Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper No. 23
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`DATASPEED INC.
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SUCXESS LLC.
`
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2020-00268
`Patent 10,454,707 B2
`____________
`
`Record Oral Hearing
` Held: February 11, 2021
`____________
`
`
`
`Before TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, MINN CHUNG, and
`NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper No. 23
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`DATASPEED INC.
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SUCXESS LLC.
`
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2020-00268
`Patent 10,454,707 B2
`____________
`
`Record Oral Hearing
` Held: February 11, 2021
`____________
`
`
`
`Before TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, MINN CHUNG, and
`NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00268
`Patent 10,454,707 B2
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`PETER GOWDEY, ESQ.
`WAYNE HELGE, ESQ.JAMES WILSON, ESQ.
`Davidson Berquist Jackson & Gowdey, LLP
`8300 Greensboro Drive, Suite 500
`McLean, Virginia 22102
`(571) 765-7700
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`ALEX NIX, ESQ.
`MAXWELL GOSS, ESQ.
`Millman IP
`401 Bay Street, Suite 2108
`Box 60, Toronto, Ontario
`Canada M5H 2Y4
`(416) 363-2775
`
`
`
` The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday, February
`11, 2021, commencing at 2:52 p.m. EDT, by video/by telephone.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00268
`Patent 10,454,707 B2
`
`
`PROCEEDINGS
`- - - - -
` JUDGE JEFFERSON: Good afternoon. This is Judge Jefferson.
`With me are Judges Chung and Engels. I had a little brief interruption of my
`video feed so I’m going to proceed under the guise that I think everybody
`can hear me and see me. So I will continue; is that correct?
`MR. WILSON: We can hear you, Your Honor.
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Okay. Thank you. So we’re back on the
`record. We’re here for IPR 2020-00268. This will conclude our sort of joint
`proceeding that we held earlier with IPR 2020-00116 and 00147. This is a
`separate transcript for just the 00268 case for Patent Number 10,454,707.
`We’ve discussed the sort of housekeeping matters so I’m going to
`jump straight to having the parties again introduce themselves on the record.
`And we will start with Petitioner.
`MR. WILSON: Thank you, Your Honor. James Wilson for
`Petitioner. In the room with me is Pete Gowdey, lead counsel for this IPR,
`and also Mr. Wayne Helge.
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Thank you, and welcome, Mr. Wilson. And
`for the Patent Owner, make your appearances, please.
`MR. NIX: This is Axel Nix again for the Patent Owner. And with me
`also again my co-counsel, Maxwell Goss.
`MR. GOSS: Good afternoon, Your Honor.
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Goss, thank you,
`Mr. Nix. Appreciate that, getting everybody in on the record.
`Each party will have 30 minutes to present their case with respect to
`IPR 2020-00268. Petitioner has the burden of showing patentability of the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00268
`Patent 10,454,707 B2
`
`challenged claims, and will proceed first. And Patent Owner then follows,
`and each party may reserve rebuttal time as we did in our prior hearing.
`Obviously, let me repeat for clarity again, please state which slide
`exhibit you’re on and page number. The parties did an excellent job and I’m
`sure will continue. Then again, if there is any technical difficulties that
`everybody’s been given information, but please let us know if there’s
`anything that impedes your ability to hear or see the proceedings, and
`obviously protect the record that you are creating.
`And I think we should be able to proceed straight through. And we’ll
`start with Petitioner. You may begin when you’re ready, and tell me how
`much time you’d like to reserve.
`MR. WILSON: Thank you, Your Honor. This is James Wilson. Five
`minutes for rebuttal, is what we’d ask for. Thank you.
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: You’re welcome. And you may proceed
`when you’re ready.
`MR. WILSON: May it please the Board. When the 707 patent was
`filed, it was filed and issued, there was issues with 20 claims. Petitioner
`challenged those 20 claims based on nine grounds, as shown in Slide 3. And
`Patent Owner chose not to file a preliminary response. And as shown in
`Slide 4, of course the Board instituted the IPR after reviewing the 20 claims,
`and that’s the situation where it then called for Patent Owner’s response.
`And the Patent Owner, in response, as shown in Slide 5, disclaims,
`essentially cancelling 18 of the 20 claims of the 707 patent.
`Shown in Slide 6, this is the 20 claims of the 707 patents and shown
`without the gray highlighting are the claims, two dependent claims that were
`made.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00268
`Patent 10,454,707 B2
`
`
`As shown in Slide 7, focusing in on those two dependent claims, they
`are both each ultimately dependent from Claim 6. And Claim 15 recites that
`a first electrical interface claim, and actually by virtue of Claim 13, two
`electrical interfaces are CAN vehicle data bus interfaces. And then Claim 20
`claims a relay and says again the relay in Claim 19 has already been found,
`or admitted to be un-patentable, and it states the relay is electrically
`controlled in response to the presence of electrical failure.
`Neither of those limitations in 15 and 20 lend to any patentability for
`the claims of the 707 patent. In particular there’s nothing special about a
`CAN vehicle data bus.
`In Patent Owner’s surrebuttal Brief they indicated that this was like a
`kind of a patent case where there was a large genus and there’s something
`special about one of those species. That’s not this record. This record is
`vehicle data buses were known and they were alternatives. And we know
`that from the 707 patent itself.
`The 707 patent, in Column 7, Lines 30 to 34, equate different types of
`data buses. Column 7, Lines 30 to 44 state that the data bus of the 707
`patent can be either a Class 2 data bus, it can be a CAN vehicle data bus, or
`“any other suitable data bus.” So this argument that there’s some genus and
`something special about a CAN vehicle data bus doesn’t hold up. It is for
`the person of ordinary skill in the art, they are equivalent. And they are
`equivalent in view of the 707 patent.
`So the better case to look at instead of a case in chemical analysis,
`would be Hoover Technologies versus X1. In that case, the specifications
`indicated there was nothing special about the particular alternatives of this
`claim, and when there are alternatives they are obvious even if there’s
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00268
`Patent 10,454,707 B2
`
`modifications in the different designs. So there’s nothing special about a
`vehicle data bus. And I’ll get into that, that’s the short answer for Claim 14.
`I’ll get into some more details as we go to Claim 13.
`And Claim 13 I want to direct, to the combination or asserting,
`asserting a combination of Walker in view of CAN bus references. Those
`CAN bus references are SAE, Negley, and Bosch. And also, and I
`appreciate the Board to not think we would succeed on this but the way the
`evidence is coming out I think we will, the Dietz reference.
`And the question is, would someone take Walker’s trickster circuits,
`which if you look at Slide 12, Claim 6 is calling for a real signal to be sent to
`a controller and a fake signal to be sent to a controller. So it’s a way of
`spoofing or tricking the control unit to act in a way that’s different than the
`real sensor signal that’s receiving by sending a fake sensor signal that
`mimics some features of the real signal.
`And then again, that Claim 6, that’s un-patentable and clearly shown
`in, again Slide 13 of Walker as a different embodiment of trickster circuits
`that Walker envisions in Claim 24a and 24b there are real sensory inputs
`coming in, and then output, if you look at the top of the Slide 13, there is
`either real sensor output going out or there’s a mimicked sensor output going
`out. And 24b is a different type of trickster circuit where the trickster circuit
`is, instead of being a bearing in on that voltage, is a pulse with a false signal.
`So the question is, would a person of ordinary skill in the art look at
`Walker and envision different trickster circuits. And Walker answers that
`himself. In Slide 14, we have some citations that says any circuit that tricks
`the control unit is within the scope or the skill of POSITA in this field. And
`I’m encouraging the POSITAs to look at systems and envision systems that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00268
`Patent 10,454,707 B2
`
`will trick the controller. And it could be in circuitry, it could be immigrant
`circuit, it could be a software embodiment. Any of these types of
`embodiments, you know, it’s very broad disclosure of trickster circuits and
`we relied on this in our Petition. We cited to in particular the Column 117,
`Lines 38 to 55 that is calling out the broad disclosure of the trickster circuit.
`That’s what we relied on in our Petition, that’s our theory.
`And Walker says, you know, how do you get it, so we know right now
`that if a POSITA would want to design a trickster circuit just based solely on
`Walker’s teaching. So then Walker says well how would you go about
`determining or designing a trickster circuit? And Walker says well just look
`at what you have. Reverse engineer a system.
`Another data point. Again, CAN bus isn’t special, but the CAN bus
`technology was being increasingly adopted in this period. At the time, as the
`testimony reflects, at the time that CAN bus was, Walker was being
`developed, CAN bus wasn’t widely implemented in a vehicle. But it
`became a governmental requirement, and by the time the 707 patent was
`filed, CAN bus was practically in every vehicle on the road. I was a U.S.
`government requirement.
`So what you see for reverse engineering is you see a bunch of cars
`coming into the garage that have CAN bus. It’s obvious, and it’s a natural
`extension, and KSR supports this, to then design a CAN bus circuit that
`takes advantage of that. And again, this is Walker saying when you’re
`looking at the trickster circuit, just look at the physical connections you
`need. A half-way physical connection and then you can have a trickster
`circuit.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00268
`Patent 10,454,707 B2
`
`
`So that is Petitioner’s theory and it’s a known alternative arranged as
`you would find in vehicles, and more vehicles at the time, and we’ve added
`that as we’ve said. Not only is it an alternative, which this may go beyond
`the Gober Technologies v XI, but it’s an alternative with an advantage.
`With a CAN bus you would have the ability to send multiple sensor
`signals over the CAN bus. And there are CAN buses out there, showing in
`the SAE, Negley, Bosch, that have multiple sensor signals on the CAN bus.
`And the advantage of that is with a signal retrofit you could trick multiple
`controllers or if it’s a controller using two sets of input you could trick both
`of them. It extends the functionality and that’s perfectly consistent with
`KSR and the advantage of that. There’s definitely a POSITA would want to
`implement a retrofit to match the technology that was in the system and to
`obtain these advantages. It’s a clear case of obviousness.
`Now Patent Owner’s expert came in and said well, maybe, you know,
`you couldn’t design a CAN bus retrofit that was in series between two
`different CAN bus, or two different CAN bus nodes. You couldn’t place
`this CAN bus in series, and that’s incorrect. If you look at Negley, Negley’s
`door node controller is, you know, series between two CAN buses. If you
`look at SAE you’ll see there’s a gateway which is between two CAN buses.
`Providing a node between two CAN buses was something that was known in
`the art. So a POSITA would have wanted to do it, and they could do it.
`And as if there’s any question that remains about this, when you look
`at Dietz, I mean just look at Dietz as a black box, and this is on Slide 21 of
`the presentation. It is uncontroverted when you look at Dietz as a black box,
`it is a retrofit that is between two CAN buses. It has a CAN bus interface on
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00268
`Patent 10,454,707 B2
`
`one side, CAN bus interface on the other, and that’s all that’s required in
`Slide 15 is a retrofit that has two CAN bus interface.
`So again, not only would a POSITA have wanted to do it, to obtain
`the advantages, they could have done it, and they in fact did do it when you
`look at the Dietz and you read Dietz in the context of Walker. And, you
`know, that’s our presentation regarding the obviousness of Claim 15. If you
`don’t have any questions about that I’d like to move to Claim 20.
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Please continue.
`MR. WILSON: Your Honor, Claim 20 is directed to a relay. And it
`says a relay is flexibly controlled in response to presence of electrical
`failure. There’s a difference in interpretation of this claim, but also the way
`we feel that it doesn’t matter, doesn’t change the outcome. So under
`Petitioner’s interpretation of the claim the relay, almost by definition, has to
`two states. It has a state one on or state one off. And the whole Claim 20 is
`confirming that reality, that a relay has two states of evidence. It says the
`relay is selectively controller, you know, selectively controlled, has two
`states in response to electrical failure. And that’s why one of those states is
`a state where there is no voltage applied, a low state. And that’s a Smart
`Roadster. The state of the relay explicitly on Slide 26, and by Smart
`Roadster for the state of the relay depends on the emergency circuit, namely
`the level of the NOTAUS_SENSE line.
`The level of the line, the presence of electrical failure, if it’s low,
`again Slide 27 we explain this in more detail with regard to Mr. Leale’s
`declaration in Paragraph 176, that when the relay is controlled to have a
`NOTAUS_SENSE signal that is low, the relay sets the retrofit of the Smart
`Roadster into a condition where it has a path for a vastly origin state and that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00268
`Patent 10,454,707 B2
`
`is a control of the relay, the selective controlled. This claim is only directed
`to the relay itself. That fully satisfies that limitation.
`And not only because it now offsets the signal which is low just by
`virtue of the emergency circuit driving it low. If the system allows power in
`response to the system losing power, the relay would drop to low level in
`same state. So it fully satisfies that limitation.
`Patent Owner has come in and said well, wait a second, maybe there’s
`a, like in the 707 patent, there’s a controller that’s sensing electrical failure
`and then causing the relay to act. That position, there is no controller that’s
`recited in Claim 6, there’s no controller in 18, there’s no controller in 19,
`there’s no controller in 20. That theory reads the limitation to specification
`into play.
`But that dispute is irrelevant because Smart Roadster has such a
`controller that performs that function. If you look on Slide 29 it indicates
`that there is an emergency circuit, the same emergency circuit the Petitioner
`has been relying on in this case, that is set in two states. One of the states is
`to set the vehicle back to the origin state, and the other is if all the
`emergency components are working and in case of proper operation, the
`high signal, without outsets being high, then you connect in the drive by
`wire features, the added feature of Smart Roadster. So the safer origin state
`and then the state of proper operation. So a low state and a high state, that’s
`in Slide 29.
`Slide 30, it’s a little bit more detail, describes this emergency circuit.
`And the emergency circuit has buttons. And importantly, it has DSPs that
`are monitoring the CAN bus functionality and the other DSP, and saying are
`you working correctly, I’m going to send out a ping pong message. And
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00268
`Patent 10,454,707 B2
`
`then ping this, you know, my friend, and see if I get a response. If I don’t
`get a response then it says you cut the emergency circuit. Or, Your Honors,
`and Mr. Leale testified to this, that means that the emergency circuit is set to
`the low level. That’s the NOTAUS_SENSE signal being dropped to a low
`level based on a signal from a controller, a DSP module that has looked for
`an electrical failure. It looks to its friend to not respond because, you know,
`something went wrong electrically with that.
`And that monitoring of the bus is exactly, if you look at Slide 31, is
`how the 707 patent has a controller that monitors its vehicle data bus
`interface in order to determine if there’s electrical failure. So that feature
`from the preferred embodiment, even if it’s read into the claims of the 707
`patent, is present in Smart Roadster.
`And, Your Honor, that concludes my presentation with regard to the
`patentability of Claim 20.
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Thank you. If there are no further questions, I
`don’t think there are, we will move to the Patent Owner’s presentation. And
`you have 13 and a half minutes left, which you are always welcome not to
`use all of it, as we go through. Let’s turn to Patent Owner. You can tell me
`how much time you want to reserve, and begin when you’re ready.
`MR. NIX: Thank you, Your Honor. I would like to reserve about
`five minutes if that is all right.
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: You are certainly welcome to. Thank you.
`MR. NIX: Let’s start with Slide 2, Your Honor. The one common
`theme relating to both Claims 15 and 20 or in the Petitioner’s Reply is that
`they taint their theory of why they think the 707 patent is obvious. But
`they’ve done it by -- so they haven’t crystalized their position, but rather I
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00268
`Patent 10,454,707 B2
`
`think they’ve conceded that the Petition, as originally argued, doesn’t show
`obviousness. So they’re trying to take a turn and now take a different angle,
`a different approach, which we submit is impermissible.
`With respect to Claim 15, we say the Petitioner’s new theory lacks
`analysis. Originally they had a very detailed step-by-step analysis. Now
`they’re saying no, we’re just relying on a broad idea. But that broad idea
`doesn’t teach specific limitations. They return to the KSR arguments,
`recognizing a design incentive that we think we can show doesn’t exist, and
`characterizing something as a predictable variation when their own expert
`couldn’t predict what a CAN bus trickster circuit would look like.
`With respect to Claim 20, the new theory introduces a fundamental
`problem, and that is it doesn’t work. It addresses some of the issues of their
`earlier theory but it introduces a fundamental new problem that it contradicts
`the wiring of Smart Roadster and simply doesn’t work. And we believe they
`misunderstand Smart Roadster.
`Slide 3 is just showing the Claim 15 which depends on 13 which
`depends on 6. And as such includes a number of limitations. Some I think
`Mr. Wilson was trying to say, or argue that if a dependent claim can only
`tweak the scope of the claim. But in this case by saying the first electrical
`interface is a CAN data bus, we are significantly changing the scope from
`the way they have previously argued. We may refer to Slide 4. The original
`theory was based on an analog signal being modified, very simple circuit.
`There’s an analog sensor that has a variable hold to output that goes to an
`OEM controlled module, and the trickster circuit includes a relay that can
`disconnect the original sensor and reconnect the OEM module to a proven
`geometer. The simplest kind of trickster circuit you can imagine.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00268
`Patent 10,454,707 B2
`
`
`And then the argument is well, you can apply that to a CAN bus. And
`the Patent Owner, in the response, pointed out no, you cannot. Modifying
`this circuit that Walker discloses, to make it work with a CAN bus means
`you have to delete every single piece of that Figure 24, which the Petitioner
`relies on extensively. I think I counted 13 times variations of this Figure 24a
`shown in the Petition. You would have to remove every piece from that
`figure and basically start from scratch to create the CAN bus trickster circuit.
`That is not obvious.
`Now, in their Reply they’re saying all the cake walk, it’s just for the
`broad idea of a deceiving in processor. So, according to the Petitioner,
`Walker makes obvious any type of solution that has been invented in the
`past or that may ever be invented in the future to deceive a processor
`because Walker already has established the general idea covered. And that
`again is not permissible, there is no path from the broad idea of deceiving a
`processor to every single limitation of Claims 6, 13, and then 15.
`In Slide 5, I’m trying to discuss the idea of a design incentive. So,
`Mr. Wilson says this is a design incentive to move away from Walker. But
`that is not correct. Walker emphasis repeatedly that his trickster circuit is
`inexpensive. He also repeatedly throughout the specification uses, I find it a
`terrible acronym, COTS, Commercial off the Shelf component. That’s what
`he wants the invention to be based on. Inexpensive circuitry, commercial
`off the shelf. To the point with respect to Figure 24, that he even gives us
`the Radio Shack part numbers of the potentiometer and the relay that they
`can use to build this inexpensive circuitry.
`Now when I talk with Mr. Leale during cross exam, I asked him how
`much do you think this cost. He said probably less than a dollar for these
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00268
`Patent 10,454,707 B2
`
`Radio Shack components. Then I asked him, after we discussed a CAN bus
`trickster circuit and a commercial implementation of that, how much would
`that cost? He said about $100. I submit there is no design consensus to
`make a circuit 100 times more expensive than it needs to be.
`Moving on to Slide 6, the Petitioner says, “Oh, that’s a predictable
`variation.” And it’s also referred to the specification in our patent where we
`say there are variations of serial data networks, Class 2 and the CAN bus,
`and there are different types of digital serialized communication. We
`certainly never ever said that an analog voltage, the potentiometer is a part
`of that. That is not compatible with a CAN bus or any other kind of
`serialized data communication.
`So, I try to explore, “how obvious is it?” Mr. Leale said, “A POSITA
`could easily get from Walker’s disclosure to a CAN bus trickster circuit”.
`So with a remote deposition it’s a little difficult. I tried to have him walk me
`through the steps, take Walker, start with Walker and now get to the CAN
`bus trickster circuit. It was a painful couple of minutes and this really didn’t
`get anywhere. And eventually, and I think that’s rather significant. He said,
`“Well, I have to ask you an infinite large number of questions, you know,
`before he can create the circuit.”
`So their expert says to design a CAN bus trickster circuit first requires
`asking me an infinite number of questions. But let’s assume he was
`exaggerating, not an infinite number, but a very large number of questions.
`And then I asked him, “So, depending on the answers I give you, I asked
`you to design a CAN bus trickster circuit based on Walker. You are now
`going to ask me many, many questions. Based on my answers are you going
`to come up with different designs?” And his answer was “yes.” And I think
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00268
`Patent 10,454,707 B2
`
`that directly contradicts the predictable variation argument. If there’s an
`infinite number of inputs, questions that you have to ask before you can
`create the CAN bus trickster circuit, and then depending on those answers,
`come to different circuits, different results, there is no prediction that what
`you will come up with. As part of the CAN bus trickster circuit we’ll
`implement every single limitation of Claims 6, 13, and then be on a canvas
`as required by Claim 15.
`And the Smart Roadster reference. Now referring to Slide 7, I think
`it’s kind of revealing because the sciences that modify Smart Roadsters
`faced a very similar goal that Walker describes. Walker wants the ability to
`slow down a vehicle, Smart Roadster, the researchers wanted to modify the
`vehicle so they could control it and control the longitude and movement,
`which includes of course slowing it down.
`So following the Petitioner’s logic, it would say since Smart Roadster
`has a CAN bus he would have arrived at a CAN bus trickster circuit that
`reads on Claim 15. But they did not. So even though they modified a car
`with a CAN bus and even though the trickster circuit includes a CAN bus, it
`does not read on Claim 15 because the trickster circuit, just like Walker,
`spoofs or mimics an analog signal and the CAN bus is only used to control
`this trickster circuit.
`So with that, Claim 15, I’m concluding my presentation. If there’s
`any questions maybe we should address them now. If there are not I will
`move on to Claim 20, which starts with Slide 8 of the demonstratives?
`Here the Petitioner also changed the angle of attack on the patent quite
`a bit because the original Petition didn’t address that the relays in Smart
`Roadster are electronically controlled. And even though Mr. Wilson says
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00268
`Patent 10,454,707 B2
`
`well, we shouldn’t be held to the electronically controlled limitation of the
`claim, he does ultimately change his approach and does accept it.
`So the new theory is now based on multiple DSPs in Smart Roadster
`being able to control the relays. Previously they only said it’s a dead battery
`or someone pushes the NOTAUS button. Now they’re saying well, it’s
`actually DSPs that can control the state of the relays. I asked Mr. Leale did
`you discuss these DSPs anywhere, originally his answer was no. I didn’t
`find any specific reference to the DSPs in his original declaration.
`On Slide 9, I’m trying to compare the original theory with the new
`theory. And on the left side you see these red Xs. That is where the original
`theory failed to read on Claim 20. And there are numerous Xs. But there’s
`one green check mark, at least it was consistent with the wiring of Smart
`Roadster. The new theory has a couple of green check marks where I can
`see how they applied their new theory to this particular claim element but,
`and that’s important, the one claim element that says the factory installed
`second apparatus receives the mimicked electrical signal. Even the new
`theory does not meet that limitation. And with the bottom line, the new
`theory is inconsistent with the wiring, wouldn’t even work in Smart
`Roadster.
`Let me on Slide 10 walk you through a little more why that claim
`element wherein the factory installed second apparatus receives the
`mimicked electrical signal and, keeping in mind Claim 20 says in the
`presence of an electrical failure, isn’t met. And if this is really based on a
`fundamental functional difference which leads to a structural difference of
`what is claimed versus what is in Smart Roadster.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00268
`Patent 10,454,707 B2
`
`
`The 707 patent is concerned with a defect which prevents the first
`apparatus from communicating with the second apparatus. It envisions there
`could be a crash, the CAN bus is shorted to ground and now these two
`factory installed apparatuses can no longer communicate with each other.
`So what it does, the retrofit apparatus recognizes this defect and it switches
`the relay so that now the retrofit apparatus can again talk to the
`telecommunication apparatus. So it is disconnecting the damaged part of the
`bus in order to maintain communication with the telecommunication
`apparatus. It prioritizes the mimic signal. That is the one that we want the
`second apparatus to receive. And that is exactly what the claim says. The
`factory installed second apparatus receives the mimicked electrical signal
`even though the CAN bus is damaged downstream of the retrofit apparatus.
`Smart Roadster operates 180 degrees opposite. Smart Roadster
`prioritize the factory installed signals. They’ve modified the vehicle, they’re
`putting some kind of research software in the retrofit apparatus so they can
`control the steering and braking and loss of turning control, which could be
`dangerous. So there’s a way to easily disconnect the retrofit and give
`control back to the driver. And that is the entire opposite. So on the left side
`you have a structure that prioritizes the mimic signal, on the right side you
`have one that explicitly, in the presence of an electrical failure, does not
`want the factory installed second apparatus to receive the mimicked signal.
`And that’s why we think they are still failing to show the obviousness of
`Claim 20.
`Now moving on to Slide 11. What I did there is sort of stretched out,
`I think it is Figure 4 of, Figure 3 of Smart Roadster. Smart Roadster shows
`sort of like an S shape safety chain. And if we stretch that out, and I have
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00268
`Patent 10,454,707 B2
`
`Mr. Leale walk me through it to make sure I got it right. There’s a control
`box on one end of that safety chain and then there is emergency buttons on
`the opposite, yeah, on the right hand of the safety chain, and in between are
`the relays that are being controlled, that need to be powered in order for
`them to make the signal reaching the second apparatus.
`So if we now go to Slide 12, that’s what illustrates the Petitioner’s
`dilemma. This chain where they say, oh, the DSPs can now control the
`NOTAUS_SENSE line, somewhere along that wire we have to connect it to
`power so that power can flow through the NOTAUS_SENSE line and then
`through the relays, power the relays, and go back to ground. And I asked
`Mr. Leale, “Where would you connect power?” And initially he said, “Well,
`anywhere along the line.” Well that would allow power to be connected in
`the middle, between the control box and the emergency box. But that
`doesn’t work. If I connect power there then my relays are always powered
`and it doesn’t matter what I do to the emergency box on the right or to the
`DSPs on the left, the relays would always be powered and always go to the
`mimic signal.
`So it’s like no, it really needs to be on the right side. I hope that
`makes sense. Because now the power comes from the right. If I interrupt,
`push one of the emergency buttons, power will no longer go to the relays.
`The relays are no longer powered, and that is what they say indicates the
`presence of an electrical failure and disconnects the mimic signal.
`And that is good. But the fundamental problem is now the switches
`that are on the other end that the Petitioner now relies on being in the control
`box, they no longer work. It doesn’t matter whether the DSPs turned these
`switches on and off because the relays already were powered before
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00268
`Patent 10,454,707 B2
`
`anything can be interrupted. So just looking at the wiring of Smart Roadster
`shows it is inconsistent with this new theory which we think exceeds the
`permissible scope in the first place.
`Now Mr. Wilson will point out that they say the emergency circuit
`can be cut and the relays can somehow, the DSPs can somehow hand control
`that t
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
