Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 7
`Filed: February 2, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BLITZSAFE TEXAS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01472
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and KERRY BEGLEY,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 7
`Filed: February 2, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BLITZSAFE TEXAS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01472
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and KERRY BEGLEY,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01472
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background
`On July 21, 2016, Petitioner filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) to
`institute inter partes review of claims 1, 5–8, 10, 14, 57, 60–62, 64, and 65
`of U.S. Patent No. 7,489,786 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’786 patent”). On
`November 15, 2016, Patent Owner filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 6,
`“Prelim. Resp.”).
`To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the
`information presented in the Petition shows “that 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). Having considered
`both the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner
`has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in
`establishing the unpatentability of any of claims 1, 5–8, 10, 14, 57, 60–62,
`64, and 65. We do not institute an inter partes review of any claim of the
`’786 patent.
`Related Matters
`B.
`Petitioner indicates that the ’786 patent was asserted by Patent Owner
`against Petitioner in Blitzsafe Texas, LLC v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd. et al.,
`No. 2:15-cv-1274 (E.D. Tex.). Pet. 2. The parties indicate that the
`’786 patent is the subject of four other actions in the Eastern District of
`Texas. Pet. 58–59; Paper 3, 1. The parties further indicate that the
`’786 patent is the subject of two concluded matters in the District of New
`Jersey. Pet. 59; Paper 3, 2. The ’786 patent also is the subject patent in
`these inter partes review proceedings: IPR2016-00421, IPR2016-00422,
`IPR2016-01448, and IPR2016-01477. U.S. Patent No. 8,155,342 B2 is a
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01472
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`related patent, and that related patent is involved in IPR2016-00118,
`IPR2016-00418, IPR2016-00419, IPR2016-01445, IPR2016-01449,
`IPR2016-01473, IPR2016-01476, IPR2016-01533, IPR2016-01557, and
`IPR2016-01560.
`
`The ’786 Patent
`C.
`The ’786 patent is titled “Audio Device Integration System.”
`Ex. 1001, (54). The Abstract portion of the Specification explains:
`[O]ne or more after-market audio devices, such as a CD player,
`CD changer, MP3 player, satellite receiver, DAB receiver, or the
`like, is integrated for use with an existing OEM or after-market
`car stereo system, wherein control commands can be issued at
`the car stereo and responsive data from the audio device can be
`displayed on the stereo.
`Id. at Abstr.
`In the Background of the Invention portion of the Specification, a
`problem with which the ’786 patent is concerned is described as follows:
`A particular problem with integrating after-market audio
`systems with existing car stereos is that signals generated by the
`car stereo is in a proprietary format, and is not capable of being
`processed by the after-market system. Additionally, signals
`generated by the after-market system are also in a proprietary
`format that is not recognizable by the car stereo. Thus, in order
`to integrate after-market systems with car stereos, it is necessary
`to convert signals between such systems.
`Id. at 1:36–44. In the Summary of the Invention portion of the
`Specification, it is stated:
`The commands generated at the control panel [of a car stereo]
`are received by the present invention and converted into a format
`recognizable by the after-market audio device. The formatted
`commands are executed by the audio device, and audio therefrom
`is channeled to the car stereo. Information from the audio device
`is received by the present invention, converted into a format
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01472
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`
`recognizable by the car stereo, and forwarded to the car stereo
`for display thereby.
`Ex. 1001, 2:35–42.
`The ’786 patent describes:
`Control commands generated at the car stereo are received,
`processed, converted into a format recognizable by the audio
`device, and dispatched to the audio device for execution.
`Information from the audio device, including track, disc, song,
`station, time, and other information, is received, processed,
`converted into a format recognizable by the car stereo, and
`dispatched to the car stereo for display thereon.
`Id. Additional auxiliary sources also may be integrated together, and “a user
`can select between the [audio] device or the one or more auxiliary input
`sources by issuing selection commands through the car stereo.” Id.
`
`Figures 2A–2C are reproduced below:
`
`
`
`Figure 2A illustrates an embodiment integrating a CD player with the car
`stereo; Figure 2B illustrates an embodiment integrating a MP3 player with a
`car stereo; and Figure 2C illustrates an embodiment integrating a satellite or
`DAB receiver with a car stereo. Id. at 3:14–23. A more versatile
`embodiment is shown in Figure 1:
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01472
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 1 illustrates an embodiment integrating a CD player, a MP3 player,
`and a satellite radio or DAB receiver, and a number of auxiliary input
`sources with a car stereo. Ex. 1001, 3:12–13. As shown in the above
`figures, central to the ’786 patent is an “interface” positioned between the
`car stereo and the audio device(s) and auxiliary input(s) being integrated.
`
`With specific regard to Figure 2B, the ’786 patent describes:
`The interface 20 allows data and audio signals to be exchanged
`between the MP3 player 30 and the car radio 10, and processes
`and formats signals accordingly so that instructions and data
`from the radio 10 are processable by the MP3 player 30, and vice
`versa. Operational commands, such as track selection, pause,
`play, stop, fast forward, rewind, and other commands, are entered
`via the control panel buttons 14 of car radio 10, processed by the
`interface 20, and formatted for execution by the MP3 player 30.
`Data from the MP3 player, such as track, time, and song
`information, is received by the interface 20, processed thereby,
`and sent to the radio 10 for display on display 13. Audio from
`MP3 player 30 is selectively forwarded by the interface 20 to the
`radio 10 for playing.
`Id. at 6:11–24. Similar description is provided with respect to Figures 2A
`and 2C. Id. at 5:49–55, 6:35–43.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01472
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`
`Of all of the challenged claims, claims 1 and 57 are the only
`independent claims. Claim 1 is directed to a system that connects an
`after-market audio device as well as one or more auxiliary input sources to a
`car stereo. Claim 1 recites a first connector electrically connectable to a car
`stereo, a second connector electrically connectable to an after-market device,
`and a third connector electrically connectable to one or more auxiliary input
`sources. Ex. 1001, 21:33–38. Claim 1 also recites an interface connected
`between the first and second electrical connectors, and that the interface
`includes a microcontroller pre-programmed to execute:
`a first pre-programmed code portion for remotely controlling the
`after-market audio device using the car stereo by receiving a
`control command from the car stereo through said first
`connector in a format incompatible with the after-market
`audio device, processing the received control command into
`a formatted command compatible with the after-market audio
`device, and transmitting the formatted command to the
`after-market audio device through said second connector for
`execution by the after-market audio device;
`a second pre-programmed code portion for receiving data from
`the after-market audio device through said second connector
`in a format incompatible with the car stereo, processing the
`received data into formatted data compatible with the car
`stereo, and transmitting the formatted data to the car stereo
`through said first connector for display by the car stereo; and
`a third pre-programmed code portion for switching to one or
`more auxiliary input sources connected to said third electrical
`connector.
`Id. at 21:44–64.
`Claim 57 is directed to a system including an interface that connects a
`portable MP3 player to a car stereo. Unlike claim 1, claim 57 does not
`require the additional connection of the car stereo to one or more auxiliary
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01472
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`input sources. Claim 57 also does not require conversion of data from a
`format incompatible with the car stereo to a format compatible with the car
`stereo. But claim 57 requires the generation, within the interface, of a
`device presence signal that is transmitted to the car stereo to maintain the car
`stereo in an operational state. Claim 57 is reproduced below:
`57. An audio device integration system comprising:
`a first electrical connector connectable to a car stereo;
`a second electrical connector connectable to a portable MP3
`player external to the car stereo
`an interface connected between said first and second electrical
`connectors for transmitting audio from a portable MP3 player
`to a car stereo, said interface including a microcontroller in
`electrical communication with said first and second electrical
`connectors,
`said microcontroller pre-programmed to execute:
`a first pre-programmed code portion for generating a
`device presence signal and transmitting the signal to
`the car stereo to maintain the car stereo in an
`operational state; and
`a second pre-programmed code portion for remotely
`controlling the MP3 player using the car stereo by
`receiving a control command from the car stereo
`through said first electrical connector in a format
`incompatible with the MP3 player, processing the
`control command into a formatted control command
`compatible with the MP3 player, and transmitting
`the formatted control command to the MP3 player
`through said second electrical connector for
`execution by the MP3 player.
`Ex. 1001, 26:13–37.
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01472
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`
`Evidence Relied Upon
`D.
`Petitioner relies on the following references:
`
`
`
`Reference
`
`Bhogal
`
`Berry
`
`Onishi
`
`Ohmura
`
`Okagaki
`
`Owens
`
`JP ’9542
`
`Knobl
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,629,197 B1
`
`Date
`
`Exhibit
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`Sept. 30, 2001,
`filed
`Nov. 3, 2000
`U.S. Patent No. 6,559,773 B1 May 6, 2003,
`filed
`Dec. 21, 1999
`May 11, 2001 Ex. 1006
`
`Japanese Patent Application
`Publication 2001-1282801
`
`U.S. Patent Application
`Publication 2001/0028717 A1
`
`EPO Patent Application
`Publication EP 0 953 486 A2
`
`U.S. Patent Application
`Publication 2002/0084910 A1
`
`Japanese Utility Model
`Application Publication
`H7-6954
`
`Oct. 11, 2001 Ex. 1008
`
`Nov. 3, 1999
`
`Ex. 1009
`
`July 4, 2002
`
`Ex. 1010
`
`Jan. 31, 1995
`
`Ex. 1011
`
`U.S. Patent Application
`Publication 2001/0025376 A1
`
`Sept. 27, 2001 Ex. 1013
`
`
`Petitioner also relies on the Declaration of James T. Geier. Ex. 1014.
`
`
`
`1 All citations to specific content of Onishi refers to its English translation
`(Ex. 1007).
`2 All citations to specific content of JP’954 refer to its English translation
`(Ex. 1012).
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01472
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`
`The Asserted Grounds
`E.
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`Claim(s) Challenged
`Basis
`References
`§ 103(a) Bhogal, Berry, and Onishi
`
`57, 60, 61, 64, and 65
`
`62
`
`64 and 65
`
`1, 6, 7, 10, and 14
`
`5
`
`8
`
`10
`
`1, 6, 7, 10, 14, 57, 60,
`and 61
`
`5
`
`8 and 62
`
`64 and 65
`
`§ 103(a) Bhogal, Berry, Onishi, and Ohmura
`
`§ 103(a) Bhogal, Berry, Onishi, and Okagaki
`§ 103(a) Bhogal, Onishi, and Owens
`§ 103(a) Bhogal, Onishi, Owens, and Berry
`§ 103(a) Bhogal, Onishi, Owens, and Ohmura
`§ 103(a) Bhogal, Onishi, Owens, and Knobl
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`JP ’954, Onishi, and Owens
`
`JP ’954, Onishi, Owens, and Berry
`
`JP ’954, Onishi, Owens, and Ohmura
`
`JP ’954, Onishi, Owens, and Okagaki
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of
`nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`One seeking to establish obviousness based on more than one reference also
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01472
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`must articulate sufficient reasoning with rational underpinning to combine
`teachings. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
`With regard to the level of ordinary skill in the art, we determine that
`no express finding is necessary, on this record, and that the level of ordinary
`skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v.
`Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d
`1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).
`A. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
`interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142–46 (2016).
`Consistent with that standard, claim terms also 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. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
`504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). There are, however, two exceptions
`to that rule: “1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own
`lexicographer,” and “2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim
`term either in the specification or during prosecution.” Thorner v. Sony
`Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`If an inventor acts as his or her own lexicographer, the definition must
`be set forth in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and
`precision. Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243,
`1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998). It is improper to add into a claim an extraneous
`limitation, i.e., one that is added wholly apart from any need for the addition.
`See, e.g., Hoganas AB v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 9 F.3d 948, 950 (Fed. Cir.
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01472
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`1993); E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d
`1430, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Although it is improper to read a limitation
`from the specification into the claims, In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184
`(Fed. Cir. 1993), claims still must be read in view of the specification of
`which they are a part. Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d
`1340, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`Only terms which are in controversy need to be construed, and only to
`the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Wellman, Inc. v.
`Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Vivid Techs.,
`Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`“portable”
`1.
`Independent claim 57 recites a portable MP3 player. It may be that
`the term requires no express construction, and simply would be understood
`by one with ordinary skill in the art. We note that even the ’786 patent itself
`and Bhogal, both using the term “portable” in their written description, do
`not provide a definition therefor. Nevertheless, an express construction is
`helpful to this proceeding. We construe “portable,” in the context of the
`’786 patent, as meaning capable of being carried by a user.3
`“interface”
`2.
`Each of independent claims 1 and 57 recites an “interface.” Claims 1
`
`and 57 each require the interface to be connected between a first electrical
`
`
`3 This is the same construction provided by the Board in IPR2015-00421
`when instituting trial in that proceeding. Both Petitioner and Patent Owner
`have urged that that construction be adopted in this proceeding. Pet. 9;
`Prelim. Resp. 3.
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01472
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`connector and a second electrical connector, where the first connector is
`connectable to a car stereo and the second connector is connectable to an
`after-market audio device (claim 1), or a portable MP3 player (claim 57).
`Also, claim 57 recites that the interface is “for transmitting audio from
`a portable MP3 player to a car stereo”; and claim 1 recites that the interface
`is “for channeling audio signals to the car stereo from the after-market audio
`device.” With regard to an “interface,” the Specification states: “Thus, as
`can be readily appreciated, the interface 20 of the present invention allows
`for the integration of a multitude of devices and inputs with an OEM or
`after-market car radio or stereo.” Ex. 1001, 5:33–36. “As mentioned earlier,
`the interface 20 of the present invention allows for a plurality of disparate
`audio devices to be integrated with an existing car radio for use therewith.”
`Id. at 6:4–7.
`Data from the MP3 player, such as track, time, and song
`information, is received by the interface 20, processed thereby,
`and sent to the radio 10 for displaying on display 13. Audio from
`the MP3 player 30 is selectively forwarded by the interface 20 to
`the radio 10 for playing.
`Id. at 6:19–24. Thus, the Specification refers to the interface receiving
`information from an audio device and forwarding information to the car
`stereo, and to the interface allowing integration of a plurality of disparate
`audio devices with a car radio.
`
`During prosecution, the Applicants of the ’786 patent distinguished
`U.S. Patent 6,993,615 B2 (“Falcon”)4 in part by arguing that the reference
`
`
`4 Falcon discloses a portable computing device connectable to a car stereo
`through an interface configurable within the portable computing device.
`Ex. 3001, Abstr.
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01472
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`failed to disclose an interface connected between a car stereo system and an
`external audio source. Ex. 1002, 267. Specifically, in distinguishing the
`invention from Falcon, Applicants stated: “[Falcon’s graphical user
`interface] is an entirely different concept than the interface of the present
`invention, which includes a physical interface device connected between a
`car stereo system and an external audio source (e.g., a plurality of auxiliary
`input sources).” Id.
`
`Construing the term “interface” in light of the Specification, other
`language in the claims, as well as the prosecution history of the ’786 patent,
`we determine that—interface is a physical unit that connects one device to
`another and that has a functional and structural identity separate from that
`of both connected devices.5
`
`In the specific context of claim 1, the connected devices are the car
`stereo and an after-market device. In the specific context of claim 57, the
`connected devices are the car stereo and a portable device. Each of claims 1
`and 57 further requires the interface to include a microcontroller.
`“device presence signal”
`3.
`Claim 57 requires within the interface a microcontroller having a first
`
`pre-programmed code portion “for generating a device presence signal and
`transmitting the signal to the car stereo to maintain the car stereo in an
`operational state.” (Emphasis added). Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and
`further recites: “wherein said interface generates a device presence signal
`
`
`5 This is the same construction provided by the Board in IPR2015-00421
`when instituting trial in that proceeding. Both Petitioner and Patent Owner
`have urged that that construction be adopted in this proceeding. Pet. 9,
`Prelim. Resp. 3.
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01472
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`for maintaining the car stereo in a state responsive to processed data and
`audio signals.” A description of “device presence signal” is contained in the
`Specification in the discussion of an embodiment that is for connecting a CD
`player to the car stereo:
`Beginning in step 110, a signal is generated by the present
`invention indicating that a CD player/changer is present, and the
`signal is continuously transmitted to the car stereo. Importantly,
`this signal prevents the car stereo from shutting off, entering a
`sleep mode, or otherwise being unresponsive to signals and/or
`data from an external source.
`Ex. 1001, 12:29–35. All other disclosed embodiments, whether they are for
`connecting an MP3 player or an auxiliary device to the car stereo, refer back
`to the above-quoted description of the device presence signal. Id. at 13:15–
`18, 13:62–65, 14:48–51, 15:35–38, 16:12–15, 16:57–60.
`We construe “device presence signal,” as a signal indicating that an
`audio device, other than the car stereo, is connected to the interface.6
`B. Alleged Obviousness of Claims 1, 5–8, 10, 14, 57,
`60–62, 64, and 65 over Prior Art Including Bhogal
`Seven of Petitioner’s eleven alleged grounds of unpatentability rely in
`
`part on Bhogal. Because these seven grounds share a common deficiency
`with respect to Petitioner’s application of Bhogal to meet a limitation
`regarding the “interface” recited in independent claims 1 and 57,7 we group
`them for discussion purposes. We determine that Petitioner has not shown a
`
`
`6 This is essentially the same construction as that provided by the Board in
`IPR2015-00421 when instituting trial in that proceeding. Both Petitioner
`and Patent Owner have urged that that construction be adopted in this
`proceeding. Pet. 9, Prelim. Resp. 3.
`7 Claims 5–8, 10, and 14 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim1, and
`claims 60–62, 64, and 65 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 57.
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01472
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing unpatentability of
`any claim on the basis of any alleged ground of patentability relying in part
`on Bhogal.
`
`Bhogal
`1.
`Bhogal is titled “Method and System for Storing Digital Audio Data
`and Emulating Multiple CD-Changer Units.” Ex. 1004, (54). With regard
`to a problem that it addresses, Bhogal describes:
`
`Typically, CD-changer units and car stereo units are
`designed so that they are compatible only if they are made by the
`same manufacturer. In other words, CD-changers and car stereos
`usually have a proprietary interface, and no industry standard
`currently exists for interfacing different makes of CD-changers
`and car stereos.
`Id. at 4:57–62. To solve that problem, Bhogal provides a digital audio unit
`that is capable of emulating the operation of multiple CD-changers. Id.
`at 3:10–13. Regarding which one of many CD-changers to emulate, Bhogal
`describes:
`In one case, the digital audio unit can detect a control signal
`[from a car stereo] for a CD-changer unit and then automatically
`select the type of CD-changer unit to be emulated based on the
`detected control signal. In a second case, the digital audio unit
`can receive a user selection for selecting a type of CD-changer
`unit to be emulated. The softcopy digital audio files stored within
`the digital audio unit are thereby accessed through the controls
`and commands for a CD-changer unit.
`Ex. 1004, 3:13–20 (emphasis added). Bhogal describes that by emulating
`the operations of multiple types of CD-changer units, a single digital audio
`unit can be inserted in many different digital audio systems, “thereby
`extending the functionality of a digital audio system to include storage of
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01472
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`softcopy digital audio files that may be accessed through controls and
`commands for a CD-changer unit.” Id. at Abstr.
`
`Figure 2 of Bhogal is reproduced below:
`
`
`Figure 2 illustrates an embodiment of Bhogal’s audio system. Id.
`at 3:31–33. Emulator 206 is connected between car stereo 202 and actual
`CD-changer 204. Id. at 5:11–16. Emulator 206 contains digital audio
`files 212, organized as virtual CD-ROMs, that may be accessed by a user
`through the car stereo. Id. at 5:39–42. Bhogal describes that, in one
`embodiment, “the emulator unit may be positioned in an independent
`docking station that accepts portable electronics, possibly in a standard
`manner such that the docking station also accepts other types of MP3
`players.” Id. at 5:61–64 (emphasis added). When the emulator is not in the
`docking station, the car stereo and the actual CD-exchanger may operate
`together. Id. at 5:65–67.
`Bhogal describes that, in a preferred embodiment, emulator 206 is a
`portable device. Id. at 6:18–21. Bhogal also describes that the emulator
`may connect to a personal computer in many different ways, including by
`use of “serial, Universal Serial Bus (USB), or parallel I/O connections, in a
`manner similar to that found on other types of commercially available
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01472
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`portable digital audio devices.” Id. at 6:32–40. Music files may be
`downloaded from any external source and stored within a digital audio file
`database within the emulator. Id. at 6:40–45. Bhogal thus provides access
`to softcopy digital audio files. In that regard, Bhogal states:
`
`By recognizing the demand for softcopy digital audio files
`and the issue of backward compatibility, the present invention
`takes advantage of the interface between stereo units and
`CD-changer units to implement a methodology for providing
`access to softcopy digital files. The present invention emulates
`the CD-changer interface, which is usually a hardware interface
`for providing access to hardcopy digital audio files stored on CDs
`that are stored within the CD-changer, so that a stereo unit using
`the CD-changer interface can access softcopy digital audio files
`through its CD-changer interface.
`Id. at 4:63–5:6. The softcopy digital audio files are organized as virtual
`CD-ROMs. Id. at 5:39–43. Additionally, the existing functionality of the
`actual CD-changer is not eliminated. In that connection, Bhogal states: “In
`addition, the present invention enables a CD-changer to ‘piggyback’ on a
`digital audio device containing the present invention so that the current
`jukebox functionality of storing and accessing CDs within a CD-changer is
`still available.” Id. at 5:6–10. In summary, Bhogal states:
`By emulating the operations of multiple types of CD-changer
`units, the present invention enables a single digital audio device
`to be inserted in many different configurations of digital audio
`systems. The present invention thereby extends the functionality
`of a digital audio system to include storage of softcopy digital
`audio files that may be accessed through controls and commands
`for a CD-changer unit.
`Id. at 9:65–10:5.
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01472
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`
`Independent Claims 1 and 57
`2.
`For reasons discussed below, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable
`
`likelihood that it would prevail in establishing unpatentability of either
`claim 1 or claim 57 on any ground of obviousness relying in part on Bhogal.
`pre-programmed code portion for remotely
`a)
`
`controlling an audio device or MP3 player
`
`(claims 1 and 57)
`Claim 1 requires a microcontroller within the interface to execute a
`pre-programmed code portion that is:
`for remotely controlling the after-market audio device using the
`car stereo by receiving a control command from the car stereo
`through said first electrical connector in a format incompatible
`with the after-market audio device, processing the received
`control command into a formatted command compatible with the
`after-market device, and transmitting the formatted command to
`the after-market device through said second connector for
`execution by the after-market audio device.
`Ex. 1001, 21:45–54. Claim 57 includes a similar limitation that differs from
`the above-quoted limitation of claim 1 by reciting a portable MP3 player
`instead of an after-market audio device. Id. at 22:28–37. Thus, claim 1
`pertains to a car stereo remotely controlling an after-market audio device,
`and claim 57 pertains to a car stereo remotely controlling a portable MP3
`player.
`For this remote control aspect of claims 1 and 57, and aside from the
`specific requirement of a portable MP3 player of claim 57, Petitioner relies
`on Bhogal’s disclosure. Bhogal pertains to an actual CD-changer and an
`emulator unit that emulates CD-changers, as discussed above.
`According to Petitioner, Bhogal discloses the above-noted limitation
`for remotely controlling the audio device that is connected to the interface.
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01472
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`Pet. 19. Petitioner’s argument is as follows:
`Bhogal explains that typically, car stereos are designed to
`communicate only with CD-changers made by the same
`manufacturer. Ex. 1004, at 4:57–62. The emulator unit in
`Bhogal contains a “CD-changer unit specification database 312”
`which “contains operational information about various models of
`CD-changer units and the manner in which emulator unit 302 can
`interface with a particular type of CD-changer unit.” Id. at 7:1–
`4, FIG. 3. A signal/command interpreter unit 314 inside the
`emulator unit monitors for signals and commands from the car
`stereo intended for the selected type of CD-changer. Id. at 7:12–
`24. For example, when a user of the car stereo presses controls
`on the car stereo for changing CDs or for obtaining information
`about CDs, the emulator unit captures the commands and
`“performs appropriate processing.” Id. at 8:21–26. In doing so,
`the emulator unit “operates in a particular manner that is
`compatible with the CD-changer to which the emulator unit is
`connected.” Id. at 7:7–11. See Geier Decl., Ex. 1014, ¶¶ 53–55.
`
`Id.
`
`The argument is unpersuasive. None of the cited disclosure and
`explanations, as presented by Petitioner, pertains to remotely controlling an
`audio device that is connected to Bhogal’s emulator unit. The operations
`identified by Petitioner support the emulator unit’s role as an emulator,
`where the emulator interprets commands from the car stereo intended for an
`actual CD-changer, and uses the interpreted commands to access audio data
`files within the emulator itself that are organized as virtual CD-ROMs.
`
`The claim limitation requires receiving a control command from the
`car stereo in a format incompatible with the connected audio device,
`processing it into a formatted control command that is compatible with the
`audio device, and transmitting the formatted command to the audio device.
`Petitioner has not identified any disclosure in Bhogal that describes
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01472
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`transmitting such a converted command to the connected audio device to
`control the audio device remotely.
`
`There is an operation mode of the emulator called “pass-thru mode” in
`which the emulator passes commands from the car stereo to the audio device
`that is connected. Ex. 1004, 7:36–46. However, as described in Bhogal, the
`“pass-thru mode” does not involve any conversion of a command from a
`format that is incompatible with the connected audio device to a format that
`is compatible with the connected audio device. Id. In Bhogal, the car stereo
`and the actual CD-changer already communicate with each other
`compatibly, without the need for an intermediate interface to do any
`conversion of signals. As discussed above, Bhogal describes that when the
`emulator is not in the docking station, the car stereo and the actual CD-
`exchanger may operate together. Id. at 5:65–67.
`
`In addition, there is an operation mode of the emulator called
`“end-unit” mode, in which the emulator replaces the CD-changer entirely
`and itself emulates the presence of the CD-changer. Id. at 7:47–49. Nothing
`in that mode of operation involves conversion of any command to be sent to
`the CD-changer to control the CD-changer remotely.
`
`There also is an operation mode of the emulator called “combination
`mode,” in which the emulator also reads tracks and track information from
`the actual CD-changer unit c
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
