds presented here. I
`
`15
`
`think what you'll see as we go through is the concept of the second data bus
`
`16
`
`has been briefed by us and addressed by. But primarily in the '116 case
`
`17
`
`dealing with the '671 patent, you won't see comparable arguments generally
`
`18
`
`in the '147 case simply because the second data bus was dropped from the
`
`19
`
`claim. Now, we do think that Munoz teaches all of these elements, including
`
`20
`
`a second data bus and, obviously, everything else that we're showing here in
`
`21
`
`Slide 10.
`
`22
`
`Your Honor, I'm moving to Slide 11. And here's where we get to, I
`
`23
`
`think, the heart of the issues here. What Petitioner wanted to do with this
`
`24
`
`presentation, and I hope we're doing that, is focusing on the areas where the
`
`25
`
`parties really raise a dispute before this -- before this Board. And so, what
`
`26
`
`we've done, this is a little bit of a highlight from our replies where we've
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00116 (Patent 9,871,671 B2)
`IPR2020-00147 (Patent 10,027,505 B2)
`
`pointed out in Patent Owner response arguments that they've raised and
`
`differences that they've raised between what we say about the Munoz
`
`reference and what they say. And you can see here there are three
`
`arguments that they've pointed out. And these are in the text itself of Slide
`
`11.
`
`First, Patent Owner says that "none of the prior art shows any first
`
`(original) message that is being spoofed." Second, Patent Owner claims as -
`
`- this is, I'm sorry, this is my words here. Patent Owner claims "that the
`
`prior art does not teach a second (spoofed) message that is indistinguishable
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`from the first message, mimics the first message, or has the same identifier
`
`11
`
`as the first message." And that's a quote from the Patent Owner response.
`
`12
`
`And then the third difference that the Patent Owner sees is that neither
`
`13
`
`Munoz -- and again, I'm going to focus on Munoz here -- alone or in
`
`14
`
`combination with Negley, SAE, and Bosch, teaches splitting an existing CAN
`
`15
`
`bus to establish a second data bus.
`
`16
`
`And as I'll get into, Your Honor, all of these arguments are wrong. In
`
`17
`
`fact, all of these features are present and disclosed in the Munoz reference.
`
`18
`
`And I'd like to point out why and how our interpretation of Munoz answers
`
`19
`
`these questions. Whereas Patent Owner's interpretation of Munoz
`
`20
`
`contradicts Munoz and leaves so many questions unanswered.
`
`21
`
`So, Your Honor, I'm moving on to Slide 12 here. And this is a little
`
`22
`
`bit, I think, maybe a helpful place to start for Munoz because one of the
`
`23
`
`things that Munoz tells us is where the controls are located for the roof
`
`24
`
`control electronics. Now, at the bottom here, and I apologize, I know the
`
`25
`
`font is a little bit small. We have, I think, other versions of Figure 1 of
`
`26
`
`Munoz throughout the presentation here. This one is included to support the
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00116 (Patent 9,871,671 B2)
`IPR2020-00147 (Patent 10,027,505 B2)
`
`position that we've made on the slide. But we know from Munoz, and this is
`
`from column 6, lines 26 to 30, that the controls for the roof control
`
`electronics 110 are located in the dashboard 105.
`
`Now, obviously, Figure 100 -- or excuse me -- Figure 1 of Munoz also
`
`shows the roof control module. And I'd like to take a step back even a little
`
`bit before that and think about Munoz before the roof control module 100,
`
`which is a retrofit device, part of device 200 shown in Figure 2 before it is
`
`installed. Before the retrofit module is installed, you would have in fact,
`
`original dashboard and what Munoz says here is internal sensors and
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`electronics 105 connected to the roof control electronics 110 via an original
`
`11
`
`data connection. And that's a CAN bus. We know from Munoz very clearly
`
`12
`
`that Munoz had CAN bus technology in mind. And, once again, as we've
`
`13
`
`introduced a little bit earlier, a POSITA familiar with CAN bus technology
`
`14
`
`would understand concepts of CAN bus as set forth in the SAE, the Negley,
`
`15
`
`the Bosch references.
`
`16
`
`Now, dealing with CAN bus, there are a few things that we know for
`
`17
`
`certain. One is that every node on a CAN bus receives every message. So,
`
`18
`
`there isn't a selector about transmitting only from sender A through recipient
`
`19
`
`B. It's really a broadcast. And then all of the other nodes on the CAN bus
`
`20
`
`receive that message. The way that each node determines and whether it
`
`21
`
`should do anything with that message is the message will have an identifier.
`
`22
`
`And that identifier as we got into in some of our petition and Mr. Leale, our
`
`23
`
`expert talked about the identifiers, paragraphs 55 and 56 of his declaration,
`
`24
`
`Exhibit 1003. Those identifiers can be 11 or 29 bit identifiers. And what
`
`25
`
`each node does is when it receives a message on the CAN bus, it runs those
`
`26
`
`identifiers through a filter and a mask and determines whether that identifier
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00116 (Patent 9,871,671 B2)
`IPR2020-00147 (Patent 10,027,505 B2)
`
`is intended for that node and indicates if that node is -- or actually, it
`
`indicates if that message is something that that node should then cross and
`
`act upon.
`
`And so, a few details here that are important, one, we have identifiers
`
`contained in messages broadcast onto the CAN bus. Now, we know --
`
`again, going back to Munoz, Figure 1 here, we know that the roof control
`
`module has been added. We know that the original data connection between
`
`105 and 110 has been terminated. So, now, as Munoz says in block 115, all
`
`communication goes through the roof control module. Now, very high level
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`to some extent, what Munoz is telling us with Figure 1 and the associated
`
`11
`
`disclosures, is that the connection between 105 and 110, which was a CAN
`
`12
`
`bus has been severed or terminated. The CAN bus has been rerouted into
`
`13
`
`the roof control module. Roof control module will receive messages
`
`14
`
`transmitted by 105 on the CAN bus. But in order to get a CAN bus message
`
`15
`
`onto the second CAN bus that's been added as a result of that original data
`
`16
`
`termination, the roof control module has to put a CAN bus message onto
`
`17
`
`what's now the second CAN bus between 100 and 110. And that's
`
`18
`
`conceptually the way Munoz works.
`
`19
`
`Now, we also know from CAN bus, that for 110 to know whether to
`
`20
`
`act on a message, it has to -- the message has to have an identifier that 110
`
`21
`
`recognizes as an identifier that it would act upon. And this is why it's
`
`22
`
`important to know where the messages are coming from in Munoz. Now,
`
`23
`
`Munoz tells us. And probably it's a long-winded explanation, but he tells us.
`
`24
`
`And we have it up here at the top, right? That in column 6, lines 26 to 30,
`
`25
`
`Munoz confirms that the controls for roof control electronics 110 are in the
`
`26
`
`dash, in the factory dashboard. Now, you may have a question, well, what
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00116 (Patent 9,871,671 B2)
`IPR2020-00147 (Patent 10,027,505 B2)
`
`are controls? And Munoz answers that question as well. Because in column
`
`3, lines 33 to 34 of Munoz, Munoz explains that modern automobiles often
`
`feature a plurality of controls such as buttons, knobs, and switches in order
`
`to operate, and they say, one or more displays. Although we think that that
`
`discussion of controls also applies here and answers the question that you
`
`may be having, which is well, what does it mean to have controls for the
`
`roof control electronics in the dash? It means that the actuation occurs in the
`
`dash and in order to get the roof to do what the dash wants it to do based on
`
`those controls, there has to be a message transmitted onto the CAN bus.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`If I were to go back to the prior slide and recap Patent Owner's
`
`11
`
`argument about what Munoz is lacking, all three of those points, I think
`
`12
`
`we've just answered right here in Slide 12. Now, I have, obviously, a few
`
`13
`
`more slides to get into, but I think the question has been answered. Munoz
`
`14
`
`does disclose a first message. Because for the controls and the desired
`
`15
`
`operation to get from the dash where those controls are located to the roof
`
`16
`
`control electronics, a message is sent on the CAN bus. That message, once
`
`17
`
`the roof control module has been installed, is intercepted, I think is the best
`
`18
`
`word, intercepted by the roof control module.
`
`19
`
`Now, if the roof control module wants to retain the original factory
`
`20
`
`functionality, which Munoz tells us can be done, column 4, lines 19 through
`
`21
`
`21, the roof control module is going to want to send that same data that it
`
`22
`
`received from 105 to 110. And so, here we have a first message from 105 to
`
`23
`
`100. We have roof control module intending to retain original factory
`
`24
`
`functionality sending a second message to 110. That second message and
`
`25
`
`first message are indistinguishable. They're, in effect, the same data. And
`
`26
`
`it's doing it over two separate CAN busses.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00116 (Patent 9,871,671 B2)
`IPR2020-00147 (Patent 10,027,505 B2)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`So, Your Honor, I’ll move on to the next slide, but I wanted to make
`
`the point that all those three questions and all three points that they raised as
`
`we recapped on slide 11, are taught by Munoz. Munoz does render these
`
`claims unpatentable.
`
`Your Honor, I think actually slide 13, we’ve probably beat up a little
`
`bit here. This is really a restatement of what I have in the prior slide dealing
`
`with column 6, lines 26 to 30 to 31 of Munoz, so I’m going to move on to
`
`slide 14.
`
`And what I want to do is point out here, this is a first instance where
`
`10
`
`Patent Owner’s interpretation of Munoz conflicts with Munoz. Munoz tells
`
`11
`
`us that the controls are in the dash. And what Patent Owner has come
`
`12
`
`forward with is a different arrangement where the top open and close buttons
`
`13
`
`are connected or at least part of the factory-installed roof. And that simply
`
`14
`
`doesn’t comport with what Munoz tells us. This is the first instance where
`
`15
`
`Patent Owner is simply wrong about how Munoz works.
`
`16
`
`Your Honor, I’m going to move on to slide 15. And once again, I’ve
`
`17
`
`already touched on this point here, but there’s another point to be made
`
`18
`
`about slide 15 that I think is important here. We know that Munoz teaches
`
`19
`
`terminating the original data connection. And I do have a slide a little bit
`
`20
`
`later, I’m just going to give you the reference number now in case we don’t
`
`21
`
`get to it, but there is a statement by Patent Owner’s expert. Actually, Your
`
`22
`
`Honor, I’ll get to it. Hopefully, I get to it when I get to it. But I think
`
`23
`
`ultimately, there were admissions later on in the proceeding where Patent
`
`24
`
`Owner in essence agreed that terminating the original data connection was
`
`25
`
`terminating the connection from 105 to 110.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00116 (Patent 9,871,671 B2)
`IPR2020-00147 (Patent 10,027,505 B2)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`But also importantly here, Your Honor, as I said, there’s another point
`
`I’d like to make. As you can see, we have some red underlines under the
`
`room control module 100 and also under device 200 in figure 2. And we do
`
`argue and point out that retrofit device 200 includes Roof Control Module.
`
`And this was a point that we included in our petition. This was in page 22,
`
`footnote 10, of our petition where we pointed out that, in fact, Roof Control
`
`Module 100 is part of device 200.
`
`And what’s important there is you can see in figure 2, and this
`
`actually is exposed as well in Munoz’ specification, from column 6, lines 37
`
`10
`
`to 40, but as you can see in figure 2 that device 200 is connected to two
`
`11
`
`separate CAN buses. So, I think that’s something that’s going to come up in
`
`12
`
`just a moment, but I wanted to point, again, Munoz teaches terminating the
`
`13
`
`original data connection, which was the connection from 105 to 110, installs
`
`14
`
`the Roof Control Module.
`
`15
`
`According to Patent Owner, and I moved on slide 16, Patent Owner
`
`16
`
`took the position that there is actually a maintenance of a connection from
`
`17
`
`105 to 110 via an internal connection or a passthrough. And I think Patent
`
`18
`
`Owner has a slide on this point. We didn’t bother to include it (inaudible),
`
`19
`
`but they believe that, in fact, the original data connection is not terminated.
`
`20
`
`They believe that the wiring when it runs in the Roof Control Module simply
`
`21
`
`passes through so that 105 and 110 remain on the same bus.
`
`22
`
`Now, that’s not accurate according to Munoz. Terminating the
`
`23
`
`original data connection means, in fact, terminating it and blocking it off.
`
`24
`
`We think this supports the idea as well as 2 CAN buttons which I (inaudible)
`
`25
`
`as well.
`
`26
`
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Counsel, this is --
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00116 (Patent 9,871,671 B2)
`IPR2020-00147 (Patent 10,027,505 B2)
`
`
`MR. HEDGE: And on one point -- yes, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: This is Judge Jefferson. That is one of Patent
`
`Owner’s arguments and it sort of dovetails into a question I have, which is
`
`that Patent Owner’s argument seems to be along with that original
`
`connection that Munoz does not teach at all any messaging. It doesn’t teach
`
`an open message or a closed message in their particular example, but I’m
`
`taking it into the abstract, I think they seem to say that there’s no particular
`
`messaging; that all communication that runs through the retrofit module is
`
`too broad and somehow does not include this particular message.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`Can you address that in the -- with respect to the specific example that
`
`11
`
`I believe they pull out, you know, with the VW control module or a roof set
`
`12
`
`that they use? And more importantly, is it your contention that when Munoz
`
`13
`
`globally says all messaging is handled, that that is enough to teach a person
`
`14
`
`of ordinary skill in the art that the specific messages called for in the claims
`
`15
`
`is taught?
`
`16
`
`MR. HEDGE: Yes, Your Honor. I think there’s a couple points that
`
`17
`
`are important in your question that I’m happy to address and grateful to
`
`18
`
`bring up.
`
`19
`
`Initially, I think the latter point that you made was the correct point,
`
`20
`
`which is a POSITA reading Munoz would have an understanding of, as we
`
`21
`
`said, the SAE, Negley, and Bosch references, and would have this
`
`22
`
`understanding of when you’re dealing with CAN buses you communicate
`
`23
`
`via messages. So, I think the fundamental point that we have here with
`
`24
`
`Munoz is there has to be a message from 105 to 110. It’s called a data
`
`25
`
`connection, which means that data is being transmitted between them,
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00116 (Patent 9,871,671 B2)
`IPR2020-00147 (Patent 10,027,505 B2)
`
`between 105 and 110. And we know that that data takes the format of
`
`messages.
`
`We also know, as I mentioned a moment ago, the controls for the roof
`
`control electronics are located in the dashboard. And that means that if a
`
`user presses a button -- and I think, you know, as we said here, Munoz talks
`
`about controls such as buttons, knobs, and switches, and so the idea is that
`
`there’s no message taught in Munoz we simply thing is wrong. Once again,
`
`if Munoz teaches CAN buses, Munoz teaches messages. And in order to get
`
`a message from the dash to the roof control electronics 110, it’s going to
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`happen in the format of a message.
`
`11
`
`So, we would disagree with their point that there are no messages
`
`12
`
`being disclosed. I think there’s no CAN bus without messages. That’s how
`
`13
`
`communication occurs in a CAN bus. I mean, again, we know that there’s
`
`14
`
`data communication.
`
`15
`
`But I think there’s another point, Your Honor, that I’d like to bring up
`
`16
`
`and that