`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`⸺⸺⸻⸺⸺⸺⸺
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`⸺⸺⸻⸺⸺⸺⸺
`
`DATASPEED INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SUCXESS LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`⸺⸺⸻⸺⸺⸺⸺
`
`Case IPR2020-00116
`
`Patent 9,871,671
`
`⸺⸺⸻⸺⸺⸺⸺
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00116
`Patent 9,871,671
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`
`2001
`
`Declaration of Maxwell Goss in Support of Motion to Appear Pro
`
`Hac Vice on behalf of patent owner Sucxess LLC
`
`2002
`
`ISO 11898-1, Road vehicles – Controller area network (CAN) –
`
`Part 1: Data link layer and physical signalling, First edition 2003-
`
`12-01 (“ISO”)
`
`2003
`
`Denton, Tom. Advanced automotive fault diagnosis. Oxford
`
`Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2006 (“Denton”)
`
`2004
`
`BAE Systems, Inc., Job posting “Vehicle Systems Architect,”
`
`retrieved from https://jobs.baesystems.com/global/en/job/56889BR
`
`on 02-Jan-2020
`
`2005
`
`Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, Job posting “Electrical Technician,”
`
`retrieved from https://careers.fcagroup.com/job/10316315/ on 02-
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`Jan-2020
`
`reserved
`
`Volkswagen Service Training. “Self-study Program 871603. The
`
`Eos 2006 Electrical System Design and Function”
`
`2008
`
`“VW Eos Convertible Hardtop Emergency Opening and Closing
`
`Using Autologic DrivePRO,” https://us.autologic.com/news/vw-
`
`eos-convertible-hardtop-emergency-opening-and-closing.
`
` i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00116
`Patent 9,871,671
`
`Resume of Mahdi Shahbakhti , Ph.D.
`
`YouTube Video “VW Eos Convertible Hardtop Emergency
`
`Opening and Closing,” https://youtu.be/KhgrBsIDO_0.
`
`Currie, Roderick. “Developments in Car Hacking.” (2015).
`
`Bernd Elend, Tony Adamson. “Cyber security enhancing CAN
`
`transceivers.” (2017)
`
`2013
`
`YouTube Video “EOS ROOF OPENING WHILE DRIVING,”
`
`https://youtu.be/Fll2sWA-iwA
`
`2014
`
`Convertible Roof Wiring Diagram, 2007 Volkswagen Eos (1F7)
`
`V6-3.2L (BUB)
`
`2015
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`Convertible Roof Wiring Diagram, 2007 Cadillac XLR V8-4.6L
`
`Convertible Roof Wiring Diagram, 2007 Lexus SC 430
`
`Convertible Roof Wiring Diagram, 2007 Mazda MX-5 Miata
`
`Convertible Roof Wiring Diagram, 2007 Saab 9-3
`
`Convertible Roof Wiring Diagram, 2007 Pontiac G6
`
`Convertible Roof Wiring Diagram, 2007 Mini Cooper S
`
`Convertible
`
`2021
`
`Convertible Roof Wiring Diagram, 2007 Audi S4 Quattro
`
`Cabriolet
`
` ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2022
`
`2023
`
`2024
`
`2025
`
`2026
`
`2027
`
`2028
`
`2029
`
`2030
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00116
`Patent 9,871,671
`
`Convertible Roof Wiring Diagram, 2007 Ford Mustang
`
`Convertible Roof Wiring Diagram, 2007 Porsche Boxster (987)
`
`Robert Leale, Deposition Transcript
`
`2007 Pontiac G6 Service Manual
`
`Annotated copy of Munoz Fig. 1
`
`YouTube Video “EOS ROOF MODULE SETUP MENU,”
`
`https://youtu.be/yQ9xqvHwe0o
`
`Declaration of Dr. Mahdi Shahbakhti
`
`U.S. Trademark Ser. No. 77-198,481, Reg. No. 3,388,116
`
`YouTube Video “Vario Plus Control Module Ultra features walk-
`
`through,” https://youtu.be/9PYK9j3FFx4
`
`2031
`
`Connector pinout of 2007 Audi A4 Cabriolet, Bose Amplifier, 25-
`
`Pin and 32-pin.
`
`
`
`
`
` iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00116
`Patent 9,871,671
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`II.
`
`The ’671 Patent ................................................................................................. 4
`
`III. Claim construction ............................................................................................ 6
`
`A.
`
`“data bus” ...................................................................................................... 6
`
`B.
`
`“adding a second data bus” ........................................................................... 7
`
`C.
`
`“responds” ..................................................................................................... 9
`
`D.
`
`“receives” ...................................................................................................... 9
`
`IV. Person having ordinary skill in the art ............................................................11
`
`V. Background: Hacking Vehicle Networks .......................................................12
`
`VI. Petitioner’s expert is biased. ...........................................................................14
`
`VII. The Munoz reference ......................................................................................18
`
`VIII. Ground 1: The Claims are not obvious over Munoz alone or in combination
`
`with Negley, SAE, and Bosch. .................................................................................31
`
`A.
`
`Independent Claim 1 ...................................................................................40
`
`1.
`
`[1.1] Munoz does not teach providing a vehicle having a factory-installed
`
`first apparatus including a processor, programmed to communicate with a
`
` iv
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00116
`Patent 9,871,671
`factory-installed second apparatus through a vehicle data bus with a first
`
`
`
`
`message having an identifier. ...........................................................................40
`
`2.
`
`[1.3] Munoz does not teach adding a second data bus to the vehicle. .....45
`
`3.
`
`[1.4] Munoz does not teach electrically connecting a retrofit apparatus to
`
`the vehicle data bus and to the second data bus. ..............................................51
`
`4.
`
`[1.5] Munoz does not teach electrically connecting the factory-installed
`
`first apparatus to the second data bus. .............................................................51
`
`5.
`
`[1.6] Munoz does not teach transmitting a second message being
`
`indistinguishable from the first message. ........................................................51
`
`B. Dependent Claim 2: Munoz fails to teach that the second message uses the
`
`identifier of the first message. ..............................................................................56
`
`C. Dependent Claim 3: Munoz fails to teach receiving the first message in the
`
`retrofit device. ......................................................................................................56
`
`D. Dependent Claim 4: Munoz fails to teach wherein the retrofit apparatus re-
`
`transmits messages received on the vehicle data bus to the factory-installed first
`
`apparatus through the second data bus. ...............................................................56
`
`E. Dependent Claim 5: Munoz fails to teach the vehicle that has been
`
`retrofitted according to the method of claim 1. ...................................................57
`
`F.
`
`Independent Claim 6 ...................................................................................58
`
` v
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00116
`Patent 9,871,671
`[6.1] Munoz fails to teach a factory-installed first apparatus including a
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`first processor which is programmed to receive a first message on a vehicle
`
`data bus from a factory-installed second apparatus. ........................................58
`
`2.
`
`[6.2] Munoz fails to teach a retrofit apparatus connected to the vehicle
`
`data bus including a second processor programmed to transmit a second
`
`message which mimics the first message through a second data bus. .............59
`
`G. Dependent Claim 7: Munoz fails to teach wherein the first message
`
`comprises a message identifier that has been assigned to the factory-installed
`
`second apparatus and wherein the second processor is programmed to transmit
`
`the second message with the same message identifier. .......................................60
`
`H.
`
`Independent Claim 10 .................................................................................60
`
`1.
`
`[10.1] Munoz fails to teach a factory-installed first apparatus including a
`
`first processor, programmed to receive a first message via a vehicle data bus
`
`from a factory-installed second apparatus, the first message having a message
`
`identifier. ..........................................................................................................60
`
`2.
`
`[10.2] Munoz fails to teach a retrofit apparatus, operatively connected to
`
`the vehicle data bus, including a second processor programmed to send a
`
`second message having the same message identifier. .....................................61
`
` vi
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00116
`Patent 9,871,671
`[10.3] Munoz fails to teach wherein the factory-installed first apparatus
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`communicates with the retrofit apparatus through a second data bus. ............61
`
`I. Dependent Claim 11: Munoz fails to teach wherein the second message
`
`originating from the retrofit apparatus is indistinguishable to the first apparatus
`
`from the first message which the first processor is programmed to receive from
`
`the second apparatus. ...........................................................................................61
`
`J. Dependent Claim 12: Munoz fails to teach wherein the factory-installed
`
`first apparatus responds to the second message originating from the retrofit
`
`apparatus as if it were the first message which the first processor is programmed
`
`to receive from the factory-installed second apparatus. ......................................62
`
`K. Dependent Claim 13: Munoz fails to teach wherein the factory- installed
`
`first apparatus is electrically disconnected from the vehicle data bus. ................62
`
`L. Dependent Claim 14: Munoz fails to teach wherein the retrofit apparatus is
`
`a gateway through which the factory-installed first apparatus transmits and/or
`
`receives messages from the vehicle data bus. ......................................................62
`
`M. Dependent Claim 15: Munoz fails to teach wherein the retrofit apparatus
`
`selectively suppresses forwarding messages received from the factory-installed
`
`first apparatus to the vehicle data bus. .................................................................63
`
` vii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00116
`Patent 9,871,671
`N. Dependent Claim 19: Munoz fails to teach wherein the second data bus is
`
`
`
`
`added to the vehicle during a retrofit. ..................................................................64
`
`IX. Ground 2: Claims 16-18 Are not obvious over Munoz in combination with
`
`Negley, SAE, Bosch, and Lobaza. ...........................................................................65
`
`X. Ground 3: Claims 1-15 and 19 are not obvious over Dietz in combination
`
`with Negley, SAE, and Bosch. .................................................................................65
`
`A.
`
`Independent Claim 1 ...................................................................................66
`
`1.
`
`[1.1] Dietz does not teach a vehicle having a factory-installed first
`
`apparatus including a processor, programmed to communicate with a factory-
`
`installed second apparatus through a vehicle data bus with a first message
`
`having an identifier. .........................................................................................66
`
`2.
`
`[1.3] Dietz fails to teach adding a second data bus to the vehicle. ..........68
`
`3.
`
`[1.6] Dietz fails to teach transmitting a second message from the retrofit
`
`apparatus to the factory-installed first apparatus through the second data bus,
`
`the second message being indistinguishable from the first message. ..............72
`
`B. Dependent Claim 2: Dietz fails to teach wherein the second message uses
`
`the identifier of the first message. ........................................................................72
`
`C. Dependent Claim 3: Dietz fails to teach receiving the first message in the
`
`retrofit device. ......................................................................................................73
`
` viii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00116
`Patent 9,871,671
`D. Dependent Claim 4: Dietz fails to teach wherein the retrofit apparatus re-
`
`
`
`
`transmits messages received on the vehicle data bus to the factory-installed first
`
`apparatus through the second data bus. ...............................................................74
`
`E. Dependent Claim 5: Dietz fails to teach the vehicle that has been retrofitted
`
`according to the method of claim 1. ....................................................................76
`
`F.
`
`Independent Claim 6: Dietz fails to disclosed a vehicle, comprising a
`
`factory-installed first apparatus including a first processor which is programmed
`
`to receive a first message on a vehicle data bus from a factory-installed second
`
`apparatus; and a retrofit apparatus connected to the vehicle data bus including a
`
`second processor programmed to transmit a second message which mimics the
`
`first through a second data bus.............................................................................76
`
`G. Dependent Claim 7: Dietz fails to teach wherein the first message
`
`comprises a message identifier that has been assigned to the factory-installed
`
`second apparatus and wherein the second processor is programmed to transmit
`
`the second message with the same message identifier. .......................................77
`
`H.
`
`Independent Claim 10: Dietz fails to disclose a vehicle, comprising a
`
`factory-installed first apparatus including a first processor, programmed to
`
`receive a first message via a vehicle data bus from a factory-installed second
`
`apparatus, the first message having a message identifier, and a retrofit apparatus,
`
`operatively connected to the vehicle data bus, including a second processor
`
` ix
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00116
`Patent 9,871,671
`programmed to send a second message having the same message identifier,
`
`
`
`
`wherein the factory-installed first apparatus communicates with the retrofit
`
`apparatus through a second data bus. ...................................................................77
`
`I. Dependent Claim 11: Dietz fails to teach that the second message
`
`originating from the retrofit apparatus is indistinguishable to the first apparatus
`
`from the first message which the first processor is programmed to receive from
`
`the second apparatus. ...........................................................................................78
`
`J. Dependent Claim 12: Dietz fails to teach that the factory-installed first
`
`apparatus responds to the second message originating from the retrofit apparatus
`
`as if it were the first message which the first processor is programmed to receive
`
`from the factory-installed second apparatus. .......................................................78
`
`K. Dependent Claim 13: Dietz fails to teach that the factory-installed first
`
`apparatus is electrically disconnected from the vehicle data bus. .......................78
`
`L. Dependent Claim 14: Dietz fails to teach a gateway through which the
`
`factory-installed first apparatus transmits and/or receives messages from the
`
`vehicle data bus. ...................................................................................................79
`
`M. Dependent Claim 15: Dietz fails to teach that the retrofit apparatus
`
`selectively suppresses forwarding messages received from the factory-installed
`
`first apparatus to the vehicle data bus. .................................................................79
`
` x
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00116
`Patent 9,871,671
`XI. Ground 4: Claims 16-18 are not obvious over DIETZ in combination with
`
`
`
`
`Negley, SAE, Bosch, and Lobaza. ...........................................................................79
`
`XII. Conclusion ......................................................................................................79
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` xi
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00116
`Patent 9,871,671
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`
`383 U.S. 1, 17– 18 (1966) ....................................................................................33
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`
`550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007) .....................................................................................33
`
`Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L.,
`
`437 F.3d 1157, 1164 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .................................................................34
`
`Par Pharm., Inc. v. TWi Pharms., Inc.,
`
`773 F.3d 1186, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................33
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ...................................................................................................33
`
`Rules
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ..................................................................................................... 6
`
`Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 608 .......................................................................17
`
`Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 611 .......................................................................17
`
` xii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00116
`Patent 9,871,671
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, November 2019
`
`
`
`
` ....................................................................................................................... 16, 18
`
`
`
` xiii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00116
`Patent 9,871,671
`
`Patent owner Sucxess LLC (“Patent Owner”) submits this Response to the
`
`Petition filed by petitioner Dataspeed Inc. (“Petitioner”) seeking inter partes
`
`review of claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent 9,871,671 (Ex. 1001, the “’671 Patent”).
`
`The ’671 Patent discloses a unique method, apparatus, and system for
`
`retrofitting vehicles equipped with a Controller Area Network (CAN) bus. To
`
`make a vehicle perform an action not originally enabled by its manufacturer, the
`
`patent teaches adding a retrofit apparatus that sends a spoofed, or mimicked, CAN
`
`bus message to a factory-installed apparatus. This provides an effective and
`
`economical means to modify a production vehicle, for example for research and
`
`development companies to enter and operate in the autonomous vehicle space.
`
`In its institution decision (Paper 12), the Board found that Petitioner had
`
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would succeed in showing that claims
`
`1-15 and 19 are obvious over Munoz (Ex. 1004) alone or in view of Negley (Ex.
`
`1006), SAE (Ex. 1009), and Bosch (Ex. 1010) and that claims 16-18 are obvious in
`
`further view of Lobaza (Ex. 1014). The Board found that Petitioner had not
`
`demonstrated a likelihood of success that claims 1-15 and 19 are obvious over
`
`Dietz (Ex. 1005) in view of Negley, SAE, and Bosch or that claims 16-18 are
`
`obvious in further view of Lobaza.
`
` 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00116
`Patent 9,871,671
`This Response presents new insights beyond those presented in Patent
`
`
`
`
`Owner’s Preliminary Response. As shown herein, and as supported by the
`
`Declaration of Dr. Mahdi Shahbakhti (Ex. 2028,) the invention disclosed in the
`
`’671 Patent would not have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art,
`
`(“POSITA”).
`
`Even though the CAN bus had been introduced more than 20 years before
`
`the ’671 Patent’s priority date, Petitioner cannot show a single document that
`
`describes spoofing of CAN messages. Instead, Petitioner contends that a POSITA
`
`would have somehow recognized the use of spoofed messages in prior art
`
`references that make no express reference to spoofing. That in itself is curious,
`
`given that a POSITA could not have been familiar with spoofed messages at the
`
`time. But Petitioner also gets it wrong. This Response will show that Petitioner
`
`recognizes spoofed messages that could not possibly have existed. The prior art
`
`fails to teach three critical elements of the ’671 Patent’s claims:
`
`First, none of the prior art shows any first (original) message that is being
`
`spoofed.
`
`Second, the prior art does not teach a second (spoofed) message that is
`
`indistinguishable from the first message, mimics the first message, or has the same
`
`identifier as the first message. Of course, a second message cannot meet these
`
`limitations if there is no first message.
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00116
`Patent 9,871,671
`Third, neither Munoz nor Dietz, alone or in combination with Negley, SAE,
`
`
`
`
`and Bosch (the “Cited References”), teaches splitting an existing CAN bus to
`
`establish “a second data bus.”
`
`A thread running throughout the Petition, and throughout the Declaration of
`
`Robert Leale (Ex. 1003), is the reliance on conclusory assertions and
`
`unsubstantiated, gap-filling speculations about what “would have” been present in
`
`the prior art. Petitioner fails its burden to show that Claims 1-19 are unpatentable.
`
`Additionally, Petitioner’s conclusions are in critical parts plain wrong from a
`
`technical perspective. Contrary to Mr. Leale’s assertion that an “open roof while
`
`driving” feature would have led a POSITA to recognize all elements of claims 1-15
`
`and 19 in Munoz, such a feature cannot even be implemented as claimed in the
`
`’671 Patent.
`
`In any event, the testimony of Petitioner’s expert should be disregarded. Mr.
`
`Leale admitted in his deposition that he installs retrofit apparatuses and spoofs
`
`CAN messages in automobiles as part of his business. This of course infringes the
`
`patent claims and gives rise to a personal interest in getting the patents invalidated.
`
`When Patent Owner tried to pursue the matter further, Petitioner’s counsel claimed
`
`on the record, in Mr. Leale’s presence, that Patent Owner was asking about his
`
`activities as part of a “pre-litigation investigation,” and then admittedly conferred
`
`with Mr. Leale off the record regarding his testimony. In view of Mr. Leale’s bias
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00116
`Patent 9,871,671
`and Petitioner’s violations of PTAB practice rules, the Board should give no
`
`
`
`
`weight to his testimony.
`
`For all the reasons set forth above and throughout this Response, Patent
`
`Owner respectfully requests that the Board issue a final written decision in favor of
`
`Patent Owner finding that Petitioner has not shown that Claims 1-19 of the ’671
`
`Patent are unpatentable.
`
`II. THE ’671 PATENT
`
`The ’671 Patent concerns a novel method, apparatus, and system for
`
`retrofitting a vehicle. Claim 10 is illustrative:
`
`10. [10.p] A vehicle, comprising:
`
`[10.1] a factory-installed first apparatus including a first
`
`processor, programmed to receive a first message
`
`via a vehicle data bus from a factory-installed
`
`second apparatus, the first message having a
`
`message identifier; and
`
`[10.2] a retrofit apparatus, operatively connected to the
`
`vehicle data bus, including a second processor
`
`programmed to send a second message having the
`
`same message identifier,
`
`[10.3] wherein the factory-installed first apparatus
`
`communicates with the retrofit apparatus through a
`
`second data bus.
`
`Ex. 1001, 12:10-21, identification elements in bracket added.
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00116
`Patent 9,871,671
`The ’671 Patent teaches a retrofit apparatus (exemplified as an emergency
`
`
`
`
`call apparatus) and its use in hacking a vehicle by sending spoofed messages.
`
`Many modern vehicles include a factory-installed first apparatus (e.g., a navigation
`
`system) that is connected to a second factory-installed apparatus (e.g., a
`
`telecommunication apparatus) via a vehicle data bus. To make the vehicle perform
`
`an action not originally enabled by its manufacturer, the ’671 Patent teaches adding
`
`a retrofit apparatus to the vehicle. See Ex. 1001, 2:48-53. The retrofit apparatus
`
`sends a spoofed (“mimicked”) message to the first apparatus. See Ex. 1001, 9:59-
`
`10:7.
`
`The ’671 Patent provides detailed instructions on how this spoofing is
`
`accomplished. It illustrates the structure of a vehicle network message (see Ex.
`
`1001, 10:30-35) and specifically discloses using the same message identifier for
`
`the spoofed message as has been assigned to the factory-installed first apparatus
`
`(see Ex. 1001, 9:63-64). Against the recognized standards of the time, the
`
`invention disclosed by the ’671 Patent does so while accepting possible message
`
`collisions, i.e., interference that occurs when two nodes on a data bus start
`
`transmitting at the same time. See Ex. 1001, 10:21-24; Ex. 2002, 31.
`
`The ’671 Patent shows block diagrams to teach the internal structure of a
`
`retrofit apparatus that can split an existing data bus into two separate busses and
`
`send spoofed messages. See Ex. 1001, Figs 6,7. The block diagrams are explained
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00116
`Patent 9,871,671
`in the specification. See Ex. 1001, 8:25-9:13. The ’671 Patent enables hacking pre-
`
`
`
`
`existing vehicles by providing detailed instructions not found in the prior art.
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`The Petition was filed after November 13, 2018, the date of the Office’s
`
`adoption of the Phillips claim construction standard for IPRs. The claims therefore
`
`must be construed “in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of
`
`such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution
`
`history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`
`A.
`
`“data bus”
`
`Petitioner proposes claim construction for the “data bus” based on expert
`
`testimony as “a contiguous network providing a communication channel for two or
`
`more modules.” Pet., 7. Petitioner’s proposed construction does not serve any
`
`discernable purpose. Petitioner defines the data bus as “a contiguous network,” but
`
`never uses the term “contiguous” again. Mr. Leale understands “contiguous” to
`
`simply mean “continuing, without break.” Ex. 2024, 17:2. But referring to a
`
`vehicle data bus as a “contiguous network” is confusing as that term has a specific
`
`meaning in other network technologies. See Ex. 2028, ¶21.
`
`Patent Owner submits that “bus” should be construed as defined in the
`
`applicable ISO-Standard 11898 as a “topology of a communication network, where
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00116
`Patent 9,871,671
`all nodes are reached by passive links which allow transmission in both
`
`
`
`
`directions.” See Ex. 2002, 2; Ex. 2028, ¶¶21-22.
`
`B.
`
`“adding a second data bus”
`
`Petitioner asks the Board to construe “adding a second bus” as “adding a
`
`communication channel.” Pet., 11. A second data bus does add a communication
`
`channel, but not every added communication channel is necessarily a second data
`
`bus. Petitioner's construction is overly broad. See Ex. 2028, ¶23.
`
`Petitioner states that “a POSITA would understand FIG. 4 and FIG. 7 [of the
`
`’671 Patent] as disclosing a vehicle data bus 212, and a separate, or second, data
`
`bus connecting the emergency call apparatus 214 and telecommunication apparatus
`
`200.” Pet., 10. While FIG. 4 and FIG. 7 taken together disclose a second vehicle
`
`data bus, FIG. 4 alone does not.
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00116
`Patent 9,871,671
`Only by disclosing the internal wiring of the emergency call (retrofit)
`
`
`
`
`apparatus in FIG. 7 and its associated description in the specification does the ’671
`
`Patent enable the reader to recognize that there is a separate, or second, data bus.
`
`The second data bus is present only because FIG. 7 shows that BUS1 and BUS2
`
`are wired to separate vehicle data bus interfaces 504, 700:
`
`
`
`The ’671 Patent recognized the need to teach the internal wiring of the
`
`emergency call (retrofit) apparatus 214 to enable a reader to practice the invention.
`
`FIG. 4 alone does not teach a second data bus. The description of FIG. 4 therefore
`
`explicitly refers to FIG. 7. See Ex. 1001, 7:63-64.
`
`In contrast, FIG. 6 shows a configuration in which BUS1 and BUS2 are
`
`connected together through a switch 606.
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00116
`Patent 9,871,671
`
`
`
`In the configuration of FIG. 6, a second data bus is present only while the
`
`switch 606 is open. While switch 606 is closed, the terminals 600 and 602 are
`
`wired together and there is no second communication channel, no discontinuity in
`
`the original data bus, and therefore no second data bus.
`
`“Adding a second bus” should be understood as “adding a second
`
`communication network which is electrically isolated from an existing first
`
`communication network.” See Ex. 2028, ¶¶23-25.
`
`C.
`
`“responds”
`
`Patent Owner does not recognize any disagreement with Petitioner as to
`
`what constitutes “responds” that would require clarification by the Board.
`
`D.
`
`“receives”
`
`Petitioner construes “receiving” messages too broadly. Negley’s Figure 8
`
`provides an overview of receiving CAN messages. See Ex. 1006, 11. Petitioner
`
`construes a message to be received when it arrives in the “Receive Assembly
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00116
`Patent 9,871,671
`Registers” block. Consequently, all nodes on a bus receive all messages, and
`
`
`
`
`“receiving a message” becomes meaningless to differentiate nodes. See Ex. 2028,
`
`¶26. Patent Owner construes a message to be received when it has passed the
`
`Message Filters/Masks block and is accepted in the “Receive Register” block so
`
`that a microcontroller can act on it.
`
`
`
`The ’671 Patent repeatedly refers to apparatuses being “configured to
`
`receive” (Ex. 1001, 2:25, 9:40, 9:53, 9:56) or “programmed to receive” (Ex. 1001,
`
`11:47, 12:12, 12:25, 12:30). This indicates that “receiving” requires configuration
`
`or programming. In case of a CAN bus this includes setting appropriate message
`
`filter masks in the “Message Filters/Masks” block between the “Receive Assembly
`
`Registers” and “Receive Register” block. See Ex. 2028, ¶27.
`
` 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00116
`Patent 9,871,671
`“Receive” should be construed as “accept.” This indicates, in the case of
`
`
`
`
`CAN, an acceptance of a message in a device’s receive register. In his deposition,
`
`Mr. Leale agreed that one could refer to “receiving a CAN message” when it
`
`arrives in the receive register. See Ex. 2024, 25:23-26:5; Ex. 2028, ¶27.
`
`This construction is consistent with Negley’s statement that “[e]ach node
`
`will most likely maintain different transmit buffer information and different filters
`
`that determine which messages to receive.” Ex. 1006, 15. It is consistent also with
`
`Munoz who claims a “device configured to receive input signals only from factory
`
`buttons, switches, and knobs.” Munoz, Claim 1, 8:22-23 and Claim 15, 9:59-60. If
`
`Petitioner’s construction of “receives” were applied, Munoz’s device, once
`
`connected to a bus, would “receive” all CAN messages and no longer fall within
`
`the scope of his claims.
`
`IV. PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`Patent Owner acknowledges the Board’s preliminary ruling that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would “have a bachelor’s degree in engineering with
`
`relevant coursework or post-secondary education (Bachelor’s or associate degree)
`
`and four years of work experience in the design, operation, and functioning of
`
`CAN systems.” Paper 12, 9. Patent Owner had previously maintained that a
`
`significantly higher level of experience would be appropriate. Here, Patent Owner
`
`has embraced the Board’s guidance and changed perspective to consider the prior
`
` 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00116
`Patent 9,871,671
`art from the viewpoint of an entry-level engineer or experienced technician in
`
`
`
`
`2007. Patent Owner has taken a hands-on approach, identifying practical
`
`challenges a POSITA would have had to confront when asked to practice Munoz’s
`
`invention and modify an existing convertible so that its roof could be opened while
`
`driving. The conclusions in this Response reflect this shift in perspective.
`
`V. BACKGROUND: HACKING VEHICLE NETWORKS
`
`It has become standard for modern vehicles to handle data traffic through a
`
`Controller Area Network bus, or CAN bus. One authority explains:
`
`At the heart of any modern vehicle’s interconnected
`
`systems is the Controller Area Network bus, or CAN bus.
`
`The CAN bus is a single, centralized network bus on
`
`which all of a vehicle’s data traffic is broadcast. The
`
`CAN bus carries everything from operator commands
`
`such as “roll down the windows” or “apply the brakes”,
`
`to readouts from sensors reporting engine temperature or
`
`tire pressure. The advent of the CAN bus brought about
`
`improvements in efficiency and a reduction in
`
`complexity while also reducing wiring costs.
`
`Ex. 2011, 5. CAN bus technology was first developed in the early 1980s:
`
`Development of the CAN bus protocol was begun in
`
`1983 by German company Robert Bosch GmbH. After
`
`three years of development, CAN bus technology hit the
`
` 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00116
`Patent 9,871,671
`public market in 1986, first showing up in the BMW 850
`
`
`
`
`coupe.
`
`Id., 9, citations omitted. At the time, B
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
