`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________________________
`
`DATASPEED INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SUCXESS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00116
`U.S. Patent No. 9,871,671
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U. S. PATENT NO. 9,871,671 UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319
`AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ET SEQ.
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Notice of Lead and Backup Counsel and Service Information
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CLAIMS BEING CHALLENGED (37 C.F.R. §
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`REQUIREMENTS FOR AN INTER PARTES REVIEW PETITION ............ 1
`A. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)) ..................................... 1
`B.
`(37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)) ........................................................................ 1
`C.
`Notice of Real-Parties-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) .................. 2
`D. Notice of Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) .............................. 2
`Fee for Inter Partes Review .................................................................. 2
`E.
`III.
`42.104(B)) ........................................................................................................ 3
`A.
`For U.S. Patent No. 9,871,671 .............................................................. 3
`IV. THE PURPORTED INVENTION .................................................................. 3
`A.
`The Background of the ’671 Patent ...................................................... 3
`B.
`The Purported Solution ......................................................................... 4
`V.
`SUMMARY OF THE RELEVANT PROSECUTION HISTORY ................ 5
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 6
`A.
`Claim Construction................................................................................ 6
`1.
`“data bus” (claims 1, 4, 6, 9-10, 13-15, 19) ..................................... 7
`2.
`data bus is added to the vehicle during a retrofit” (claim 19) ........10
`3.
`“responds” (claim 12) ....................................................................11
`VII. PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .............................12
`
`“adding a second data bus” (claim 1) / “wherein the second
`
`i
`
`

`

`Robert Bosch GbmH, “CAN Specification, Version 2.0”
`
`“Getting Control Through CAN,” Sensors, October 2000, Vol.
`
`SAE Technical Paper Series, 930005, “A Gateway For CAN
`Specification 2.0 Non-Passive Devices,” by Szydlowski
`
`Dependent Claim 2: The method as in claim 1, wherein the
`
`Dependent Claim 3: The method as in claim 1, further
`comprising receiving the first message in the retrofit
`
`VIII. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PRIOR ART AND EVIDENCE OF CAN
`BUS STANDARDS.......................................................................................13
`A. U.S. Patent No. 7,737,831 (“Munoz”) ................................................13
`B.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,812,832 (“Lobaza”) ................................................13
`C.
`Installation Manual For A Multimedia Interface 1280 (“Dietz”) .......13
`D.
`(“Bosch”) .............................................................................................14
`E.
`17, #10 (“Negley”) ..............................................................................14
`F.
`(“SAE”) ...............................................................................................15
`Background on Controlled Area Networks (CAN) Systems ..............15
`G.
`IX. PRECISE REASONS FOR THE RELIEF REQUESTED ...........................18
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-15 and 19 Are Rendered Obvious by
`Munoz alone or in view of Negley, SAE and Bosch ..........................18
`1.
`Independent Claim 1: A method comprising ...............................18
`2.
`second message uses the identifier of the first message. ...............26
`3.
`apparatus. ........................................................................................27
`4.
`through the second data bus. ..........................................................27
`5.
`according to the method as in claim 1............................................28
`Independent Claim 6: A vehicle comprising: ...............................28
`6.
`
`Dependent Claim 4: The method as in claim 3, wherein the
`retrofit apparatus re-transmits messages received on the
`vehicle data bus to the factory-installed first apparatus
`
`Dependent Claim 5: The vehicle that has been retrofitted
`
`ii
`
`

`

`7.
`
`Dependent Claim 7: The vehicle as in claim 6, 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
`
`Dependent Claim 8: The vehicle as in claim 6, wherein the
`
`Dependent Claim 9: The vehicle as in claim 6, wherein the
`
`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
`
`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
`
`second message with the same message identifier. .......................32
`8.
`message identifier is an 11 bit or 29 bit CAN ID. .........................33
`9.
`vehicle data bus is a CAN network. ...............................................34
`Independent Claim 10: A vehicle comprising: ..............................34
`10.
`11. Dependent Claim 11: The method as in claim 10, wherein
`from the second apparatus. .............................................................37
`12. Dependent Claim 12: The method as in claim 10, wherein
`receive from the factory-installed second apparatus. .....................38
`13. Dependent Claim 13: The method as in claim 10, wherein
`disconnected from the vehicle data bus. ........................................38
`14. Dependent Claim 14: The method as in claim 10, wherein
`messages from the vehicle data bus. ..............................................39
`15. Dependent Claim 15: The method as in claim 10, wherein
`to the vehicle data bus. ...................................................................39
`16. Dependent Claim 19: The method as in claim 10, wherein
`the second data bus is added to the vehicle during a retrofit. ........41
`
`the factory-installed first apparatus is electrically
`
`the retrofit apparatus is a gateway through which the
`factory-installed first apparatus transmits and/or receives
`
`the retrofit apparatus selectively suppresses forwarding
`messages received from the factory-installed first apparatus
`
`iii
`
`

`

`B.
`
`C.
`
`1.
`2.
`3.
`4.
`5.
`6.
`7.
`
`8.
`
`Ground 2: Claims 16-18 Are Rendered Obvious by Munoz
`alone or in view of Negley, SAE and Bosch, further in view of
`
`Lobaza .................................................................................................41
`1. Motivation for the Combination ....................................................41
`2.
`
`Dependent Claims 16-18: The vehicle as in claim 10,
`wherein the factory-installed second apparatus is [an object
`sensor capable of detecting objects in a frontal area of the
`vehicle/part of an automatic braking system/part of a
`
`Ground 3: Claims 1-15 and 19 Are Rendered Obvious by Dietz
`
`parking aid system]. .......................................................................43
`in view of Negley, SAE, and Bosch ....................................................43
`Independent Claim 1: A method comprising: ...............................44
`second message uses the identifier of the first message. ...............51
`apparatus. ........................................................................................52
`through the second data bus. ..........................................................53
`according to the method as in claim 1............................................53
`Independent Claim 6: A vehicle comprising: ...............................53
`second message with the same message identifier. .......................55
`message identifier is an 11 bit or 29 bit CAN ID. .........................56
`
`Dependent Claim 2: The method as in claim 1, wherein the
`
`Dependent Claim 3: The method as in claim 1, further
`comprising receiving the first message in the retrofit
`
`Dependent Claim 4: The method as in claim 3, wherein the
`retrofit apparatus re-transmits messages received on the
`vehicle data bus to the factory-installed first apparatus
`
`Dependent Claim 5: The vehicle that has been retrofitted
`
`Dependent Claim 7: The vehicle as in claim 6, 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
`
`Dependent Claim 8: The vehicle as in claim 6, wherein the
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Dependent Claim 9: The vehicle as in claim 6, wherein the
`
`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
`
`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
`
`9.
`vehicle data bus is a CAN network. ...............................................57
`Independent Claim 10: A vehicle comprising: .............................57
`10.
`11. Dependent Claim 11: The vehicle as in claim 10, wherein
`from the second apparatus. .............................................................58
`12. Dependent Claim 12: The vehicle as in claim 10, wherein
`receive from the factory-installed second apparatus. .....................59
`13. Dependent Claim 13: The vehicle as in claim 10, wherein
`disconnected from the vehicle data bus. ........................................60
`14. Dependent Claim 14: The vehicle as in claim 10, wherein
`messages from the vehicle data bus. ..............................................60
`15. Dependent Claim 15: The vehicle as in claim 10, wherein
`to the vehicle data bus. ...................................................................61
`19. Dependent Claim 19: The method as in claim 10, wherein
`the second data bus is added to the vehicle during a retrofit. ........63
`D. Ground 4: Claims 16-18 Are Rendered Obvious by Dietz in
`view of Negley, SAE, and Bosch, further in view of Lobaza .............63
`1. Motivation for the Combination ....................................................63
`2.
`
`the factory-installed first apparatus is electrically
`
`the retrofit apparatus is a gateway through which the
`factory-installed first apparatus transmits and/or receives
`
`the retrofit apparatus selectively suppresses forwarding
`messages received from the factory-installed first apparatus
`
`Dependent Claims 16-18: The vehicle as in claim 10,
`wherein the factory-installed second apparatus is [an object
`sensor capable of detecting objects in a frontal area of the
`
`v
`
`

`

`vehicle/part of an automatic braking system/part of a
`
`parking aid system]. .......................................................................64
`CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................65
`
`X.
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH 37 C.F. R. § 42.24
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit Description of Exhibit
`
`1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,871,671 (the ’671 patent, or “Nix”)
`
`1002
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 9,871,671
`
`1003
`
`Declaration of Robert Leale (“Leale”)
`
`1004
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,737,831 to Munoz (“Munoz”)
`
`1005
`
`Installation Manual For A Multimedia Interface 1280 (“Dietz”)
`
`1006
`
`“Getting Control Through CAN,” Sensors, October 2000, Vol. 17,
`#10 (“Negley”)
`
`1007
`
`Annotated Version of Munoz (Ex. 1004), Fig. 1
`
`1008
`
`Annotated Version of U.S. Patent No. 9,871,671 (Ex. 1001), Fig. 4
`
`1009
`
`SAE Technical Paper Series, 930005, “A Gateway For CAN
`Specification 2.0 Non-Passive Devices,” by Szydlowski (“SAE”)
`
`1010
`
`Robert Bosch GbmH, “CAN Specification, Version 2.0” (“Bosch”)
`
`1011
`
`Johansson, Vehicle Applications Of Controller Area Network,
`Handbook of Networked and Embedded Control Systems, 2005, pages
`741-765 (“Johansson”)
`
`1012
`
`Dietz Invoice dated October 21, 2005 to Perzan Auto Radio, Inc.,
`6409 Market Street, Upper Darby PA 19082 for Order No. 101505
`
`vii
`
`

`

`1013
`
`Archived Version of Ex. 1005 (“Dietz”), Archived on March 16,
`2005, Retrieved from Internet Archive
`(https://web.archive.org/web/20050316204956/http://www.tm-
`techmark.com/touareg/PDFfiles/1280anl.pdf)
`
`1014
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,812,832 to Lobaza et al. (“Lobaza”)
`
`1015
`
`Taube, Comparison of CAN Gateway Module For Automotive And
`Industrial Control Apparatus, CAN In Automation 2005
`
`1016
`
`Annotated Version of Dietz’s Illustration
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`On behalf of Dataspeed, Inc. (“Petitioner”) and in accordance with 35
`
`U.S.C. § 311 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100, inter partes review of claims 1-19 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 9,871,671 to Nix (the “’671 patent”) is requested. This Petition has a
`
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of claims 1-19 of
`
`the’671 patent. A copy of the ’671 patent is provided as Ex. 1001, and this Petition
`
`is supported by the Declaration of Robert Leale, Ex. 1003 (hereinafter “Leale”).
`
`II. REQUIREMENTS FOR AN INTER PARTES REVIEW PETITION
`A. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a))
`Petitioner certifies that the ’671 patent is available for inter partes review,
`
`and Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review
`
`challenging claims of the ’671 patent.
`
`B. Notice of Lead and Backup Counsel and Service Information (37
`C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3))
`Lead Counsel:
`
`Peter W. Gowdey (Reg. No. 25,872)
`pgowdey@dbjg.com
`Davidson Berquist Jackson & Gowdey, LLP
`8300 Greensboro Drive, Suite 500
`McLean, Virginia 22102
`Tel: 571-765-7700
`Fax: 571-765-7200
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Backup Counsel:
`
`Wayne M. Helge (Reg. No. 56,905)
`whelge@dbjg.com
`James T. Wilson (Reg. No. 41,439)
`jwilson@dbjg.com
`Davidson Berquist Jackson & Gowdey, LLP
`8300 Greensboro Drive, Suite 500
`McLean, Virginia 22102
`Tel: 571-765-7700
`Fax: 571-765-7200
`
`Petitioner consents to service by electronic mail to counsel’s email addresses
`
`
`
`listed above, with a copy also sent to ESong@dbjg.com. A Power of Attorney
`
`executed by Petitioner’s authorized representative is filed concurrently herewith.
`
`C. Notice of Real-Parties-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`Dataspeed, Inc. is the sole real party-in-interest.
`
`D. Notice of Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`None.
`
`E. Fee for Inter Partes Review
`The Director is authorized to charge any extra fee specified by 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.15(a) to the deposit account of Petitioner’s counsel, Deposit Account No. 50-
`
`1860.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`III.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CLAIMS BEING CHALLENGED (37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(B))
`For U.S. Patent No. 9,871,671
`A.
`Ground 1: Claims 1- 15 and 19 are rendered obvious by Munoz1
`alone or in view of Negley, 2 SAE,3 and Bosch; 4
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Ground 2: Claims 16-18 are rendered obvious by Munoz alone or
`in view of Negley, SAE, Bosch, further in view of Lobaza;5
`Ground 3: Claims 1-15 and 19 Are Rendered Obvious by Dietz6 in
`view of Negley, SAE, and Bosch; and
`
`Ground 4: Claims 16-18 Are Rendered Obvious by Dietz in view
`of Negley, SAE, and Bosch, further in view of Lobaza.
`
`IV. THE PURPORTED INVENTION
`A. The Background of the ’671 Patent
`The ’671 patent has an earliest effective U.S. filing date of April 30, 2007,
`
`and refers to automobile systems operating on a Controller Area Network (CAN)
`
`bus.7
`
`
`1 Ex. 1004, U.S. Patent No. 7,737,831 to Munoz.
`2 Ex. 1006: “Getting Control Through CAN,” Sensors, October 2000, Vol. 17, #10.
`3 Ex. 1009, SAE Technical Paper Series, 930005, “A Gateway For CAN
`Specification 2.0 Non-Passive Devices,” by Szydlowski.
`4 Ex. 1010, Robert Bosch GbmH, “CAN Specification, Version 2.0.”
`5 Ex. 1014, U.S. Patent No. 6,812,832 to Lobaza et al.
`6 Ex. 1005, Installation Manual For A Multimedia Interface 1280
`7 The ’671 patent is a continuation of application No. 14/846,811, which is a
`continuation of application No. 11/742,574, filed on April 30, 2007.
`
`3
`
`

`

`In 1985, Robert Bosch GmbH developed the Controller Area Network
`
`(CAN), which has emerged as the standard in-vehicle communication network.
`
`See generally Bosch. A CAN bus system provides a serial bus communication
`
`protocol used by Electronic Control Units (ECUs), also referred to as nodes. CAN
`
`protocols create a communication path linking all ECUs on the bus, enabling them
`
`to communicate with each other. The CAN bus system is a message-based system
`
`and all messages transmitted over the CAN bus are seen by all ECUs on that bus.
`
`See Johansson,8 8; Negley, 4-7.
`
`The ‘671 patent suggests that an aftermarket emergency call device was
`
`needed for vehicle owners who stopped paying subscription fees for “On Star”
`
`type services. See ’671 patent, 1:13-17, 4:56-5:20. However, the challenged
`
`claims are much broader.
`
`B. The Purported Solution
`Independent claim 6 calls for a vehicle having 1st factory-installed device,
`
`with a processor programmed to receive a 1st message having a message identifier
`
`from a 2nd factory-installed device over a vehicle data bus, a retrofit device with a
`
`processor connected to the vehicle data bus, and the retrofit device’s processor is
`
`programmed to transmit a 2nd message through a 2nd data bus that mimics the 1st
`
`
`8 Ex. 1011: Johansson, Vehicle Applications Of Controller Area Network,
`Handbook of Networked and Embedded Control Systems, 2005, pages 741-765.
`
`4
`
`

`

`message. Independent claim 10 claims a similarly-structured vehicle.
`
`Independent claim 1 claims a method of electrically disconnecting a vehicle
`
`data bus between two factory-installed apparatuses, and installing a retrofit device
`
`at the disconnection point to achieve a structure similar to that claimed in claims 6
`
`and 10.
`
`Dependent claims 16-18 (formerly dependent application claims 17-19,
`
`discussed below) include elements copied directly from Applicant’s Admitted
`
`Prior Art (“AAPA”), Lobaza.
`
`V.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE RELEVANT PROSECUTION HISTORY
`A copy of the ’67 patent’s file history, accessed from PAIR, is provided as
`
`Exhibit 1002. The ’671 patent as originally filed on April 9, 2017 included 19
`
`claims. Ex. 1002, 121-23.
`
`The May 23, 2017office action rejected claims 1-7, 9-13, and 17-19, and
`
`objected to claims 8 and 14-16. Application claims 17-19 claimed the second
`
`factory-installed apparatus as having, respectively, pre-impact limitations dealing
`
`with detecting objects in front of a vehicle, automatic braking and use of a parking
`
`aid system. These claims were rejected under 35 USC 112(a), first paragraph, for
`
`failing to comply with the written description requirement. Ex. 1002, 71.
`
`In a May 25, 2017 response, the applicant addressed the §112 rejection by
`
`copying, verbatim from Lobaza at 4:44-67, material dealing with a pre-impact
`
`5
`
`

`

`sensing system detecting objects in front of a vehicle, automatic braking, and aided
`
`parking. Ex. 1002, 58. The copied material was added to the specification at 7:28
`
`[“a pre-impact system 304”], and additional text at 7:34-58. The applicant also
`
`modified Figs. 3 and 4 by adding a “pre-impact system block 304.” Id. The
`
`applicant also argued that Kennedy did not show the claimed limitations, despite
`
`the clear fact that Lobaza did show those claimed features. Id., 59. These
`
`application claims 17-19 issued as claims 16-18, reciting features drawn from
`
`Lobaza.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`The Board uses the same claim construction standard used by Article III
`
`federal courts, which is set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2005) (en banc) and its progeny, and includes “construing the claim 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.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`
`A. Claim Construction
`The correct constructions of the ’671 patent terms are provided below.
`
`These constructions are consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the
`
`claims as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”)
`
`at the time of the invention, and the Phillips claim construction standard.
`
`6
`
`

`

`“data bus” (claims 1, 4, 6, 9-10, 13-15, 19)
`1.
`Independent claims 1, 6, and 10 each recite a “data bus,” and this term also
`
`appears in dependent claims 4, 9, 13-15, and 19. Construed in view of the
`
`specification and prosecution history, a POSITA would understand a “data bus” to
`
`refer to “a contiguous network providing a communication channel for two or
`
`more modules.” Leale, ¶59.
`
`The ’671 patent specification does not define a “data bus” but generally
`
`discloses a vehicle data bus as a network connecting a variety of apparatuses for
`
`electronic data communications. In one exemplary embodiment, the “data bus 212
`
`… may be a Class 2 or CAN vehicle data bus or any other suitable bus known in
`
`the art for electronic data communication.” ’671 patent, 7:30-33; see also Lobaza,
`
`4:40-43 (providing the same disclosure to describe “vehicle’s data bus 108”). The
`
`’671 patent also illustrates a vehicle “data bus” as a network for connecting
`
`apparatuses and providing a channel for data communications in various drawings,
`
`including FIGs. 2A, 2B, 2C, 3 and 4.
`
`Claim 9 of the ’671 patent also recites that the “vehicle data bus is a CAN
`
`network.” ’671 patent, 12:8-9. A POSITA at the time of the invention of the ’671
`
`patent would have understood the CAN acronym to stand for “Controller Area
`
`Network,” as developed by Robert Bosch GmbH. See generally Bosch. This is
`
`consistent with the use of the term, “CAN bus” in other references that pre-date the
`
`7
`
`

`

`’671 patent’s earliest filing date, including Munoz, who defines a “CAN-bus” as “a
`
`broadcast differential serial bus that has been incorporated as a standard interface
`
`on numerous automobile systems.” Munoz, 1:31-33.
`
`At the time of the ’671 patent’s date of invention, a POSITA would have
`
`understood that a “data bus” provides a channel between modules directly
`
`connected to the bus. Leale, ¶59. However, a discontinuity in the channel or
`
`network defines a limit of the data bus. This is also consistent with the ’671
`
`patent.
`
`FIG. 4 of the ’671 patent illustrates an embodiment of a vehicle
`
`communication system in which the “telecommunication apparatus 200 is in
`
`communication with vehicle data bus 212 using an indirect connection made
`
`t[h]rough emergency call apparatus [214], as will be explained in more detail with
`
`respect to FIG. 6 and FIG. 7.” ’671 patent, 7:59-64 (emphasis added).
`
`8
`
`

`

`Describing FIG. 7, the ’671 patent explains that the emergency call
`
`
`
`apparatus 214/710 includes two separate bus interfaces: one bus interface 700 to
`
`communicate with the electronic modules connected to vehicle data bus 212, and
`
`the other bus interface 504 to communicate with the telecommunication apparatus
`
`200 via a separate bus. Id., 8:60-67.
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`These separate bus interfaces are “electrically insulated from each other,”
`
`and during normal operation, the emergency call apparatus 214/710’s control
`
`processor 500 acts “as a bidirectional gateway between” the separate bus
`
`interfaces. Id., 9:1-7. These disclosures confirm to a POSITA that the data bus
`
`connecting the telecommunications apparatus 200 and the emergency call
`
`apparatus 214/710 is not part of the vehicle data bus 212, but instead is a separate,
`
`or second, data bus, accessed via a separate bus interface 504. Ex. 1003, ¶¶100-05.
`
`Therefore, a POSITA would understand FIG. 4 and FIG. 7 as disclosing a vehicle
`
`data bus 212, and a separate, or second, data bus connecting the emergency call
`
`apparatus 214 and telecommunication apparatus 200. Id.
`
`2.
`
`“adding a second data bus” (claim 1) / “wherein the second
`data bus is added to the vehicle during a retrofit” (claim 19)
`Claims 1 and 19 each recite claim language directed to adding a second data
`
`bus. The “adding a second bus” step of claim 1 should be construed by the Board
`
`10
`
`

`

`as “adding a communication channel.” Leale, ¶59. The ’671 patent does not
`
`define the claimed term of “adding a second bus,” or comparable language.
`
`However, claim 1’s step of “adding a second bus,” and corresponding disclosure in
`
`the specification, neither requires nor precludes the installation of additional
`
`physical wiring serving as the second bus’s conductor. See ’671 patent, 9:47-
`
`10:15. Rather, the step of adding second data bus provides a communication
`
`channel between the 1st factory-installed apparatus (200) and the retrofit apparatus
`
`(214). Leale, ¶¶98-105.
`
`This interpretation is consistent with the specification’s discussion of adding
`
`a retrofit emergency call apparatus: “During the retrofit….. the electrical
`
`connection between the emergency call push button switch and the
`
`telecommunication apparatus is separated and the emergency call push button
`
`switch is rewired and connected to the emergency call apparatus.” ’671 patent,
`
`2:48-53, 6:65-7:24. The addition of the retrofit apparatus between two existing
`
`apparatuses includes rewiring of the existing electrical connections, but does not
`
`expressly require the installation of additional wiring.
`
`“responds” (claim 12)
`3.
`The word “responds” should be interpreted to mean “act on” which is
`
`consistent with the understanding of a POSITA in the field of CAN systems.
`
`Leale, ¶63; Negley, 6-7, 13, Figure 8.
`
`11
`
`

`

`The CAN system is a message-based system where every node listens to
`
`every message on the bus. Id., 6. A standard data frame of a CAN bus message
`
`includes a identifier field of 11 or 29 bits as a message identifier, and nodes use the
`
`identifier field to determine if a message should be acted on. Id., Figure 6, Figure
`
`8. To distinguish between messages on the bus the processor in an ECU will
`
`check the message identifier field against filter and mask registers to see if there is
`
`a match and to determine if an incoming message should be accepted and acted
`
`upon. Id., 9-12.
`
`VII. PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`As explained in M.P.E.P. § 2141.03, a number of factors may be considered
`
`in determining the proper level of skill of a POSITA:
`
` (A) “type of problems encountered in the art;” (B) “prior art
`solutions to those problems;” (C) “rapidity with which
`innovations are made;” (D) “sophistication of the technology;
`and” (E) “educational level of active workers in the field.
`A POSITA at the time of the purported invention would have had a
`
`bachelor’s degree in engineering with relevant coursework, or at least two years of
`
`work experience in the design, operation, and functioning of CAN systems. Leale,
`
`¶51. Additional work experience could substitute for a bachelor’s degree, and
`
`additional education or training could substitute in part for work experience. Id.
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`VIII. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PRIOR ART AND EVIDENCE OF
`CAN BUS STANDARDS
` “A reference will be considered publicly accessible if it was disseminated or
`
`otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled
`
`in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.” GoPro,
`
`Inc. v. Contour IP Holding LLC, 908 F.3d 690, 693 (Fed. Cir. 2018). As discussed
`
`below, each prior art reference relied upon was publicly accessible under this
`
`standard.
`
`A. U.S. Patent No. 7,737,831 (“Munoz”)
`Munoz was not of record during the prosecution of the ’671 patent. Munoz
`
`was filed on February 6, 2007, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the ’671
`
`patent, and is prior art against the ’671 patent under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`B. U.S. Patent No. 6,812,832 (“Lobaza”)
`As already introduced in Section V above, Lobaza is Applicant Admitted
`
`Prior Art (see ’671 patent, 1:36-38), and material from Lobaza was copied into the
`
`’671 patent specification during prosecution. Lobaza issued on Nov. 2, 2004.
`
`C. Installation Manual For A Multimedia Interface 1280 (“Dietz”)
`Audiotechnik Dietz Vertrieba GmbH, Benzstrasse 12 D-67269 Gruntadt,
`
`sold a retrofit 1280 multimedia interface for playing TV in a moving vehicle and
`
`provided to its customers a six-page installation guide (in German and English)
`
`13
`
`

`

`dated “30.11.04” (November 30, 2004). This guide (“Dietz”) is submitted as Ex.
`
`1005. Neither Dietz nor the 1280 Multimedia Interface was of record during the
`
`prosecution of the ’671 patent, and Dietz’s publication date of November 30, 2004
`
`is more than one year prior to the earliest effective filing date of the ’671 patent.
`
`Dietz was publicly accessible at least as early as October 21, 2005. Leale, ¶¶28-
`
`30. Dietz is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and (b).9
`
`D. Robert Bosch GbmH, “CAN Specification, Version 2.0” (“Bosch”)
`This 1991 Bosch CAN Specification, referenced as CAN 2.0A, used or
`
`supported an 11-bit or standard identifier. In 1995, Bosch modified the protocol
`
`and introduced CAN 2.0B that supported an extended 29-bit identifier. The CAN
`
`protocol was internationally standardized in 1993 as ISO 11898-1. See Johansson,
`
`10. Bosch was publicly accessible at least as early as December 2005, more than
`
`one year prior to the earliest effective filing date of the ’671 patent. Leale, ¶¶35-
`
`36. Bosch is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and (b).
`
`E. “Getting Control Through CAN,” Sensors, October 2000, Vol. 17,
`#10 (“Negley”)
`Negley was not of record during the prosecution of the ’671 patent. Negley
`
`9 Ex. 1012 is an Invoice dated October 21, 2005 to Perzan Auto Radio, Inc., 6409
`
`Market Street, Upper Darby PA 19082 for an Order No. 101505, that included a
`
`U.S. sale of Dietz’s Multimedia Interface 1280.
`
`14
`
`

`

`was published in October 2000 in a Sensors publication more than one year prior
`
`to the earliest effective filing date of the ’671 patent. Leale, ¶¶31-33. Negley is
`
`prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and (b).
`
`F. SAE Technical Paper Series, 930005, “A Gateway For CAN
`Specification 2.0 Non-Passive Devices,” by Szydlowski (“SAE”)
`SAE was not of record during the prosecution of the ’671 patent. SAE was
`
`published in 1993, more than one year prior to the earliest effective filing date of
`
`the ’671 patent, and was publicly accessible at least as early as 1993. Leale, ¶34.
`
`SAE is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and (b).
`
`G. Background on Controlled Area Networks (CAN) Systems
`The ’671 patent and the prior art all function using “Controlled Area
`
`Networks” or CAN communication systems. A POSITA would understand the
`
`operation of CAN systems according to the protocols disclosed in Bosch, Negley,
`
`and SAE. These references provide evidence of the state of knowledge in the art
`
`as of the ’671 patent’s earliest effective filing date. Leale, ¶43.
`
`A POSITA would have understood that CAN systems employ well-known
`
`protocols in a message-based system using four types of frames that have a unique
`
`and fixed structure, including data frames that are used to broadcast data from a
`
`transmitter to the other nodes on a CAN bus and include an identifier field using
`
`identifier bits as a message identifier. See Bosch, 12-13, 45-47; Leale, ¶55.
`
`15
`
`

`

`ECUs connected to a CAN bus have a processor that converts received data
`
`from a CAN bus level to a level the CAN controller uses, and converts transmitted
`
`data from the CAN controller level to the CAN bus level. Leale, ¶¶40-43; Negley,
`
`4-7.
`
`ECUs on the CAN bus receive all messages transmitted over the CAN bus
`
`and examine the identifier field so that the identifier bits can be compared against
`
`the ECU’s filters and masks to see if ther