UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`Patent No. 5,954,775
`Issue Date: Sep. 21, 1999
`Title: DUAL RATE COMMUNICATION PROTOCOL
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,954,775
`PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 312 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01088
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8) ....................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)) ......................................................... 2
`III.
`Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1)-(3)) and Relief
`Requested (37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(1)) ........................................................................... 2
`A.
`Background of the ’775 Patent ....................................................................... 3
`1.
`The ’775 Patent ...................................................................................... 3
`2.
`Prosecution History of the ’775 Patent ............................................. 6
`Patents and Printed Publications Relied On ...............................................10
`B.
`Statutory Grounds for Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1)-(2)) .............11
`C.
`Claim Construction (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)) ..........................................11
`D.
`IV. How Challenged Claims Are Unpatentable (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)-(5)) .......11
`A.
`Claim 6 is Obvious Over the Combination of Jurgen and
`Waggener ..........................................................................................................11
`1.
`Jurgen ....................................................................................................12
`2. Waggener ..............................................................................................13
`3.
`Claim 6 ..................................................................................................15
`4.
`Reasons to Combine ...........................................................................21
`5.
`Conclusions regarding Jurgen and Waggener .................................24
`Claim 6 is Obvious Over the Combination of Jurgen and Mosch
`et al. ...................................................................................................................30
`1.
`Jurgen ....................................................................................................30
`2. Mosch et al. ..........................................................................................32
`3.
`Claim 6 ..................................................................................................34
`4.
`Reasons to Combine ...........................................................................41
`5.
`Conclusions regarding Jurgen and Mosch et al. .............................43
`Conclusion ...................................................................................................................51
`
`B.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Signal IP, Inc. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al.
`(Case. No. 14-cv-03113-JAK (JEMx) (C.D. Cal.)) ......................................................... 11
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b).................................................................................................................... 10
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................................... 2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ............................................................................................ 9, 11, 29, 30, 50
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ............................................................................................................. 30, 50
`
`Rules
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................................. 11
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................................. 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1)-(2) ................................................................................................... 11
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1)-(3) ..................................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ......................................................................................................... 11
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)-(5) ................................................................................................... 11
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(1) .............................................................................................................. 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 .......................................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit 1001
`
`Exhibit 1002
`
`Exhibit 1003
`
`Exhibit 1004
`
`Exhibit 1005
`
`
`Exhibit 1006
`
`
`Exhibit 1007
`
`
`Exhibit 1008
`
`
`Exhibit 1009
`
`Exhibit 1010
`
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LISTING OF EXHIBITS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,954,775 to Cluff
`
`Declaration of Dr. A. Bruce Buckman
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,398,185 to Omura
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,528,698 to Kamei et al.
`
`Non-Final Office Action, dated January 8, 1999, in U.S.
`Patent Application Serial No. 08/795,999
`
`Amendment, dated March 30, 1999,
`Application Serial No. 08/795,999
`
`in U.S. Patent
`
`Notice of Allowability, dated May 7, 1999, in U.S. Patent
`Application Serial No. 08/795,999
`
`AUTOMOTIVE ELECTRONICS HANDBOOK, Ronald K.
`Jurgen (ed.)
`
`PULSE CODE MODULATION TECHNIQUES, Bill Waggener
`
`European Patent Application Publication No. 0 681 378 to
`Mosch et al.
`
`Order Regarding Claim Construction, D.I. 88, in Signal IP, Inc. v.
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-cv-
`03113-JAK (JEMx) (C.D. Cal.)
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`I. Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8)
`
`Real Party-in-Interest:
`
` Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (“VWGoA”), which is a subsidiary of
`
`Volkswagen AG.
`
`Related Matters:
`
`The following judicial matters may affect, or may be affected by, a decision in this
`
`inter partes review: Signal IP, Inc. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al., No. 2:14-cv-
`
`03113 (C.D. Cal.) (“the Signal-VWGoA case”), naming as defendants VWGoA, d/b/a
`
`Audi of America, Inc., and Bentley Motors, Inc., which is a subsidiary of VWGoA;
`
`Signal IP, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. et al., No. 2:14-cv-02454 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`Signal IP, Inc. v. BMW of North America, LLC, et al., No. 2:14-cv-03111 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`Signal IP, Inc. v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, No. 2:14-cv-03108 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`Signal IP, Inc. v. Kia Motors America, Inc. No. 2:14-cv-02457 (C.D. Cal.); Signal IP, Inc. v.
`
`Mazda Motor of America, Inc., No. 8:14-cv-00491 (C.D. Cal.); Signal IP, Inc. v. Mercedes-
`
`Benz USA, LLC, No. 2:14-cv-03109 (C.D. Cal.); Signal IP, Inc., v. Mitsubishi Motors
`
`North America, Inc., No. 8:14-cv-00497 (C.D. Cal.); Signal IP, Inc. v. Nissan North
`
`America, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-02962 (C.D. Cal.); Signal IP, Inc. v. Porsche Cars North America,
`
`Inc., No. 2:14-cv-03114 (C.D. Cal.); Signal IP, Inc. v. Subaru of America, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-
`
`02963 (C.D. Cal.); Signal IP, Inc. v. Volvo Cars of North America, LLC, No. 2:14-cv-
`
`03107 (C.D. Cal.); Signal IP, Inc. v. Fiat USA, Inc. et al., No. 2:14-cv-03105 (C.D. Cal);
`
`Signal IP, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company, No. 2:14-cv-03106 (C.D. Cal.); Signal IP, Inc. v.
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Mazda Motor of America, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-02459 (C.D. Cal.); Signal IP, Inc. v. Chrysler
`
`Group LLC, No. 2:14-cv-13864 (E.D. Mich.); and Signal IP, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company,
`
`No. 2:14-cv-13729 (E.D. Mich.).
`
`Counsel:
`
` Lead Counsel:
`
` Michael J. Lennon (Reg. No. 26,562)
`
` Backup Counsel: Clifford A. Ulrich (Reg. No. 42,194)
`Michelle Carniaux (Reg. No. 36,098)
`
`Electronic Service: ptab@kenyon.com
`
`Post and Delivery: Kenyon & Kenyon LLP, One Broadway, New York NY 10004.
`
`Telephone: 212-425-7200 Facsimile: 212-425-5288
`
`II. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a))
`
` VWGoA certifies that U.S. Patent No. 5,954,775 (“the ’775 patent,” Ex. 1001) for
`
`which review is sought is available for inter partes review and that VWGoA is not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review challenging the patent claim
`
`on the grounds identified in this petition.
`
`III. Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1)-(3)) and Relief
`Requested (37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(1))
`
` VWGoA challenges claim 6 of the ’775 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and
`
`cancelation of that claim is requested.
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`A. Background of the ’775 Patent
`
`1.
`
` The ’775 Patent
`
` The ’775 patent is titled “Dual Rate Communication Protocol” and issued on
`
`September 21, 1999 from U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 08/795,999 (“the ’999
`
`application”), filed February 5, 1997.
`
` The ’775 patent describes a messaging protocol for enabling communication of
`
`different types of information at two different data rates on the same communication
`
`link in an automotive supplemental inflatable restraint (“SIR”) system (air bag system).
`
`See col. 2, lines 21 to 24 and lines 30 to 37, col. 3, lines 17 to 20. According to the ’775
`
`patent, in SIR systems, sensors monitor occupant presence (e.g., whether an occupant
`
`is in the seat or not) as well as occupant position (e.g., how far the occupant is from a
`
`reference point), in order to determine whether and when to deploy the air bags.
`
`Occupant presence data “is simple and would require a relatively slow update rate
`
`(seconds) since it would change infrequently and slowly.” Col. 1, lines 52 to 55.
`
`Meanwhile, occupant position information “would be subject to continuous and more
`
`rapid change, and therefore requires a faster update (milliseconds).” Col. 1, lines 59 to
`
`62. The “dramatic difference” in the information rate required to transmit these two
`
`types of data would ordinarily “necessitate separate systems and communication
`
`techniques.” Col. 2, line 1. The ’775 patent describes a system that can transmit both
`
`types of data “and forego the expense of changing over or adding a new system when
`
`higher bandwidth is needed.” Col. 2, lines 4 to 6.
`3
`
`

`

`
`
` The ’775 patent describes a “combined protocol having both low and high
`
`bandwidth protocols” that can “support both bandwidth needs separately or
`
`simultaneously.” Col. 2, lines 38 to 40. It includes a “low rate protocol” for
`
`transmitting occupant presence
`
`information and a “high rate protocol” for
`
`transmitting occupant position information. Col. 2, lines 42 to 45. Each of the two
`
`protocols is based on a fundamental time interval (“FTI”), which the ’775 patent
`
`describes as “the shortest meaningful time interval for that protocol,” and “[t]he low
`
`and high rate protocols are combined when the FTI for the high rate protocol is
`
`selected so that an entire high rate message can be contained within a single FTI for
`
`the low rate protocol.” Col. 2, lines 45 to 51. Figure 2 of the ’775 patent illustrates the
`
`combined high rate and low rate message protocols:
`
`
`
` According to the ’775 patent, Figure 2 shows “two consecutive LFTI [low rate
`
`FTI] intervals,” each of which has a “nominal logic state which is interrupted by the
`
`high rate message.” Col. 3, lines 52 to 55. For example, the low rate message is
`
`completed in “two to four LFTIs or 100 ms to 200 ms.” Col. 4, lines 43 to 44. For
`
`example, FIG. 4 depicts the low rate signal (presence information) for a rear facing
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`infant seat, which consists of one low and two high binary values, completed in “150
`
`ms and continuously repeated.” Col. 2, lines 46 to 47:
`
`
`
`Because the high rate message is “more complex,” it includes a Start of Message
`
`(SOM) symbol (e.g., a handshake), a tag identifying the type of data to follow, the data
`
`representing the distance information (e.g., the distance between the driver and the
`
`steering column on a half centimeter scale), a parity bit, and an End of Message
`
`(EOM) symbol. Col. 4, lines 48 to 60. Figure 5 illustrates the structure of a detailed
`
`high rate message.
`
`
`
` As described in the ’775 patent, “[a] maximum of 54 HFTIs or 27 ms is required
`
`for the complete message if the data bits were all ones, and less time is required when
`
`the message includes zeros.” Col. 4, lines 61 to 64. Therefore, “although the high rate
`
`messages override each LFTI [low rate FTI], there is ample time to sample the state
`
`of each LFTI which carries a fragment of the low rate message.” Col. 4, line 67 to col.
`
`5, line 2.
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`2.
`
` Prosecution History of the ’775 Patent
`
` Claim 6 as originally filed in the ’999 application is presented below:
`
`6. A method of communicating messages at different rates
`
`comprising the steps of:
`
`establishing a low message rate interval;
`
`devoting a period of each interval to high rate message data
`and reserving the remainder of each interval for low rate
`information;
`
`establishing a high message rate sufficient to accommodate a
`complete high rate message within the devoted period of each
`interval; and
`
`sending messages by transmitting data in at least one of the
`devoted period and the remainder of each interval.
`On January 8, 1999, the Examiner issued an Office Action, rejecting claim 61 as
`
`obvious in view of the combination of U.S. Patent No. 5,398,185 to Omura (Ex.
`
`1003) and U.S. Patent No. 5,528,698 to Kamei et al. (Ex. 1004).
`
`
`1 The text of the Office Action is silent as to the rejection or allowance of claim 6.
`
`However, in the response to the Office Action, the Applicant noted that a telephone
`
`interview took place and stated that “it is now understood that Claims 6–9 are to be
`
`considered as rejected along with Claims 3–4 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).” March 30, 1999
`
`Amendment, at 6.
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
` According to the Examiner, “Omura discloses how to establish a message interval
`
`for presence data; devoting a first portion of each interval to a lo [sic] rate presence
`
`data reserving a second portion of each interval for position data and transmit [sic] at
`
`least one of the presence and position data and encoding (item 75, figure 4) occupant
`
`presence data into a message by setting the nominal logic states of successive intervals
`
`to values in accord with the code.” Ex. 1005, January 8, 1999 Office Action, at 2.
`
`Regarding Kamei et al., the Examiner stated:
`
` Kamei et al. discloses an automotive occupant sensing device
`that sensing [sic] the presence of an occupant and the presence of
`an infant seat. Also encoding occupant presence data into a
`message by setting the nominal logic states of successive intervals
`to values representing the sensed condition in accord with the
`code.
`
`In view of Kamei et al.’s teachings, it would be obvious to one
`of ordinary skill in the art to adapt the Kamei et al. to have placed
`a sensor for an infant seat on the system of Omura thereby
`providing increased safety for infants.
`
`Id. at 3.
`
`
`
`In response, the Applicant amended claim 6 as follows:
`
`6. A method of [communicating messages] accommodating
`
`communication of first and second types of data at [different] first
`and second message rates over a common communication link
`comprising the steps of:
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`establishing a [low] message rate interval on the common
`
`communication link;
`
`devoting a [period] portion of each message rate interval to
`[high rate message] the first type of data and reserving [the
`remainder] a remaining portion of each message rate interval for
`[low rate information] the second type of data;
`
`[establishing a high] providing the first type of data at a first
`message rate sufficient to [accommodate a] form a complete [high
`rate] message [data] within the devoted [period] portion of each
`message rate interval;
`
`providing the second type of data at a second message rate
`sufficient to form only a fragment of a complete message in the
`remaining portion of each message rate interval, thereby requiring
`a plurality of consecutive message rate intervals to form a
`complete message of the second type of data; and
`
`[sending messages by] transmitting [data in] at least one of the
`[devoted period and the remainder] first and second types of data
`in the respective portions of each message rate interval.
` The Applicant characterized the amendments to claim 6 as follows: “Claim 6 has
`
`been amended to include the limitations of Claim 7,” Ex. 1006, March 30, 1999
`
`Amendment at 6, and made the following arguments:
`
`to a method of
`is directed
`Independent Claim 6
`
`accommodating communication of first and second types of data
`at first and second message rates over a common communication
`link by establishing a message rate interval on the common
`communication link, devoting a portion of each interval to the
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`first type of data and reserving a remaining portion for the second
`type of data, providing the first type of data at a first message rate
`sufficient to form a complete message within the devoted portion
`of each message rate interval, providing the second type of data at
`a second message rate sufficient to form only a fragment of a
`complete message in the remaining portion of each message rate
`interval, thereby requiring a plurality of consecutive message rate
`intervals to form a complete message of the second type of data,
`and sending messages by transmitting at least one of the first and
`second types of data in the respective portion of each interval.
`Clearly, neither Omura nor Kamei et al. provide any
`
`teachings or suggestions of this sort. The recited steps are
`
`completely foreign to, and without counterpart in, either
`
`Omura and Kamei et al. Since neither of the cited references
`
`contains a relevant teaching regarding how to communicate
`
`different types of data at different message rates over a
`
`common communication link, it is axiomatic that no
`
`combination of the two references can obviate Claim 6 under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`Id. at 8–9 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`In summary, the Applicant argued that claim 6 is patentable over the cited prior art
`
`because the prior art does not disclose communication of different types of data at
`
`different rates over the same communication link.
`
` A Notice of Allowance was mailed on May 7, 1999, which includes the following
`
`Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`The applicant shows the novel [sic] of establish [sic] a message
`interval for presence data; devoting a first portion of each interval
`to presence data reserving a second portion of each interval for
`position data and transmit [sic] at least one of the presence and
`position data encoding occupant presence data into a message by
`setting the nominal logic state of successive intervals to values in
`accord with the code.
` Ex. 1007, Notice of Allowability, at 2. The issue fee was paid on June 22, 1999,
`
`without any comment by the Applicant on the Examiner’s stated reasons for
`
`allowance.
`
`B. Patents and Printed Publications Relied On
`
`1. AUTOMOTIVE ELECTRONICS HANDBOOK, Ronald K. Jurgen (ed.)
`
`(“Jurgen,” Ex. 1008) published in 1995 by McGraw-Hill, Inc. and
`
`therefore constitutes prior art against the ’775 patent under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(b).
`
`2. Pulse Code Modulation Techniques, Bill Waggener (“Waggener,” Ex.
`
`1009) published in 1995 by Van Nostrand Reinhold and therefore
`
`constitutes prior art against the ’775 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`3. European Patent Application Publication No. 0 681 378 (“Mosch et al.,”
`
`Ex. 1010) published on November 8, 1995 and therefore constitutes
`
`prior art against the ’775 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`C. Statutory Grounds for Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1)-(2))
`
` Cancelation of claim 6 is requested on the following grounds:
`
`1. The Combination of Jurgen and Waggener Renders Obvious Claim 6
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`2. The Combination of Jurgen and Mosch et al. Renders Obvious Claim 6
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`D. Claim Construction (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3))
`
` The claim terms should be given their broadest reasonable construction in view of
`
`the specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Claim terms are generally presumed to take
`
`on their ordinary and customary meaning. The specification of the ’775 patent does
`
`not present any special definition for any claim term, and the prosecution history of
`
`the ’775 patent does not include any claim construction arguments.
`
`The District Court in the Signal-VWGoA case issued a claim construction order that
`
`addresses several terms of the claims of the ’775 patent. See Ex. 1011. However, the
`
`District Court’s claim construction is not binding on the PTAB.
`
`IV. How Challenged Claims Are Unpatentable (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)-(5))
`A. Claim 6 is Obvious in View of the Combination of Jurgen and Waggener
` Claim 6 is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the combination of Jurgen
`
`and Waggener. Both documents disclose the feature that the Applicant relied upon in
`
`distinguishing claim 6 from the prior art cited by the Examiner during prosecution:
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`communication of different types of data at different rates over the same
`
`communication link.
`
`1. Jurgen
`
`
`
`
`
`Jurgen generally describes automotive electronics. Ex. 1008, at Preface.
`
`Automotive electronics encompasses a wide variety of devices and systems including,
`
`for example, sensors and actuators, control systems, passenger safety devices, and
`
`entertainment devices. Id. According to Jurgen, multiplex wiring “holds great promise
`
`for the future in reducing the cumbersome wiring harnesses presently used.” Id.
`
`
`
`Jurgen teaches different classes of known vehicle multiplexed systems, including
`
`Class C networks, where “high data rate signals, typically associated with real-time
`
`control systems, such as engine controls and anti-lock brakes, are sent over the signal
`
`bus to facilitate distributed control and to further reduce vehicle wiring.” Id. at 26.1.
`
`According to Jurgen, “vehicle wiring is reduced by the transmission and reception of
`
`multiple signals over the same signal bus between nodes that would have ordinarily
`
`been accomplished by individual wires in a conventionally wired vehicle.” Id.
`
` According to Jurgen, in multiplex communication systems, “data (e.g., parametric
`
`data values) are transferred between nodes to eliminate redundant sensor and other
`
`system elements.” Id. Jurgen describes, for example, Class A vehicle (multiplexed) data
`
`communication networks, which are “most appropriate for low-speed body wiring
`
`and control functions,” (Id. at 26.3; Ex. 1002, ¶ 4) and which operate at bit rates of,
`
`for example, 1 Kpbs (Chrysler’s SAE J2058 CSC protocol) (Ex. 1008, at 26.24; Ex.
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`1002, ¶ 4). Jurgen also describes Class B vehicle (multiplexed) data communication
`
`networks, which operate at higher bit rates, e.g., Bosch’s CAN bus protocol (1 Mbps)
`
`and Chrysler’s SAE J1567 C2D protocol (7,812 Kbps). Ex. 1008, at 26.24; Ex. 1002, ¶
`
`4. Jurgen also describes a “single-network architecture” that “carries both the Class A
`
`and Class B messages on one network.” Ex. 1008, at 26.3; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 3–5.
`
`2. Waggener
`
` Waggener teaches data communication techniques, referred to as pulse code
`
`modulation (“PCM”), which “embodies the basic concepts of transmitting a sequence
`
`of symbols, i.e., pulses, to represent information” by applying time division and
`
`amplitude quantization. Ex. 1009, p. 7; Ex. 1002, ¶ 7. The typical PCM system, as
`
`taught by Waggener, “begins with a data acquisition subsystem which acquires data
`
`from one, or more, sensors, samples, multiplexes and digitizes the signals.” Ex. 1009.
`
`p. 16; Ex. 1002, ¶ 7. The digital data is then “multiplexed with other digital data.” Id.
`
`Waggener teaches that in vehicle telemetry systems, the data which is transmitted over
`
`the system is acquired from “a wide variety of sensors and sources.” Ex. 1009, at 17.
`
` Waggener teaches that, when multiplexing data streams, a multiplexer design
`
`technique, referred to as subcommutation, can be used in a system that has “a number
`
`of different sensors with widely varying bandwidth” in order to increase efficiency. Id.
`
`at 18. Subcommutation is used in designing an irregular multiplexer that “contains a
`
`mixture of data sources with differing rates.” Ex. 1009, at 110. In multiplexing data at
`
`different rates onto the same communication link, Waggener teaches that it would be
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`inefficient to sample all data at the sampling rate necessary to capture the highest rate
`
`data. Because “many of the channels need to be sampled at only a fraction of the
`
`highest rate channels,” the subcommutated multiplex is structured “so that some of
`
`the time slots in the frame are shared by multiple channels.” Id. Figure 4.4,
`
`reproduced below, shows an example of the subcommutation technique:
`
`
`
`Id. at 111. As shown in Figure 4.4, data from three different sources (D, S, and W) are
`
`multiplexed onto a common communications link. Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 8–9. The highest
`
`sampled channel D is assigned time slots D1 to D8 in the “minor” frame. Id. at ¶ 12.
`
`Channels with lower sampling rates, e.g., “S” and “W,” are multiplexed into additional
`
`minor frame time slots, or subcommutated. Ex. 1009, at 110–111; Ex. 1002, ¶ 12.
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`While eight time slots of “D” data are sampled in every minor frame, four minor
`
`frames are required to transmit the four time slots of “S” data. Ex. 1002, ¶ 14. The
`
`“S” data is “subcommutated” into one time slot in each of the four minor frames. Id.
`
`Therefore, four minor frames are required to transmit all four time slots of “S” data.
`
`Id. Additionally, in the same minor frame in which eight time slots of “D” data are
`
`transmitted, only one time slot is devoted to “W” data. Id. at ¶ 15. Two consecutive
`
`minor frames are required to transmit a complete message of “W” data, W1 and W2.
`
`Id. In this same period of time (two consecutive minor frames), two complete
`
`messages of “D” data are transmitted. Id.
`
`3. Claim 6
`i. “[a] method of accommodating communication of first and
`second types of data at first and second message rates over a
`common communication link”
`
`The combination of Jurgen and Waggener teaches “[a] method of accommodating
`
`communication of first and second types of data at first and second message rates
`
`over a common communication link.” Jurgen, for example, teaches that a “single
`
`network architecture” can be used to accommodate communication of two types of
`
`data, Class A and Class B messages,2 at different message rates on the same
`
`2 Examples of these architectures are also described in Jurgen. Among examples of
`
`Class A networks described by Jurgen are those that operate at bit rates of, e.g., 1
`
`Kbps (Chrysler’s SAE J2058 CSC) (Ex. 1008 at 26.24), and among examples of Class
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`communication network. Ex. 1008, at 26.3; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 3–5. Additionally, Waggener
`
`teaches that data at different data rates (2000 samples per second, 200 samples per
`
`second, and 10 samples per second) can be multiplexed together on a common
`
`communication link. Ex. 1009, at 110; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 7–8. Further, a single
`
`communications channel is shown in Figure 4.1 of Waggener, on which several data
`
`sources are multiplexed (Ex. 1002, ¶ 8):
`
`
`
`According to Waggener, this communications channel carries “a composite
`
`signal.” Ex. 1009, at 108; Ex. 1002, ¶ 8.
`
`ii. “establishing a message rate interval on the common
`communication link”
`
` The combination of Jurgen and Waggener teaches “establishing a message rate
`
`interval on the common communication link.” Waggener teaches that a minor frame
`
`can be established on a single communications channel (the common communication
`
`link). Ex. 1009, at 110–111. The “message rate interval” is taught by Waggener as a
`
`
`B vehicle networks described by Jurgen are those that operate at bit rates of, e.g., 1
`
`Mbps (Bosch’s CAN bus protocol) and 7,812 Kbps (Chrysler’s SAE J1567 C2D
`
`protocol) (Id. at 26.24). Ex. 1002, ¶ 4.
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`single minor frame. Ex. 1002, ¶ 10. This message rate interval is shown in the below
`
`annotated version of Figure 4.4 of Waggener:
`
` According to Waggener, this allows “some of the time slots in the frame” to be
`
`“shared by multiple channels.” Ex. 1009, at 110. This message rate interval carries
`
`composite data, which is to be carried over the common communication link. Ex.
`
`
`
`1002, ¶¶ 8–9.
`
`iii. “devoting a portion of each message rate interval to the first type
`of data and reserving a remaining portion of each message rate
`interval for the second type of data”
`
` The combination of Jurgen and Waggener also teaches “devoting a portion of each
`
`message rate interval to the first type of data and reserving a remaining portion of
`
`each message rate interval for the second type of data.”
`
` Waggener teaches that the multiplex can be structured “so that some of the time
`
`slots in the frame are shared by multiple channels.” Ex. 1009, at 110. In Fig. 4.4,
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`below, the ten time slots in the first minor frame are devoted to data D1 to D8, S1,
`
`and W1. Ex. 1002, ¶ 11.
`
`
`
` The channels that are sampled at the highest rates are “assigned to time slots in
`
`the ‘minor frame’” while channels with lower sampling rates “can be multiplexed into
`
`additional minor frame time slots.” Ex. 1009, at 110 (emphasis added); Ex. 1002, ¶ 11.
`
`Certain time slots are “devoted” to data with higher sampling rates (a first type of
`
`data), e.g., the “D” data, and the remaining time slots are “reserved” for channels with
`
`lower sampling rates (a second type of data), e.g., the “S” or “W” data. Ex. 1002, ¶¶
`
`11–12.
`
`iv. “providing the first type of data at a first message rate sufficient to
`form a complete message within the devoted portion of each
`message rate interval”
`
` The combination of Jurgen and Waggener also teaches “providing the first type of
`
`data at a first message rate sufficient to form a complete message within the devoted
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`
`portion of each message rate interval.” For example, according to Waggener, a
`
`“complete” set of “D” data sampled from D1 to D8 is transmitted in each minor
`
`frame. Ex. 1009, at 110-111; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 13-15. As shown in Figure 4.4, the eight
`
`slots of “D” data repeat in each minor frame. Ex. 1002, ¶ 13.
`
`
`
`Therefore, the “complete” set of “D” data is transmitted in each minor frame, or
`
`message rate interval. Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 13–15.
`
`v. “providing the second type of data at a second message rate
`sufficient to form only a fragment of a complete message in the
`remaining portion of each message rate interval, thereby requiring
`a plurality of consecutive message rate intervals to form a
`complete message of the second type of data”
`
` The combination of Jurgen and Waggener further teaches “providing the second
`
`type of data at a second message rate sufficient to form only a fragment of a complete
`
`message in the remaining portion of each message rate interval, thereby requiring a
`
`plurality of consecutive message rate intervals to form a complete message of the
`
`19
`
`

`

`
`
`second type of data.” Waggener teaches that the channels with lower sampling rates,
`
`such as “S” and “W,” are subcommutated into the additional time slots in each minor
`
`frame of Fig. 4.4. Ex. 1009, at 110-111; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 14–15. As shown in Figure 4.4, a
`
`complete set of “S” data sampled from S1 and S4 is not transmitted in the same
`
`minor frame (message rate interval). See id. Instead, a fragment of the “S” data set is
`
`transmitted in the first minor frame (S1), while the rest of the “S” data set is
`
`transmitted in the next consecutive minor frame (S2), continuing through four
`
`message rate intervals to transmit all of the data S1 to S4. Id. at ¶ 14.
`
`Because a “complete” data set (message) of “S” data is not transmitted in a single
`
`minor frame, and is instead subcommutated among several minor frames, a plurality
`
`of consecutive me