`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________________________
`
`DATASPEED INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SUCXESS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00147
`U.S. Patent No. 10,027,505
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U. S. PATENT NO. 10,027,505 UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319
`AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ET SEQ.
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`Notice of Lead and Backup Counsel and Service Information
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES AND PETITION REQUIREMENTS ................ 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
`Fees ........................................................................................................ 3
`E.
`III.
`IDENTIFICATION OF CLAIMS BEING CHALLENGED .......................... 3
`IV. THE PURPORTED INVENTION .................................................................. 4
`SUMMARY OF THE RELEVANT PROSECUTION HISTORY ................ 5
`V.
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 6
`A.
`Claim Construction................................................................................ 6
`1.
`“data bus” (claims 1, 4, 6, 9-10 and 13) ........................................... 6
`2.
`“responds” (claim 12) ...................................................................... 7
`VII. PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................... 8
`VIII. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PRIOR ART AND EVIDENCE OF CAN
`BUS STANDARDS......................................................................................... 8
`A. U.S. Patent No. 7,737,831 (“Munoz”) .................................................. 8
`B.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,812,832 (“Lobaza”) .................................................. 9
`C.
`Installation Manual For A Multimedia Interface 1280 (“Dietz”) ......... 9
`
`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
`
`D.
`(“Bosch”) ............................................................................................... 9
`E.
`17, #10 (“Negley”) ..............................................................................10
`F.
`(“SAE”) ...............................................................................................10
`G. U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2007/0016342 (“Allen”) ........................................10
`H. Background on Controlled Area Networks (CAN) Systems ..................11
`IX. PRECISE REASONS FOR THE RELIEF REQUESTED ...........................13
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-13 Are Rendered Obvious by Munoz alone
`or in view of Negley, SAE and Bosch ................................................13
`1.
`Independent Claim 1: A method comprising ...............................13
`2.
`second message uses the identifier of the first message. ...............21
`3.
`apparatus. ........................................................................................21
`4.
`vehicle data bus to the factory-installed first apparatus. ................22
`5.
`according to the method as in claim 1............................................23
`Independent Claim 6: A vehicle comprising: ...............................23
`6.
`7.
`second message with the same message identifier. .......................26
`
`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 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
`
`Dependent Claim 5: The vehicle that has been retrofitted
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Dependent Claim 8: The vehicle as in claim 6, wherein the
`
`Dependent Claim 9: The vehicle as in claim 6, wherein the
`
`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
`
`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
`
`8.
`message identifier is an 11 bit or 29 bit CAN ID. .........................28
`9.
`vehicle data bus is a CAN network. ...............................................28
`Independent Claim 10: A vehicle comprising: ..............................29
`10.
`11. Dependent Claim 11: The vehicle as in claim 10, wherein
`from the second apparatus. .............................................................31
`12. Dependent Claim 12: The vehicle as in claim 10, wherein
`receive from the factory-installed second apparatus. .....................31
`13. Dependent Claim 13: The vehicle as in claim 10, wherein
`disconnected from the vehicle data bus. ........................................32
`Lobaza .................................................................................................32
`1. Motivation for the Combination ....................................................32
`2.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`1.
`2.
`
`the factory-installed first apparatus is electrically
`
`Ground 2: Claims 14-16 Are Rendered Obvious by Munoz
`alone or in view of Negley, SAE and Bosch, further in view of
`
`Dependent Claims 14-16: 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 1-13 Are Rendered Obvious by Dietz in view
`
`parking aid system]. .......................................................................33
`of Negley, SAE, and Bosch .................................................................34
`Independent Claim 1. .....................................................................35
`Dependent Claim 2. ........................................................................42
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Dependent Claim 3. ........................................................................42
`3.
`Dependent Claim 4. ........................................................................43
`4.
`Dependent Claim 5. ........................................................................43
`5.
`Independent Claim 6 ......................................................................44
`6.
`Dependent Claim 7. ........................................................................45
`7.
`Dependent Claim 8. ........................................................................46
`8.
`Dependent Claim 9. ........................................................................47
`9.
`Independent Claim 10. ...................................................................47
`10.
`11. Dependent Claim 11. ......................................................................48
`12. Dependent Claim 12. ......................................................................48
`13. Dependent Claim 13. ......................................................................49
`D. Ground 4: Claims 1-13 Are Rendered Obvious by Dietz in view
`of Allen, Negley, SAE, and Bosch ......................................................49
`E.
`view of Negley, SAE, and Bosch, further in view of Lobaza .............51
`F.
`Lobaza .................................................................................................51
`1. Motivation for the Combination ....................................................51
`Dependent Claims 14-16. ...............................................................52
`2.
`G. Ground 7: Claims 6-12 Are Obvious Over Allen In View of
`Negley, SAE, and Bosch .....................................................................52
`1.
`Independent Claim 6 ......................................................................53
`1.
`Dependent Claim 7 .........................................................................58
`Dependent Claim 8. ........................................................................60
`2.
`
`Ground 6: Claims 14-16 Are Rendered Obvious by Dietz in
`view of Allen, Negley, SAE, and Bosch, further in view of
`
`Ground 5: Claims 14-16 Are Rendered Obvious by Dietz in
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Dependent Claim 9. ........................................................................60
`3.
`Independent Claim 10. ...................................................................60
`4.
`Dependent Claim 11. ......................................................................62
`5.
`Dependent Claim 12. ......................................................................62
`6.
`H. Ground 8: Claims 10 and 14-16 Are Obvious Over Lobaza in
`view of Allen, Negley, SAE, and Bosch .............................................63
`1. Motivation for the Combination ....................................................63
`2.
`Independent Claim 10. ...................................................................65
`Dependent Claims 14-16. ...............................................................67
`3.
`CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................67
`
`X.
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH 37 C.F.R. § 42.24
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit Description of Exhibit
`
`1001-1003 Reserved
`
`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. 10,027,505 (Ex. 1101), 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
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`Johansson, Vehicle Applications Of Controller Area Network,
`Handbook of Networked and Embedded Control Systems, 2005, pages
`741-765 (“Johansson”)
`
`Dietz Invoice dated October 21, 2005 to Perzan Auto Radio, Inc.,
`6409 Market Street, Upper Darby PA 19082 for Order No. 101505
`
`Archived Version of Ex. 1005 (“Dietz”), Archived on March 16,
`2005, Retrieved from Internet Archive
`(https://web.archive.org/web/20050316204956/http://www.tm-
`
`vi
`
`

`

`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
`
`1017
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Robert Leale
`
`1018
`
`U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2007/0016342 (“Allen”)
`
`1019
`
`Annotated Fig. 1 Allen
`
`1020-1100 Reserved
`
`1101
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,027,505 (the ’505 patent, or “Nix”)
`
`1102
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 10,027,505
`
`1103
`
`Declaration of Robert Leale (“Leale”)
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner Dataspeed, Inc. requests inter partes review of claims 1-16 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 10,027,505. This Petition has a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with
`
`respect to challenged claims 1-16. The ’505 patent is included as Ex. 1101, and
`
`this Petition is supported by the Declaration of Robert Leale, Ex. 1103 (“Leale”).
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES AND PETITION REQUIREMENTS
`A. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a))
`The ’505 patent is available for inter partes review. Petitioner is not barred
`
`or estopped from requesting inter partes review of the ’505 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))
`Sucxess filed a complaint against Voyage Auto Inc. alleging infringement of
`
`the ’505 patent. Sucxess LLC v. Voyage Auto, Inc., Case 1:19-cv-00679 (D. Del.
`
`Apr. 11, 2019). That case was voluntarily dismissed on June 17, 2019.
`
`Sucxess has also recently filed the following five complaints alleging
`
`infringement of the ’505 patent:
`
`- Sucxess LLC v. AutoX Techs., Inc., Case 1:19-cv-02121 (D. Del. Nov. 12,
`2019)
`
`- Sucxess LLC v. Phantom Auto Inc., Case 1:19-cv-02122 (D. Del. Nov. 12,
`2019)
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`- Sucxess LLC v. Pony.ai, Inc., Case 1:19-cv-02123 (D. Del. Nov. 12, 2019)
`
`- Sucxess LLC v. SF Motors, Inc. d/b/a Seres, Case 1:19-cv-02124 (D. Del.
`Nov. 12, 2019)
`
`- Sucxess LLC v. WeRide Corp., Case 1:19-cv-02130 (D. Del. Nov. 13, 2019).
`E. Fees
`The Director is authorized to charge any additional required fees to Deposit
`
`Account No. 50-1860 associated with Petitioner’s counsel.
`
`III.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CLAIMS BEING CHALLENGED
`Ground 1: Claims 1-13 are rendered obvious by Munoz1 alone or
`•
`in view of Negley,2 SAE,3 and Bosch. 4
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Ground 2: Claims 14-16 are rendered obvious by Munoz alone or
`in view of Negley, SAE, Bosch, further in view of Lobaza.5
`Ground 3: Claims 1-13 Are Rendered Obvious by Dietz6 in view
`of Negley, SAE, and Bosch.
`
`Ground 4: Claims 1-13 Are Rendered Obvious by Dietz in view of
`
`
`1 Ex. 1004, U.S. Patent No. 7,737,831 (Munoz).
`2 Ex. 1006: Negley, “Getting Control Through CAN,” Sensors, October 2000, Vol.
`17, #10.
`3 Ex. 1009, Szydlowski, “A Gateway For CAN Specification 2.0 Non-Passive
`Devices,” SAE Technical Paper Series, 930005.
`4 Ex. 1010, Robert Bosch GbmH, “CAN Specification, Version 2.0.”
`
`5 Ex. 1014, U.S. Patent No. 6,812,832 (Lobaza).
`6 Ex. 1005, Installation Manual For A Multimedia Interface 1280 (Dietz)
`
`3
`
`

`

`Allen,7 Negley, SAE, and Bosch.
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Ground 5: Claims 14-16 Are Rendered Obvious by Dietz in view
`of Negley, SAE, and Bosch, further in view of Lobaza.
`
`Ground 6: Claims 14-16 Are Rendered Obvious by Dietz in view
`of Allen, Negley, SAE, and Bosch, further in view of Lobaza.
`
`Ground 7: Claims 6-12 Are Rendered Obvious by Allen in view of
`Negley, SAE and Bosch.
`
`Ground 8: Claims 10 and 14-16 Are Rendered Obvious by Lobaza
`in view of Allen, Negley, SAE, and Bosch
`
`IV. THE PURPORTED INVENTION
`The ’505 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.8
`
`CAN bus protocols developed by Bosch in 1985 emerged as a standard for
`
`in-vehicle communication networks. See generally Bosch. A CAN bus system
`
`provides communication protocols used by Electronic Control Units (ECUs), also
`
`known as nodes, linked together on the CAN bus. The CAN bus system is
`
`
`7 Ex. 1017, U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2007/0016342 (Allen)
`8 The ’505 patent claims priority to application No. 11/742,574, filed on April 30,
`2007.
`
`4
`
`

`

`message-based and all messages transmitted over the CAN bus are seen by all
`
`ECUs on that bus. See Johansson,9 8; Negley, 4-7.
`
`The ’505 patent suggests a need for an aftermarket emergency call device
`
`for vehicles whose drivers were unsubscribed from “OnStar”-type services. See
`
`’505 patent, 1:13-17, 4:56-5:20. But the ’505 patent’s claims are much broader
`
`than this.
`
`V.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE RELEVANT PROSECUTION HISTORY
`The ’505 patent’s file history from PAIR is included as Ex. 1102.
`
`Application claims 17-19 (which issued as claims 14-16 (id., 110)), reciting pre-
`
`impact features dealing with detecting objects in front of a vehicle, automatic
`
`braking and use of a parking aid system, were rejected for failing to comply with
`
`the written description requirement. Id., 47-48. In response, Patent Owner
`
`copied—and added to the specification at 7:28 (“a pre-impact system 304”) and
`
`additional text at 7:34-58—material verbatim from Lobaza at 4:42-67 dealing with
`
`the pre-impact features. Id., 31, 43; see also Lobaza, 4:42-67. Patent Owner also
`
`modified Figs. 3 and 4 by adding a “pre-impact system block 304.” Cf. Ex. 1102,
`
`37, 42-43 with id., 102.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9 Ex. 1011: Johansson, Vehicle Applications Of Controller Area Network,
`Handbook of Networked and Embedded Control Systems, 2005, pages 741-765.
`
`5
`
`

`

`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A. Claim Construction
`The following constructions of the ’505 patent terms 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 with the
`
`Phillips claim construction standard and its progeny. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`
`1. “data bus” (claims 1, 4, 6, 9-10 and 13)
`Independent claims 1, 6, and 10 each recite a “data bus,” and this term also
`
`appears in dependent claims 4, 9, and 13. 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 ’505 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.” ’505 patent, 7:30-33; see also Lobaza,
`
`4:40-43 (providing the same disclosure to describe “vehicle’s data bus 108”). The
`
`’505 patent also illustrates a vehicle “data bus” as a network for connecting
`
`6
`
`

`

`apparatuses and providing a channel for data communications in various drawings,
`
`including FIGs. 2A, 2B, 2C, 3 and 4.
`
`Claim 9 of the ’505 patent also recites that the “vehicle data bus is a CAN
`
`network.” ’505 patent, 12:8-9. A POSITA at the time of the invention of the ’505
`
`patent would have understood the CAN acronym to stand for “Controller Area
`
`Network,” as developed by Bosch. See generally Bosch. This is consistent with
`
`the use of the term, “CAN bus” in other references that pre-date the ’505 patent’s
`
`earliest filing date, including Munoz, which 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.
`
`2. “responds” (claim 12)
`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.
`
`The CAN system is a message-based system where every node listens to
`
`every message on the bus. Negley, 6. A standard data frame of a CAN bus
`
`message includes an 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
`
`7
`
`

`

`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
`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.
`
`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 ’505 patent. Munoz
`
`was filed on February 6, 2007, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the ’505
`
`patent, and is prior art against the ’505 patent under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`8
`
`

`

`B. U.S. Patent No. 6,812,832 (“Lobaza”)
`As already introduced in Section V above, Lobaza is Applicant Admitted
`
`Prior Art (see ’505 patent, 1:36-38), and material from Lobaza was copied into the
`
`’505 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)
`
`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 ’505 patent, and Dietz’s publication date of November 30, 2004
`
`is more than one year prior to the earliest effective filing date of the ’505 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).10
`
`D. Robert Bosch GbmH, “CAN Specification, Version 2.0” (“Bosch”)
`A 1991 Bosch CAN Specification, referenced, as CAN 2.0A, which used or
`
`
`10 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.
`
`9
`
`

`

`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 ’505 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 ’505 patent. Negley
`
`was published in October 2000 in a Sensors publication more than one year prior
`
`to the earliest effective filing date of the ’505 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 ’505 patent. SAE was
`
`published in 1993, more than one year prior to the earliest effective filing date of
`
`the ’505 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. U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2007/0016342 (“Allen”)
`Allen was not of record during the prosecution of the ’505 patent. Allen was
`
`10
`
`

`

`filed on June 19, 2006, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the ’505 patent,
`
`and is prior art against the ’505 patent under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`H. Background on Controlled Area Networks (CAN) Systems
`The ’505 patent and the prior art all function using CAN systems. A
`
`POSITA would understand the operation of CAN systems to be 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 ’505 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.
`
`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 there is a match, and thereby determine if an
`
`11
`
`

`

`incoming message should be accepted and acted upon, or discarded. Negley, 6-7.
`
`Thus, the processor in a node A, for example, will receive a message, and run the
`
`bits of the message’s identifier field through the filters and masks of node A. If the
`
`identifier field of the message matches the filters and masks of node “A,” the
`
`message is acted upon by node A. Leale, ¶¶59-71.
`
`One known benefit of message-based protocols is that additional ECUs can
`
`be added to the system without needing to reprogram all other ECUs to recognize
`
`this addition. Leale, ¶63. The new ECU will receive a message from the network
`
`and, based on the message identifier filtered by its processor, decide whether a
`
`message is recognizable by its identifier, and process or discard the received
`
`message. Id. A POSITA would have known that messages sent on a CAN system
`
`would have conformed to CAN message protocols. Id.
`
`Using the CAN protocols, an ECU assembles a message with the proper
`
`identifier and data, checks to see if the bus is free, and then transmits the message.
`
`Leale, ¶67. Every other node captures the message and examines it to determine
`
`whether it is required to take some action. Leale, ¶¶70-71; Negley, 6-7, 9, 11-13.
`
`Consequently, under CAN protocols, if a factory-installed ECU processor does not
`
`see a matching message identifier in a sent message it will not act on that message.
`
`Thus, a POSITA would have understood that for any retrofit or aftermarket
`
`ECU to work with and send a recognizable messages to any factory-installed ECU
`
`12
`
`

`

`in an established CAN bus system, retrofit ECU messages would have used the
`
`factory-installed ECU’s message identifiers to effect an intended result, i.e., having
`
`a factory-installed ECU receive, recognize, accept, and act on a received message.
`
`Leale, ¶70.
`
`IX. PRECISE REASONS FOR THE RELIEF REQUESTED
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-13 Are Rendered Obvious by Munoz alone or in
`view of Negley, SAE and Bosch
`1. Independent Claim 1: A method comprising
`Munoz is directed to and discloses a method of adding a retrofit device to a
`
`vehicle. Munoz, 1:41-57 (disclosing “aftermarket automobile products” to be
`
`seamlessly integrated “with existing, factory automobile systems”).
`
`[a] providing 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;
`
`
`Munoz discloses providing a vehicle, Munoz, Fig. 1 (“automobile or truck”),
`
`with a factory-installed first apparatus 110 (“original electronics and actuators” to
`
`operate a factory-installed sunroof or folding roof) programmed to communicate
`
`with a factory-installed second apparatus 105 (“original dashboard, internal sensors
`
`and electronics”) through vehicle data bus 115 (“the original data connection”).
`
`Munoz, Fig. 1. The original data connection is shown as dotted line “C” in Ex.
`
`13
`
`

`

`1007, the annotated version of Munoz’s Fig. 1 shown below.
`
`
`
`
`
`Munoz discloses that these embodiments are directed towards “an
`
`aftermarket automobile accessory” that interfaces with vehicle ECUs and CAN
`
`busses. Munoz, Abst., 6:20-25.
`
`In accordance with Negley, Bosch, and SAE, a POSITA would understand
`
`that an ECU, such as the original dashboard electronics 105, retrofit roof control
`
`module 100, and original electronics 110, would have each included a processor to
`
`transmit, receive, filter, and process received messages over the CAN bus. Leale,
`
`¶134; see also SAE, 3 (“The Controller Area Network (CAN) protocol … offers a
`
`14
`
`

`

`comprehensive solution to managing communication between multiple CPUs.”);
`
`Negley, 7 (identifying the structure of a “typical smart sensor node” as including a
`
`Microcontroller); id. (“Every other node captures the message and examines it to
`
`see if it is required to take some action.”); Bosch, 6-16, 38-51, 58; id., 40
`
`(disclosing “all nodes in the network are able to decide by Message Filtering
`
`whether the data is to be acted upon by them or not.”) (emphasis added).
`
`A bus message sent by the 2nd factory-installed apparatus (105) directed to
`
`1st factory-installed apparatus (110) to control the roof (e.g., steps 312 and 314 of
`
`Fig. 3) would have included a message identifier that the 1st factory-installed
`
`apparatus 110 would have recognized, accepted, and acted on in conformance with
`
`CAN message protocols. Leale, ¶¶53-85, 133-45. In accordance with Negley,
`
`Bosch, and SAE, a POSITA would have known that CAN message protocols use
`
`message identifier bits and a bus message transmitted by the 2nd factory-installed
`
`apparatus 105 to the 1st factory-installed apparatus 110 would have constituted a
`
`“first message having an identifier” of claim 1. Id.
`
`To the extent this “first message having an identifier” is not clearly disclosed
`
`by Munoz when viewed in light of the knowledge possessed by a POSITA, it
`
`would have been obvious to complement Munoz’s teachings with the standard
`
`CAN bus teachings of Negley, SAE, and Bosch. In view of these references’
`
`specific teachings identified above, a POSITA would have understood that a bus
`
`15
`
`

`

`message transmitted by the 2nd factory-installed apparatus 105 to the 1st factory-
`
`installed apparatus 110 in Munoz’s CAN bus system would have constituted a
`
`“first message having an identifier” of claim 1 so the apparatus 110 would have
`
`acted on the message. By the time of the purported invention, use of CAN
`
`message identifiers was well known and standard in the CAN bus system. See
`
`Negley, 6-7, 9, 11-13; Leale, ¶¶53-85.
`
`Reasons for using the same CAN bus message identifier by factory-installed
`
`and retrofit devices, to control other ECUs, are many. First, the CAN bus
`
`protocols had been established for many years for message-based systems, and a
`
`POSITA would have chosen to operate using established CAN system protocols.
`
`Leale, ¶61; Bosch, 6-16, 38-51, 58. Second, data frame structure is fixed, and
`
`includes an identifier field having message identifiers. Leale, ¶55.