`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 13
`
`
`
` Entered: July 8, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, and HUNG H. BUI,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BLITZSAFE TEXAS, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00418
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`____________
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners
`Exhibit 1011, Page 1
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00418
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`On December 30, 2015, Petitioner, Toyota Motor Corporation, filed a
`Petition requesting an inter partes review of claims 49–57, 62–64, 66, 68,
`70, 71, 73–80, 94, 95, 97, 99–103, 106, 109–111, 113, 115, and 120 of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,342 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’342 patent”). Paper 1
`(“Pet.”). Patent Owner, Blitzsafe Texas, LLC, filed a Preliminary Response
`on April 11, 2016. Paper 10 (“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 demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in
`establishing the unpatentability of claims 49–57, 62–64, 66, 68, 70, 71, 73–
`80, 94, 95, 97, 99–103, 106, 109–111, 113, 115, and 120 of the ’342 patent.
`Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of those claims.
`
`A. Related Matters
`
`The ’342 patent is involved in the following litigations: (1) Blitzsafe
`Texas, LLC v. Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., 2-15-cv-01276 (E.D. Tex. July 16,
`2015), (2) Blitzsafe Texas, LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp., 2-15-cv-01277 (E.D.
`Tex. July 16, 2015), (3) Blitzsafe Texas, LLC v. Volkswagen Group of Am.,
`Inc., 2-15-cv-01278 (E.D. Tex. July 16, 2015), (4) Blitzsafe Texas, LLC v.
`Hyundai Motor Co., 2-15-cv-01275 (E.D. Tex. July 16, 2015), (5) Blitzsafe
`Texas, LLC v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd., 2-15-cv-01274 (E.D. Tex. July 16,
`
`2
`
`Petitioners
`Exhibit 1011, Page 2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00418
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`2015), (6) Marlowe Patent Holdings LLC v. Dice Elects., LLC,, 3-10-cv-
`01199 (D.N.J.), and (7) Marlowe Patent Holdings LLC v. Ford Motor Co.,
`3-10-cv-07044 (D.N.J.). Pet. 1–2. The ’342 patent is also involved in
`IPR2016-00118 and IPR2016-00418. Related Patent 7,489,786 B2 is
`involved in IPR2016-00421 and IPR2016-00422.
`
`B. The ’342 Patent
`
`The ’342 patent relates to a multimedia device integration system that
`allows a plurality of “after-market” portable devices to be integrated into an
`existing car audio/video (stereo) system, via an “integration subsystem,”
`while allowing information to be displayed on, and control to be provided
`from, the car audio/video system. See Ex. 1001, 2:44–54; Abstract.
`Examples of these portable devices include CD players, CD changers, digital
`media devices (e.g., MP3 players, Apple iPod, WMV players, portable
`media centers, and other devices), satellite receivers, DAB receivers,
`auxiliary input sources, video devices (e.g., DVD players), cellular
`telephones, or any combination thereof. Id.
`The ’342 patent claims are directed to several embodiments where
`wireless integration is provided between a car audio/video system and a
`portable device, via an integration subsystem. Ex. 1001, 33:43–46. For
`example, Figure 18 shows an integration subsystem positioned within a
`portable device, and Figure 19 shows an integration subsystem positioned
`within a car audio/video system. Figures 18–19 are reproduced below.
`
`3
`
`Petitioners
`Exhibit 1011, Page 3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00418
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figures 18 and 19 of the ’342 patent show integration subsystems 932 and
`1032 positioned, respectively, within portable device 924 or within car
`audio/video system 1010.
`
`As shown in Figure 18, integration subsystem 932 positioned within
`portable device 924 allows information (data and control signals) to be
`exchanged between portable device 924 and car audio/video system 910, and
`processes and formats data accordingly so that instructions and data from car
`audio/video system 910 are processed by portable device 924, and vice
`versa. See id. at 33:43–35:62, Fig. 18. Similarly, as shown in Figure 19,
`integration subsystem 1032 positioned within car audio/video system 1010
`allows information (data and control signals) to be exchanged between
`4
`
`Petitioners
`Exhibit 1011, Page 4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00418
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`portable device 1024 and car audio/video system 1010, and processes and
`formats data accordingly so that instructions and data from car audio/video
`system 1010 are processed by portable device 1024, and vice versa. See id.
`at 33:43–35:62, Fig. 19.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`
`Of the challenged claims, claims 49, 73, 97, and 120 are independent.
`Claims 50–57, 62–64, 66, 68, 70, and 71 depend, directly or indirectly, from
`claim 49.
`Claim 49, reproduced below, is illustrative.
`49. A multimedia device integration system, comprising:
`an integration subsystem in communication with a car
`audio/video system; and
`a first wireless interface in communication with said
`integration subsystem, said first wireless interface establishing a
`wireless communication link with a second wireless interface in
`communication with a portable device external to the car
`audio/video system,
`wherein said integration subsystem obtains, using said
`wireless communication link, information about an audio file
`stored on the portable device, transmits the information to the car
`audio/video system for subsequent display of the information on
`a display of the car audio/video system, instructs the portable
`device to play the audio file in response to a user selecting the
`audio file using controls of the car audio/video system, and
`receives audio generated by the portable device over said
`wireless communication link for playing on the car audio/video
`system.
`Ex. 1001, 42:29–47.
`
`5
`
`Petitioners
`Exhibit 1011, Page 5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00418
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`Claim 73 is substantially identical to claim 49, except that the audio
`
`file is “received by” instead of “stored on” the portable device. Id. at 44:4–
`23. Claim 97 is similar to claim 49, but further defines that the “audio
`generated by the portable device” corresponds to “an audio file played by
`the portable device” and adds that the car stereo control commands are in a
`format incompatible with the portable device, and are re-formatted for
`purposes of compatibility. Id. at 45:45–63. Likewise, claim 120 is similar
`to claim 49, but further defines that the “audio generated by the portable
`device” corresponds to “an audio file played by the portable device” and
`adds that the data from the portable device is in a format incompatible with
`the car audio/video device, and is then re-formatted for purposes of
`compatibility. Id. at 46:63–47:18.
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`
`
`Petitioner relies upon the following prior art references:
`Reference
`Date
`
`Exhibit
`
`Clayton
`
`US 2006/0181963 A1
`
`Aug. 17, 2006 Ex. 1002
`
`Clayton
`Provisional
`
`U.S. Provisional Application
`No. 60/651,963
`
`Feb. 11, 2005 Ex. 1003
`
`Berry
`
`US 6,559,773 B1
`
`May 6, 2003
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`Marlowe
`
`US 2003/0215102 A1
`
`Nov. 20, 2003 Ex. 1005
`
`Gioscia
`
`Petitioner also relies on the Declaration of Dr. Thomas Matheson. Ex.
`
`Jul. 16, 2002
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`US 6,421,305 B1
`
`6
`
`Petitioners
`Exhibit 1011, Page 6
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00418
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`1016.
`
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 49–57, 62–64, 66, 68, 70, 71, 73–80, 94,
`95, 97, 99–103, 106, 109–111, 113, 115, and 120 of the ’342 patent under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a) on the following grounds:
`
`Challenged Claims
`Claims 49–55, 57, 62–
`64, 71, 73–80, 95, 97,
`99–103, 109–111, and
`120
`
`Claims 49–57, 62–64,
`66, 70, 71, 73–80, 94,
`95, 97, 99–103, 106,
`109–111, 113, and 120
`
`Claims 68 and 115
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`§ 103(a) Clayton and Berry
`
`§ 103(a) Clayton, Berry, and Marlowe
`
`§ 103(a) Clayton, Berry, Marlowe, and
`Gioscia
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`their broadest reasonable construction 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, 1275–1279 (Fed. Cir. 2015), aff’d
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, No. 15-446, 2016 WL 3369425, at *12
`(U.S. June 20, 2016). Under the rule of broadest reasonable interpretation,
`claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be
`7
`
`Petitioners
`Exhibit 1011, Page 7
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00418
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`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).
`“Claims are not interpreted in a vacuum, but are part of and are read
`in light of the specification.” Slimfold Mfg. Co. v. Kinkead Indus., Inc.,
`810 F.2d 1113, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1987). 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), the 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).
`If a limitation of an embodiment described in the specification is not
`necessary to give meaning to a claim term, it would be “extraneous” and
`should not be read into the claim. See Hoganas AB v. Dresser Indus., Inc.,
`9 F.3d 948, 950 (Fed. Cir. 1993); E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips
`Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d 1430, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 1988). If the applicants for
`patent desire to be their own lexicographer, the purported definition must be
`set forth in either the specification or prosecution history. See CCS Fitness,
`Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Such a
`definition must be set forth with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and
`precision. See Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d
`1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir.
`1994). 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).
`8
`
`Petitioners
`Exhibit 1011, Page 8
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00418
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`
`
`Petitioner proposes constructions for three claim terms: (1)
`“integration subsystem,” (2) “car audio/video system” and (3) “device
`presence signal.” Pet. 9–15. The terms (1) “integration subsystem” and (2)
`“car audio/video system” are recited in all challenged claims, whereas the
`term “device presence signal” is recited only in challenged claims 56 and
`106.
`
`1. “Integration subsystem”
`Each of independent claims 49, 73, 97, and 120 recites an “integration
`subsystem.” Ex. 1001, 42:30, 44:5, 45:50, 47:1.
`Petitioner argues because the term “subsystem” is used
`interchangeably in the ’342 patent with the term “module,” “integration
`subsystem” must be considered as a “means-plus-function” (MPF) element
`that must be construed under 35 U.S.C. § 112, 6th paragraph. See
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`Pet. 10–15. When the claimed “integration subsystem” is construed as a
`“means-plus-function” limitation, Petitioner argues “the claimed ‘integration
`subsystem’ does not have sufficient corresponding structure disclosed in the
`Specification of the ’342 patent, and is therefore indefinite under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 112, 2nd paragraph.” Id. at 13. According to Petitioner, the flowchart of
`Figure 24 of the ’342 patent is considered as a “one-step algorithm” and, as
`such, “does not constitute sufficient corresponding structure for a computer-
`implemented function recited in a claim.” Id. at 10–13.
`Petitioner, relying on Dr. Matheson’s testimony (Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 84–86),
`then proposes that the term “integration subsystem” means “a
`9
`
`Petitioners
`Exhibit 1011, Page 9
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00418
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`microcontroller or processor provided within the portable device or the car
`audio/video system and programmed to perform the method of FIG. 24.” Id.
`at 14–15 (citing Ex. 1016 ¶ 86). The method of Figure 24 of the ’342 patent
`is reproduced below:
`
`Figure 24 of the ’342 patent shows a method for wirelessly integrating a
`portable device for use with a car audio/video system.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`Petitioners
`Exhibit 1011, Page 10
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00418
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`
`As shown in Figure 24, that method comprises determining a car
`audio/video system type and a portable device type at steps 1454–1456;
`loading a protocol conversion software block at step 1458; processing data
`from the portable device using the protocol conversion software block at
`step 1460 for transmission to the car audio/video system, via wireless link at
`step 1466; and processing command from the car audio/video system using
`the protocol conversion software block for transmission to the portable
`device at step 1470. Ex. 1001, 38:9–67. Thus, method of Figure 24 of the
`’342 patent further requires the conversion of command/data using a
`protocol conversion software block corresponding to a determined car
`audio/video system type and a determined portable device type for format
`compatibility. For purposes of this decision, we refer to that requirement as
`the “command/data format conversion” limitation.
`Patent Owner does not propose a construction, but responds that the
`term “integration subsystem” does not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 as argued
`by Petitioner. Prelim. Resp. 6. According to Patent Owner, the claims do
`not recite a “module” or a nonce term, and there is no authority for the
`proposition that the term “integration subsystem” must be considered a
`nonce term. Id. at 6–10. According to Patent Owner,
`Petitioner’s conclusion that the term “integration subsystem” is
`indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112 ¶ 2 is incorrect because (1) the
`alleged functions of
`the
`integration subsystem are not
`“computer-implemented” and thus do not require an algorithm;
`(2) even if the functions required an algorithm, Figure 24 is
`sufficient; and (3) Petitioner ignores the voluminous algorithms
`and source code provided in the ’342 Patent specification that
`provide sufficient structure.
`
`11
`
`Petitioners
`Exhibit 1011, Page 11
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00418
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`
`
`Id. at 10–17.
`We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not sufficiently shown
`that the term “integration subsystem” should be construed as a mean-plus-
`function recitation. As such, we decline to consider the term “integration
`subsystem” as a means-plus-function recitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6
`and Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1349. We also note that Petitioner may not, in
`an an inter partes review, assert a ground of unpatentability based on
`indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2. See 35 U.S.C. § 311(b).
`Turning now to Petitioner’s proposed construction of the term
`“integration subsystem,” that proposal is unpersuasive for several reasons.
`First, the proposed construction is too narrow by requiring the “integration
`subsystem” to be a microcontroller or processor programmed to perform the
`method of Figure 24 of the ’342 patent. In the Specification of the ’342
`patent, the term “integration subsystem” is described as follows:
`[t]he integration subsystem 932 contains circuitry similar to the
`circuitry disclosed in the various embodiments of the present
`invention discussed herein, and could include a PIC16F872 or
`PIC16F873 microcontroller manufactured by Microchip, Inc.
`and programmed in accordance with the flowchart discussed
`below with respect to FIG. 24.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 34:63–66 (emphasis added).
`
`According to the ’342 patent’s Specification, the “circuitry similar to
`the circuitry disclosed in the various embodiments of the present invention”
`refers to various “integration” circuit embodiments shown in Figures 3A,
`3B1–3B2, 3C1–3C2, and 3D, including not only a microcontroller or
`
`12
`
`Petitioners
`Exhibit 1011, Page 12
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00418
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`processor but also several discrete components, such as resistors, diodes,
`capacitors, transistors, oscillators, amplifiers, and multiplexers for
`performing various “integration” functions. Ex. 1001, 12:55–16:29. In
`addition, the “integration subsystem” can also include: (1) “conversion
`circuitry (e.g., using the video format conversion chips discussed above with
`respect to FIG. 12a) for converting video information generated by the
`portable device 924 for display on the display 918 of the car system 910
`(e.g., by converting composite video signals to red, green, and blue (RGB)
`video signals, or vice versa)”; (2) “[t]he voice recognition subsystem 1336[,
`which] could comprise the HM2007 speech recognition processor
`manufactured by Hualon Microelectric Corporation, the VRP6679 speech
`recognition processor manufactured by Oki, Inc., or any other suitable
`speech recognition processor”; and (3) “[t]he speech synthesizer 1338[,
`which] could include the RC 8650 or RC 8660 speech synthesis chipsets
`manufactured by RC Systems, Inc., or any other suitable speech
`synthesizer.” Id. at 34:48–54, 36:53–58, 37:30–55, Fig. 23. Further, “the
`voice recognition subsystem 1336 and the speech synthesizer 1338 could
`[also] be formed on a single integrated circuit forming part of the integration
`subsystem 1332.” Id. at 37:48–51, Fig. 23.
`
`Thus, the term “integration subsystem” itself is not limited to a
`microcontroller or processor, nor is it limited to the functions described in
`the flowchart shown in Figure 24 of the ’342 patent. In that regard, we note
`that if the term “integration subsystem” is construed as a microcontroller or
`processor programmed to perform the method of Figure 24 of the ’342
`patent, as Petitioner proposes, then the additional functions of the claimed
`13
`
`Petitioners
`Exhibit 1011, Page 13
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00418
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`“integration subsystem” recited in the challenged claims would serve no
`meaningful purpose.
`Second, we note that a proper construction of “integration subsystem”
`must serve the purpose of “integration” as described in the ’342 patent’s
`Specification and must be a “subsystem” — subordinate to another system.
`In the Specification of the ’342 patent, the term “integration” is expressly
`defined as follows:
`As used herein, the term “integration” or “integrated” is intended
`to mean [1] connecting one or more external devices or inputs to
`an existing car stereo or video system via an interface, [2]
`processing and handling
`signals, audio, and/or video
`information, [3] allowing a user to control the [external] devices
`via the car stereo or video system, and [4] displaying data from
`the devices on the car stereo or video system.
`Ex. 1001, 8:64–9:3 (emphasis added) (brackets added).
`When the specification of a patent contains a “special definition given
`to a claim term by the patentee,” that definition controls interpretation of the
`term as it is used in the claim. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`The term “integration subsystem” is used in the ’342 patent in relation
`to wireless integration embodiments between an existing car audio/video
`system and a portable device, shown in Figures 18–24. Ex. 1001, 33:43–
`38:67, Figs. 18–24. In particular, the ’342 patent’s Specification describes
`the “integration subsystem” as being positioned within the portable device,
`shown in Figure 18, or within the car audio/video system, shown in Figure
`19. Ex. 1001, 34:9–13, 35:23–28; Figs. 18–19.
`
`14
`
`Petitioners
`Exhibit 1011, Page 14
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00418
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`Based on the special definition of the term “integration” provided by
`
`the ’342 patent and other language in the claims, we construe the term
`“integration subsystem” as meaning:
`A subsystem to perform at least: (1) connecting one or more
`portable devices or inputs to the car audio/video system via an
`interface, (2) processing and handling signals, audio, and/or
`video information, (3) allowing a user to control the one or more
`portable devices via the car audio/video system, and (4)
`displaying data from the one or more portable devices on the car
`audio/video system.
`
`2. “Car audio/video system”
`Independent claims 49 and 73 also require the “integration
`subsystem” in communication with a “car audio/video system.” Ex. 1001,
`42:30–31, 44:5–6. Similarly, independent claims 97 and 120 require the
`“integration subsystem” in communication with a wireless communication
`link between a “car audio/video system” and a portable device. Ex. 1001,
`45:46–51, 46:65–47:2.
`Petitioner proposes as the proper construction of “car audio/video
`system” “a car audio system, a car video system, or a car audio and video
`system.” Pet. 15. According to the ’342 patent’s Specification, the term
`“car audio/video system” is described as a car audio or a car video system.
`1001, 8:38–46. In addition,
`the terms “car stereo” and “car radio” are used interchangeably
`and are intended to include all presently existing car stereos,
`radios, video systems, such as physical devices that are present
`at any location within a vehicle, in addition to software and/or
`graphically- or display-driven receiver.
`
`
`15
`
`Petitioners
`Exhibit 1011, Page 15
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00418
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`Ex. 1001, 9:21–25.
`Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed construction.
`Prelim. Resp. 7. For purposes of this decision, we adopt Petitioner’s
`construction of the “car audio/video system” as “a car audio system, a car
`video system, or a car audio and video system.”
`3. “Device presence signal”
`Each of dependent claims 56 and 106 further requires the “integration
`subsystem generates a device presence signal and transmits the device
`presence signal to the car audio/video system to maintain the car audio/video
`system in a state responsive to the portable device.” Ex. 1001, 43:5–9,
`36:20–24.
`Petitioner proposes that the term “device presence signal” be
`construed the way it has been construed by the district court in related
`actions involving the great-grandparent of the ’342 patent, U.S. Patent
`7,489,786 (“the ’786 patent”), i.e., “transmission of a continuous signal
`indicating an audio device is present.” Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1007, 14–17).
`Patent Owner does not propose a construction. For two reasons, we do not
`adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction.
`First, the proposed construction is too narrow because (1) the
`continuous transmission is not necessary to accord meaning to the term, and
`(2) the presence of a specific type of device is not required. Nothing in the
`claims require the recited signal to be continuous. Likewise, the “device
`presence signal” need not be limited to an audio device presence signal.
`According to the Specification of the ’342 patent:
`
`16
`
`Petitioners
`Exhibit 1011, Page 16
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00418
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`
`the [device presence] signal need not be limited to a CD player
`device presence signal, but rather, could be any type of device
`presence signal (e.g., MP3 player device presence signal, satellite
`receiver presence signal, video device presence signal, cellular
`telephone presence signal, or any other type of device presence
`signal).
`
`Ex. 1001, 18:52–58 (emphasis added).
`In other words, if a portable device is a CD player/changer, then the
`“device presence signal” is a signal indicating that a CD player/changer is
`present. Ex. 1001, 16:40–58. However, if a portable device is a video
`player, then the “device presence signal” is a signal indicating that a video
`player is present. Ex. 1001, 18:51–58.
`Second, in claims 56 and 106, the device presence signal is generated
`and transmitted by the “integration subsystem” to the car audio/video system
`so as to maintain the car audio/video system in a state responsive to the
`portable device. In the context of these claims, the portable device the
`presence of which is signaled by the “integration subsystem” is that portable
`device which connects to the “integration subsystem” to communicate with
`the car audio/video system.
`On the record before us, we construe “device presence signal” as “a
`signal indicating that a portable device is connected to the car audio/video
`system through the integration subsystem.”
`
`B. Legal Standard for 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`Having considered the meaning of the claims, we turn next to whether
`claims 49–57, 62–64, 66, 68, 70, 71, 73-80, 94, 95, 97, 99–103, 106, 109–
`111, 113, 115, and 120 of the ‘342 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`17
`
`Petitioners
`Exhibit 1011, Page 17
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00418
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`§ 103(a) in view of the prior art submitted by Petitioner. Obviousness is
`determined on the basis of underlying factual inquiries, including: (1) the
`scope and content of the prior art; (2) differences between the claimed
`subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and
`(4) secondary considerations of nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere
`Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). A patent claim is unpatentable under 35
`U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the
`prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious
`at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the
`art to which said subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
`U.S. 398, 406 (2007) (emphasis added). However, a conclusion of
`obviousness “cannot be sustained with mere conclusory statements; instead,
`there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
`support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988
`(Fed. Cir. 2006).
`For this decision, we determine that no express finding on the level of
`ordinary skill in the art is necessary, 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).
`
`C. Alleged Obviousness of Claims 49–55, 57, 62–64, 71, 73–80, 95, 97,
`99–103, 109–111, and 120 based on Clayton and Berry
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 49–55, 57, 62–64, 71, 73–80, 95, 97,
`99–103, 109–111, and 120 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
`
`18
`
`Petitioners
`Exhibit 1011, Page 18
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00418
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`obvious over the combination of Clayton and Berry. Pet. 24–50. To support
`its contention, Petitioner provides a claim chart and detailed explanations as
`to how the prior art meets each claim limitation. Id. at 29–50. Petitioner
`also relies upon a Declaration of Dr. Thomas Matheson, who has been
`retained as an expert witness by Petitioner for the instant proceeding.
`Ex. 1016.
`
`(1) Clayton: Exhibit 1002
`Clayton1 discloses an audio/video integration system, shown in
`Figures 2–4 and 6, that provides wireless integration between car
`audio/video system 143 and portable device 142 such as a cellular phone
`and/or an MP3 player, via a wireless adapter 173. Ex. 1002 ¶ 50, Figs. 2–4,
`6, Abstract; see, e.g., Ex. 1003 at 3, 5, 12, 16, 139, 259, 333–340, 485.
`Clayton’s Figure 3 is reproduced below.
`
`
`1 Clayton (Ex. 1002) was published on August 17, 2006, has a filing date of
`December 8, 2005 and, as such, can only qualify as prior art for purposes of
`pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). As § 102(e) prior art, evidence of prior
`conception and diligent reduction to practice can be submitted to antedate
`the earliest filing date of the Clayton reference, including its provisional
`applications (Ex. 1003), which Patent Owner has reserved the right to do.
`Prelim. Resp. 20.
`
`19
`
`Petitioners
`Exhibit 1011, Page 19
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00418
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`
`
`Clayton’s Figure 3 shows an audio/video integration system including an
`integration subsystem in the form of wireless adapter 173 to provide wireless
`integration between car audio/video system 143 and portable device 142.
`
`As shown in Figure 3 of Clayton, portable device 142 stores content
`received from (1) a content provider, via Internet and cellular network, or (2)
`personal computer, via a wired connection or a wireless proximity network
`(shown in Figure 2). Ex. 1002 ¶ 46. Portable device 142 can be controlled
`by functional controls on its own user interface 152, functional controls on
`user interface 153 of car audio/video system 143, or both (shown in Figure
`2). Ex. 1002 ¶ 63, Fig. 2.
`According to Clayton,
`[c]ontent may include: media such as audio, video, text;
`multimedia that includes two or more of audio, video and text;
`or other types of data. Examples of content include but are not
`limited to media files, such as MP3 files, other types of audio
`files, video files, textual music play lists, and other types of files.
`
`Ex. 1002 ¶ 14 (emphasis added).
`
`20
`
`Petitioners
`Exhibit 1011, Page 20
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00418
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`
`Content (audio) can be played back at or generated by portable device
`142, via user interface 152 or 153 (shown in Figure 2), i.e., selection of a
`preset channel, to rewind, fast forward, pause, play, etc., and can also be sent
`from portable device 142 to car audio/video system 143, via wireless
`interface 148, as “streaming audio.” Id. ¶¶ 49, 52, 63, 66–67, Fig. 3.
`Wireless adaptor 173 can be separate from car audio/video system
`143, but can also be a part of or integrated within car audio/video system
`143. Id. ¶¶ 52–53. Such wireless adapter 173 enables communications
`between portable device 142 and car audio/video system 143, including, for
`example: (1) connecting portable device 142 or inputs to car audio/video
`system 143, via an interface (id. ¶¶ 52, 54, 61, 66); (2) processing and
`handling signals, audio, and/or video information (id. ¶¶ 55, 58); (3)
`allowing a user to control portable device 142, via car audio/video system
`143 (id. ¶¶ 52, 63, 66–67, 70); and (4) displaying data from portable device
`143 on a display of car audio/video system 143 (id. ¶¶ 52, 56, 63, 66–67, 70,
`73).
`
`Clayton’s Figure 4, which shows the detail of wireless adapter 173, is
`reproduced below.
`
`21
`
`Petitioners
`Exhibit 1011, Page 21
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00418
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`
`
`Clayton’s Figure 4 shows an example embodiment of wireless adapter
`173 to provide wireless integration between car audio/video system 143 and
`portable device 142.
`
`As shown in Figure 4 of Clayton, wireless adapter 173 includes
`operating system (OS) kernel 410; application profile stack 420 to provide
`wireless communication links between car audio/video system 143 and
`portable device 142; decoder 440 having content decoder 446 to decode
`content 181 received from portable device 142 and metadata decoder 442 to
`decode any metadata for content (e.g., song titles, artist names, playlists) for
`displaying on car audio/video system 143; network manager 430 to control
`operation of decoder 440; and command translation module 90 to translate
`or convert command/control signals for format compatibility between
`portable device 142 and car audio/video system 143 so that wireless adapter
`173 can be operable with different car audio/video system from different
`
`22
`
`Petitioners
`Exhibit 1011, Page 22
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00418
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`manufacturers. Id. ¶¶ 56–63, Fig. 4. These commands may be received via
`voice recognition subsystem 470 that receives and processes spoken control
`commands issued by a user. Id. ¶ 67. In addition, wireless adapter 173 also
`includes RF hardware (not shown in Figure 4) for a baseband controller and
`radio (i.e., wireless interface) for communication with portable device 142,
`and I/O interface 450 to interface with available I/O interface of car
`audio/video system 143. Id. ¶¶ 56, 67.
`(2) Berry: Exhibit 1004
`Berry discloses the use of an interface spe