Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper No. 7
`
` Entered: October 29, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SIGNAL IP, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01088
`Patent 5,954,775
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, and
`CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper No. 7
`
` Entered: October 29, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SIGNAL IP, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01088
`Patent 5,954,775
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, and
`CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01088
`Patent 5,954,775
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background
`Petitioner Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (“Volkswagen”) filed
`a Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”) requesting inter partes review of claim 6 of U.S.
`Patent No. 5,954,775 (Ex. 1001, “the ’775 patent”). Patent Owner Signal IP,
`Inc. (“Signal IP”) timely filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 5, “Prelim.
`Resp.”). We review the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that
`inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the
`claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon consideration
`of Volkswagen’s Petition, Signal IP’s Preliminary Response, and the
`evidentiary record developed thus far, we are persuaded that Volkswagen
`has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in challenging
`the patentability of claim 6 on one of the grounds presented in the Petition.
`Accordingly, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we hereby institute an inter partes
`review of that claim.
`B. Related Proceedings
`The ’775 patent is the subject of three district court actions: Signal
`IP, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC et al., 2:14-cv-03109 (C.D. Cal.);
`Signal IP, Inc. v. BMW of North America, LLC et al., 2:14-cv-03111 (C.D.
`Cal.); and Signal IP, Inc. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. d/b/a Audi
`of America, Inc. et al., 2:14-cv-03113 (C.D. Cal.).1
`
`
`1 The parties are reminded of their continuing obligation to update their
`mandatory notices within 21 days of any change of the information listed in
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b) stated in an earlier paper, including, inter alia, changes
`in related matters. 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(a)(3), 42.8(b)(2).
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01088
`Patent 5,954,775
`
`
`C. The ’775 Patent
`The ’775 patent, entitled “Dual Rate Communication Protocol,”
`issued September 21, 1999, from U.S. Patent Application No. 08/795,999,
`filed February 5, 1997. Ex. 1001, [21], [22], [45], [54].
`The ’775 patent describes a method for simultaneously
`communicating low- and high-rate information over a common
`communication link, such as for communicating occupant-presence and
`occupant-position information to a control circuit in an automotive
`supplemental inflatable restraint (“SIR”), or air-bag, system. Id. at Abstract,
`col. 1, ll. 5–9, col. 2, ll. 21–24. According to the ’775 patent, because
`occupant-presence information changes only infrequently and slowly, such
`as when an occupant exits the vehicle or a child crawls from one seat to
`another, such information requires only a relatively slow update rate, on the
`order of seconds. Id. at col. 1, ll. 52–57. Occupant-position information, on
`the other hand, is subject to continuous and more rapid change and requires
`updating at a faster rate, on the order of milliseconds. Id. at col. 1, ll. 59–62.
`According to the ’775 patent, “these divergent requirements would
`ordinarily necessitate separate systems and communication techniques,” but
`“[i]t is . . . an object of the invention to communicate at low and high
`bandwidths over the same communication link.” Id. at col. 1, l. 67–col. 2,
`line 1, col. 2, ll. 21–23. The ’775 patent thus discloses a combined protocol
`that “can support both bandwidth needs separately or simultaneously,”
`“consist[ing] of a low rate protocol for occupant presence information . . .
`combined with a high rate protocol for occupant position information.” Id.
`at col. 2, ll. 38–40, 42–45; see also id. at col. 3, ll. 37–42. Each protocol is
`based on a fundamental time interval (“FTI”)—specifically, a “low rate FTI
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01088
`Patent 5,954,775
`
`(LFTI) for the occupant presence component, and a high rate FTI (HFTI) for
`the occupant position component”—that “defines the shortest meaningful
`time interval for that protocol.” Id. at col. 2, ll. 45–47, col. 3, ll. 43–46.
`According to the ’775 patent, “[t]he ratio of the LFTI to the HFTI must be
`great enough to allow at [least] one complete high rate message to be
`contained within the LFTI and leave sufficient time remaining within the
`LFTI that its state can be determined without ambiguity.” Id. at col. 3, ll.
`47–51.
`This relationship is illustrated in Figure 2 of the ’775 patent, which is
`reproduced below.
`
`
`According to the ’775 patent, Figure 2 “is a diagram of combined high rate
`and low rate message protocols according to the invention” and “shows two
`consecutive LFTI intervals,” each having “a nominal logic state which is
`interrupted by the high rate message.” Id. at col. 3, ll. 1–2, 52–55. As
`depicted, within a given LFTI, there can be multiple HFTIs, providing
`sufficient bandwidth to contain at least one complete high-rate message and
`still leave the remainder of the LFTI available for a portion of a low rate
`message. Id. at col. 3, ll. 57–60, col. 4, ll. 11–16. For example, if the LFTI
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01088
`Patent 5,954,775
`
`is 50 ms and the HFTI is 0.5 ms, then a high rate message requiring 54
`HFTIs (i.e., 27 ms) would fit entirely within a single LFTI. Id. at col. 4, ll.
`11–17. A low rate message, in contrast, requires multiple LFTIs to
`complete. Id. at col. 4, ll. 43–44. Figure 4 of the ’775 patent, reproduced
`below, provides an example.
`
`
`Figure 4 “is a waveform illustrating the structure of a low rate message.” Id.
`at col. 3, ll. 5–6. According to the ’775 patent, Figure 4 depicts the low rate
`presence message for a rear facing infant seat, which, according to the
`following table, consists of one low and two high binary values:
`
`
`
`
`Id. at col. 4, ll. 31–42. That message “requires 150 ms and . . . continuously
`repeated.” Id. at col. 4, ll. 46–47. The signals corresponding to the other
`conditions set forth in the above table require from two to four LFTIs, or
`100–200 ms, to complete. Id. at col. 4, ll. 43–44.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01088
`Patent 5,954,775
`
`
`D. The Challenged Claim
`Challenged claim 6 reads as follows:
`6. A method of accommodating communication of first and
`second types of data at first and second message rates over a
`common communication link comprising the steps of:
`establishing a message rate interval on the common
`communication link;
`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;
`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
`transmitting at least one of the first and second types of data
`in the respective portions of each message rate interval.
`Ex. 1001, col. 6, ll. 26–45.
`E. References Relied Upon
`Volkswagen relies on the following references:
`
`Exhibit Reference
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`AUTOMOTIVE ELECTRONICS HANDBOOK (Ronald K. Jurgen ed.,
`1995) (“Jurgen”)
`
`BILL WAGGENER, PULSE CODE MODULATION TECHNIQUES WITH
`APPLICATIONS IN COMMUNICATIONS AND DATA RECORDING (1995)
`(“Waggener”)
`
`1010
`
`EP 0681378 A1, published Nov. 8, 1995 (“Mosch”)
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01088
`Patent 5,954,775
`
`Volkswagen also relies on the Declaration of Dr. A. Bruce Buckman
`(Ex. 1002).
`F. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Volkswagen challenges the patentability of claim 6 on the following
`two grounds:
`
`#
`1
`
`References
`Jurgen and Waggener
`
`Basis
`§ 103(a)
`
`2
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Jurgen and Mosch
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`A. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the
`patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also In re Cuozzo
`Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“We conclude
`that Congress implicitly approved the broadest reasonable interpretation
`standard in enacting the AIA.”). Under the broadest reasonable
`interpretation standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary
`meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the
`context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249,
`1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`Here, the parties do not argue that any claim term should be given a
`meaning other than its ordinary and customary one. Having reviewed the
`parties’ respective contentions regarding the proposed grounds of rejection,
`we conclude that it is not necessary for our determination of whether to
`institute inter partes review to construe explicitly any terms of the
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01088
`Patent 5,954,775
`
`challenged claim. Only those terms which are in controversy need to be
`construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Vivid
`Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision we have given all claim terms
`their ordinary and customary meaning in light of the Specification.
`B. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`1. Obviousness over Jurgen and Waggener
`a. Overview of Jurgen
`
`Jurgen generally describes automotive electronics, including, inter
`alia, sensors and actuators, control systems, systems for passenger safety
`and convenience, and multiplex wiring. Ex. 1008, 13. Regarding the last of
`those topics, Jurgen states that “multiplex wiring . . . holds great promise for
`the future in reducing the cumbersome wiring harnesses presently used.” Id.
`According to Chapter 26 of Jurgen, entitled “Multiplex Wiring Systems,”
`the SAE Vehicle Network for Multiplexing and Data Communications
`(Multiplex) Committee defines three classes of vehicle data communication
`networks providing potential multiplex system usage, designated as “Class
`A,” “Class B,” and “Class C.” Id. at 15. According to Jurgen, Class A
`multiplexing, which “is most appropriate for low-speed body wiring and
`control functions,” allows “vehicle wiring [to be] 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. at 15, 17. Class B
`multiplexing allows data to be transferred between nodes to eliminate
`redundant sensors and other system elements. Id. at 15. According to
`Jurgen, “[t]he nodes in this form of a multiplex system typically already
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01088
`Patent 5,954,775
`
`existed as stand-alone modules in a conventionally wired vehicle.” Id. In
`Class C networks, “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. According to Jurgen, “[t]he Class B network is intended to be a
`functional superset of the Class A network; i.e., the Class B bus must be
`capable of communications that would perform all of the functions of a
`Class A bus,” and “[i]n a similar manner, the Class C bus is intended as a
`functional superset of the Class B bus.” Id. Jurgen also discloses that a
`single-network architecture can be used to carry both Class A and Class B
`messages on one network. Id. at 17.
`b. Overview of Waggener
`
`Waggener generally describes pulse code modulation (PCM) systems
`and their applications in, inter alia, telemetry and telecommunications
`systems. Ex. 1009, 17. According to Waggener, a “typical PCM system . . .
`begins with a data acquisition subsystem which acquires data from one, or
`more, sensors, samples, multiplexes and digitizes the signals.” Id. at 18.
`“The digital data may then be multiplexed with other digital data.” Id. In
`telemetry systems, in particular, according to Waggener, “a wide variety of
`sensors may be used.” Id. at 19. Moreover, according to Waggener, most
`multiplexes encountered in data acquisition and telemetry systems are
`“irregular,” meaning that they contain a mixture of data sources with
`differing rates. Id. at 29.
`According to Waggener, when multiplexing data streams in a system
`having a number of different sensors with widely varying bandwidth, a
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01088
`Patent 5,954,775
`
`multiplexer design technique referred to as “subcommutation” can be used
`in order to increase efficiency. Id. at 20. According to Waggener:
`In multiplexing and sampling of . . . data, the sampling rate per
`sensor must be at least twice the highest signal frequency
`(Nyquist’s theorem) in order to prevent the distortion known as
`aliasing. If the sensors all have an equal bandwidth, such as the
`voice channels in a telephone system, the multiplexing scheme
`is nearly trivial. On the other hand, if a system has a number of
`different sensors with widely varying bandwidth, it would be
`inefficient to sample all channels at twice the frequency of the
`highest bandwidth sensor. . . . The multiplexing and sampling
`plan under these circumstances should attempt to minimize the
`composite data rate while satisfying the minimum sampling rate
`requirements for each channel.
`
`Id.
`
`According to Waggener, many of the channels in such systems need
`to be sampled at only a fraction of the highest rate channels, “suggest[ing]
`that the multiplex be structured so that some of the time slots in the frame
`are shared by multiple channels.” Id. at 29. Figure 4.4 of Waggener is
`reproduced below.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01088
`Patent 5,954,775
`
`Figure 4.4 is an array representing a multiplex that illustrates the
`subcommutation technique. Id. at 29–30. As shown in Figure 4.4, data from
`three different sources (D, S, and W) are multiplexed. The highest-sampled
`source, “D,” is assigned a sufficient number of time slots in each “minor
`frame” (defined by Waggener as the “length, in bits, of the number of
`columns in the array”) to allow for the data from all D channels (i.e., D1–
`D8) to be multiplexed in each minor frame. Id. at 29. The lower-sampled
`sources, S and W, in contrast, are “submultiplexed” into “additional” minor
`frames time slots, such that, for example, four consecutive minor frames are
`required for the data from all S channels (S1–S4) to be multiplexed, and two
`consecutive minor frames are required for the data from the W channels (W1
`and W2) to be multiplexed. Id. According to Waggener, such
`submultiplexing of channels with lower sampling rates into such additional
`minor frame time slots “is commonly called subcommutation.” Id.
`c. Discussion
`
`As noted above, claim 6 is directed to a method of accommodating
`communication of first and second types of data at first and second message
`rates over a common communication link. As part of that method, claim 6
`requires the following steps:
`establishing a message rate interval on the common
`communication link;
`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;
`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; [and]
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01088
`Patent 5,954,775
`
`
`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.
`Ex. 1001, col. 6, ll. 29–42. In support of its contention that claim 6 is
`unpatentable over the combination of Jurgen and Waggener, Volkswagen
`presents detailed analysis and claim charts laying out how each limitation of
`the claim is accounted for in the cited references, relying specifically on
`pages 110–11 and Figure 4.4 of Waggener as disclosing each of the steps
`recited above. Pet. 16–21, 25–29 (citing Ex. 1009, 29–30).
`In response to Volkswagen’s contentions, Signal IP argues that “the
`combination of Jurgen and Waggener does not suggest ‘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,’ as required by
`claim 6.” Prelim. Resp. 13. According to Signal IP, “Waggener is cited as
`describing a so-called ‘complete’ set of data D1 – D8 that is transmitted
`within each minor frame of a multiplex,” but “[m]issing from Petitioner’s
`analysis . . . is any explanation of why a set of data D1 – D8 should be
`considered a ‘complete message,’ as required by the challenged claim.” Id.
`at 10. Signal IP alleges:
`As explained in the specification, within a given LFTI, there are
`multiple high rate FTIs, providing sufficient bandwidth to
`contain at least one complete high rate FTI message. For
`example, the LFTI period “consists of many HFTI intervals
`affording sufficient bandwidth to contain at least one complete
`occupant position message.” The occupant position message is
`known to be complete because it originates with a start of
`message (SOM) indication and concludes with an end of
`message (EOM) indication. While this is only an example of a
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01088
`Patent 5,954,775
`
`
`complete message at a first message rate as recited in claim 6, it
`nevertheless appraises [sic] a person of ordinary skill in the art
`that a “complete message” is one that includes all constituent
`elements for a message of that data type.
`In contrast, Waggener’s description of an irregular
`multiplex (relied upon by Petitioner) indicates only that it is an
`array structure that includes a mixture of data sources with
`differing rates. In the example shown in Waggener’s Fig. 4.4,
`information from data channels D1 – D8 is included in each
`minor frame. However, there is no indication, indeed not even
`a suggestion, that this information provides a “complete
`message” (i.e., one having all the constituent parts) of D-
`channel data.
`Id. at 11–12 (footnotes omitted). Signal IP further contends that, even
`assuming that a minor frame in the context of Waggener’s Figure 4.4
`“somehow includes a ‘complete’ set of D data,” Volkswagen “has not
`explained why a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider a
`complete set of D data to be a ‘complete message’ as required by claim 6.”
`Id. at 12.
`Based on the record before us, we are persuaded that Volkswagen has
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail at trial in showing
`that claim 6 is unpatentable over Jurgen and Waggener. Volkswagen’s
`arguments and claim charts account for all elements of the claim, and Signal
`IP’s arguments do not persuade us of any deficiencies at this time.
`Despite Signal IP’s contention that the example in the Specification of
`an occupant position message that includes SOM and EOM indications
`would apprise a person of ordinary skill in the art that a “complete message”
`is “one that includes all constituent elements for a message of that data type”
`(Prelim. Resp. 11 (citing Ex. 1001, col. 4, ll. 48–60)), claim 6 does not recite
`any specific constituent elements required for a message to be deemed
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01088
`Patent 5,954,775
`
`“complete.” The Specification states that “[a] variety of message structures
`and encoding techniques are suitable candidates for use with either
`protocol.” Ex. 1001, col. 2, ll. 56–58. The Specification further describes
`an exemplary low-rate message, indicating that a “complete” message may
`be as simple as a repeating pattern of two pulses with each pulse having one
`of two durations. See id. at col. 4, ll. 30–47 (“[T]he low rate message
`contains the presence information . . . . Each condition is coded by a
`combination of high and low pulses . . . . Thus the low rate message is
`completed in two to four LFTIs or 100 ms to 200 ms.” (emphasis added)),
`Fig. 4.
`Moreover, Signal IP does not point to, and we do not discern, any
`indication in Waggener that any D-message data exists apart from the data
`transmitted via data channels D1–D8. Accordingly, Waggener’s
`multiplexing of each of the D channels in specific slots of each minor frame
`(i.e., a devoted portion of an established message rate interval, in the
`parlance of claim 6), as illustrated in Waggener’s Figure 4.4, reasonably
`suggests “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,” as recited in claim 6.
`Because, on this record, Volkswagen has identified sufficient
`evidence to support its contention that the subject matter of claim 6 of the
`’775 patent would have been obvious over the combination of Jurgen and
`Waggener, we conclude that Volkswagen has established a reasonable
`likelihood that it would prevail at trial in challenging claim 6 over that
`combination.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01088
`Patent 5,954,775
`
`
`2. Obviousness over Jurgen and Mosch
`a. Overview of Mosch
`
`Mosch teaches a receiver that receives high-speed burst-mode packet
`data signals superimposed on a lower-frequency data signal on an optical
`bus at the same optical wavelength. Ex. 1010, col. 1, ll. 3–6; col. 2, ll. 16–
`19, 30–33. According to Mosch, the optical bus utilizes sharing of an
`optical fiber among several optoelectronic sources and detectors, though
`Mosch also notes that “the present invention can be utilized in non-optical
`signals as well.” Id. at col. 1, ll. 10–14, col. 9, ll. 8–11.
`Figure 3 of Mosch is reproduced below.
`
`
`According to Mosch, Figure 3 “shows an illustrative received burst-
`mode packet data signal superimposed on a low-frequency signal and the
`signals detected therefrom by [Mosch’s] receiver.” Id. at col. 2, ll. 55–58,
`col. 3, ll. 14–21. As illustrated in Figure 3, a burst-mode packet is
`transmitted in each of time slots T1 and T2, whereas the lower-frequency
`data is sampled during a predetermined portion of time period TQ between
`bursts of the high-speed packet data. Id. at col. 2, ll. 23–27, col. 3, ll 9–21,
`col. 5, ll. 21–35, 43–48. According to Mosch, “[d]ata packet protocols
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01088
`Patent 5,954,775
`
`ensure that there must be a ‘quiet’ interval TQ between data packets,” both
`because “there must be a timing cushion to prevent adjacent packets . . .
`from interfering with one another” and because “a RESET time is required
`to discharge the burst-mode Peak Detector[] in preparation for receipt of the
`next packet.” Id. at col. 6, ll. 12–22. Mosch discloses that the “low-
`frequency signal channel might be used for distance ranging or for
`communicating audio or terminal status information.” Id. at col. 1, l. 58–col.
`2, l. 2. Mosch also teaches that the disclosed packet receiver may be used
`for reception and resolution of burst-mode data “in a packet format having a
`predetermined number of bits per packet, as would be used in an
`Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) application, for example.” Id. at col.
`3, ll. 45–50.
`b. Discussion
`
`Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded that Volkswagen
`demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that
`claim 6 is unpatentable over Jurgen and Mosch. In particular, on this record,
`Volkswagen has not identified sufficient evidence that Jurgen and Mosch
`disclose or suggest “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,” as recited in claim 6 (emphasis added).
`In support of its contention that Jurgen and Mosch teach that step,
`Volkswagen contends that “the first portion of the message rate interval in
`Mosch et al., T1, is devoted to the first type of data (the high rate packet),”
`while “[t]he remaining portion, TQ, is reserved for the low rate data.”
`Pet. 37. Volkswagen further argues that the intervals “are specifically
`labeled [by Mosch] as ‘high-speed data packet intervals’ and the ‘quiet
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01088
`Patent 5,954,775
`
`interval TQ,’” and that “[n]o high speed data packets are to be transmitted in
`the quiet period, as there must be a quiet interval between packets to prevent
`interference.” Id. (citing Ex. 1010, col. 6, ll. 12–22, col. 8, ll. 18–31; Ex.
`1002 ¶¶ 21–22). As Signal IP points out in response to Volkswagen’s
`contentions, however, rather than devoting a portion of each message rate
`interval to a first type of data and reserving a remaining portion for a second
`type of data, Mosch indicates the high and low frequency signals are, in fact,
`superimposed on an optical bus. Prelim. Resp. 16 (citing Ex. 1010, col. 2, ll.
`30–33). As Signal IP explains, although Mosch’s receiver samples the
`received signal to determine whether a low frequency signal is present
`during the quiet intervals TQ between the high-speed burst-mode packets,
`Mosch receives high-speed burst-mode packet data signals combined with
`lower frequency data signals and later subtracts that value from the received
`signal during subsequent high-speed data packet intervals. Id. at 15–16
`(citing Ex. 1010, col. 2, ll. 16–19, col. 5, ll. 21–48). We agree with Signal
`IP that “[n]o such subtraction would be needed if the low frequency signal
`were restricted to a reserved portion of a message rate interval in which no
`high frequency message were being transmitted.” Id. at 16.
`Because, on this record, Volkswagen has not identified sufficient
`evidence to support its contention that the subject matter of claim 6 of the
`’775 patent would have been obvious over the combination of Jurgen and
`Mosch, we conclude that Volkswagen has not established a reasonable
`likelihood that it would prevail at trial in challenging claim 6 over that
`combination.
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01088
`Patent 5,954,775
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons and on this record, we are persuaded that
`Volkswagen establishes a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in
`showing that claim 6 of the ’775 patent is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) only over Jurgen and Waggener. Accordingly, we institute trial
`solely on that ground. At this stage of the proceeding, the Board has not
`made a final determination as to the patentability of claim 6 or the
`construction of any claim term.
`
`
`IV. ORDER
`Upon consideration of the record before us, it is, therefore,
`ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes
`review is instituted as to claim 6 of the ’775 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`as obvious over Jurgen and Waggener;
`FURTHER ORDERED that no other grounds are authorized for inter
`partes review in this proceeding; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and
`37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial
`commencing on the entry date of this Decision.
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01088
`Patent 5,954,775
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Michael J. Lennon
`Clifford A. Ulrich
`Michelle Carniaux
`Kenyon & Kenyon LLP
`mlennon@kenyon.com
`ptab@kenyon.com
`
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Tarek N. Fahmi
`Ascenda Law Group, PC
`tarek.fahmi@ascendalaw.com
`patents@ascendalaw.com
`
`
`
`19
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
