throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`
`Paper No. 13
`
` Filed: January 27, 2017
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY, HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA,
`HYUNDAI MOTOR MANUFACTURING ALABAMA, LLC,
`KIA MOTORS CORPORATION, KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC., and
` KIA MOTORS MANUFACTURING GEORGIA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BLITZSAFE TEXAS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01477
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and
`KERRY BEGLEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BEGLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a), 37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`Hyundai Motor Company, Hyundai Motor America, Hyundai Motor
`
`Manufacturing Alabama, LLC, Kia Motors Corporation, Kia Motors
`
`America, Inc., and Kia Motors Manufacturing Georgia, Inc. (collectively,
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01477
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting inter partes review of claims 1, 5–8,
`
`10, 14, 23, 24, 57, 60–62, 64, and 65 (“challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,489,786 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’786 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Blitzsafe
`
`Texas, LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response to the Petition.
`
`Paper 11 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be
`
`instituted unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and any
`
`response . . . 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.” Having considered the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we
`
`determine that the information presented does not show that there is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the
`
`unpatentability of any of the challenged claims of the ’786 patent.
`
`Accordingly, we deny institution of an inter partes review.
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`A. RELATED MATTERS
`
`
`
`The parties represent that the ’786 patent is the subject of five ongoing
`
`infringement actions before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
`
`Texas and was previously the subject of two infringement actions before the
`
`U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Paper 8, 1–2; Pet. 2. In
`
`addition, the ’786 patent is or was previously the subject of several inter
`
`partes review proceedings before the Office, namely IPR2016-00421,
`
`IPR2016-00422, IPR2016-01448, and IPR2016-01472. Paper 8, 2; see
`
`Pet. 2. Related U.S. Patent No. 8,155,342 B2 is or was previously involved
`
`in IPR2016-00118, IPR2016-00418, IPR2016-00419, IPR2016-01445,
`
`IPR2016-01449, IPR2016-01473, IPR2016-01476, IPR2016-01533,
`
`IPR2016-01557, and IPR2016-01560. See Paper 8, 2.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01477
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`B. THE ’786 PATENT
`
`The ’786 patent explains that integrating an after-market audio system
`
`with an existing car stereo, such as a stereo from an original equipment
`
`manufacturer (“OEM”), presents a problem because signals generated by
`
`both systems are in a “proprietary format” and “are not capable of being
`
`processed” or recognized by the other system. Ex. 1001, 1:3642; see id. at
`
`2:26–29. Thus, “in order to integrate after-market systems with car stereos,
`
`it is necessary to convert signals between such systems.” Id. at 1:4244.
`
`The ’786 patent is directed to an audio device integration system that
`
`allows after-market audio devices to be integrated for use with an existing
`
`car stereo system, such that control commands can be issued at the car stereo
`
`for execution by the audio device and data from the audio device can be
`
`displayed on the car stereo. Id. at [57], 2:12–42. More specifically, control
`
`commands generated at the car stereo are received, converted into a format
`
`recognizable by the after-market audio device, and dispatched to the device
`
`for execution. Id. at [57], 2:35–40. In addition, information from the audio
`
`device, such as track, channel, song, and artist information, is received,
`
`processed, converted into a format recognizable by the car stereo, and
`
`dispatched to the stereo for display. Id. at [57], 2:40–47. The audio device
`
`could, for example, comprise a “CD player, CD changer, MP3 player,
`
`satellite receiver, [or] digital audio broadcast (DAB) receiver.” Id. at 4:28–
`
`30; see id. at [57], 2:23–26. Figures 2A–2C are reproduced below:
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01477
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figures 2A–C illustrate embodiments in which a car stereo is integrated with
`
`a CD player (Figure 2A), an MP3 player (Figure 2B), and a satellite radio or
`
`DAB receiver (Figure 2C). Id. at 3:14–23.
`
`In addition, an audio device as well as auxiliary input sources may be
`
`integrated with a car stereo. Id. at [57], 2:53–56. A user then “can select
`
`between the external audio device and the auxiliary input using the controls
`
`of the car stereo.” Id. at 2:56–57. Figure 1 is reproduced below:
`
`
`Figure 1 illustrates an embodiment integrating a car stereo with a CD player,
`
`a MP3 player, and a satellite radio or DAB receiver, as well as a number of
`
`auxiliary input sources. Id. at 3:12–13, 5:14–27.
`
`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). See, e.g., id. at Fig. 1, 2A–C, 5:33–36. The interface
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01477
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`allows for the integration of the audio devices and auxiliary inputs with the
`
`OEM or after-market car stereo. Id. at 5:33–36.
`
`C. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
`
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1 and 57 of the ’786 patent are
`
`independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative:
`
`1. An audio device integration system comprising:
`a first connector electrically connectable to a car stereo;
`a second connector electrically connectable to an after-market
`audio device external to the car stereo;
`a third connector electrically connectable to one or more
`auxiliary input sources external to the car stereo and the
`after-market audio device;
`an interface connected between said first and second electrical
`connectors for channeling audio signals to the car stereo
`from the after-market audio device, 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 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
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01477
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`a third pre-programmed code portion for switching to one or
`more auxiliary input sources connected to said third
`electrical connector.
`
`Ex. 1001, 21:31–64.
`
`D. ASSERTED PRIOR ART
`
`The Petition relies upon the following asserted prior art references:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,794,164 (issued Aug. 11, 1998) (Ex. 1007,
`“Beckert ’164”);
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,009,363 (issued Dec. 28, 1999) (Ex. 1008,
`“Beckert ’363”);
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,085,710 B1 (filed Jan. 7, 1998) (issued Aug. 1, 2006)
`(Ex. 1006, “Beckert ’710”);
`
`Clarion AutoPC 310C Owner’s Manual (1998) (Ex. 1009, “AutoPC
`Manual”);
`
`Universal Serial Bus Device Class Definition for Audio Data Formats
`(Release 1.0 1998) (Ex. 1011, “USB ADF”);
`
`Sony Corporation, FM/MW/LW Cassette Car Stereo (1999) (Ex. 1012,
`“Sony XR-C5120R Manual”); and
`
`Universal Serial Bus Specification (Rev. 2.0 2000) (Ex. 1010, “USB 2.0”).
`
`In addition to these references, the Petition supports its contentions with the
`
`Declaration of Chris Kyriakakis, Ph.D. (Ex. 1003).
`
`E. ASSERTED GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY
`
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability. Pet. 8–9.
`
`Challenged
`Claim(s)
`1, 10, 14,
`23, and 24
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`§ 1031 Beckert ’710 and Beckert ’164
`
`
`1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125
`Stat. 284, 287–88 (2011), revised 35 U.S.C. § 103, effective March 16,
`2013. Because the patent application resulting in the ’786 patent was filed
`before the effective date of the AIA, we refer to the pre-AIA version of
`§ 103 throughout this Decision.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01477
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`57, 60, 64,
`and 65
`61
`
`62
`
`
`
`§ 103 Beckert ’710, Beckert ’164, AutoPC
`Manual, and USB 2.0
`§ 103 Beckert ’710, Beckert ’164,
`and Beckert ’363
`§ 103 Beckert ’710, Beckert ’164, and AutoPC
`Manual
`§ 103 Beckert ’710, Beckert ’164, and Sony
`XR-C5120R Manual
`§ 103 Beckert ’710, Beckert ’164, and USB ADF
`
`§ 103 Beckert ’710, Beckert ’164, USB ADF, and
`AutoPC Manual
`§ 103 Beckert ’710, Beckert ’164, USB ADF, and
`Sony XR-C5120R Manual
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`We begin our analysis by addressing the level of ordinary skill in the
`
`art. We determine that in this case, no express articulation of the level of
`
`ordinary skill 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).
`
`B. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`The Board interprets claims terms of an unexpired patent using the
`
`“broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent.”
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131,
`
`2144–46 (2016). Under this standard, we presume a claim term carries its
`
`“ordinary and customary meaning,” which “is the meaning that the term
`
`would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art” at the time of the
`
`invention. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2007). A claim term will be interpreted more narrowly than its ordinary and
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01477
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`customary meaning only where: (1) the “patentee sets out a definition and
`
`acts as [its] own lexicographer,” or (2) the “patentee disavows the full scope
`
`of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.” Aventis
`
`Pharma S.A. v. Hospira, Inc., 675 F.3d 1324, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`1. “device presence signal”
`
`
`
`Independent claim 57 and dependent claim 6 each recite a “device
`
`presence signal.” Ex. 1001, 22:13–15, 26:23–27. Specifically, claim 57
`
`requires that a microcontroller within an interface be 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.” Id. at 26:17–27 (emphasis added).
`
`Similarly, claim 6, which depends directly from independent claim 1,
`
`requires that the “interface generates a device presence signal for
`
`maintaining the car stereo in a state responsive to processed data and audio
`
`signals.” Id. at 22:13–15 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`Petitioner states that in a prior Institution Decision in IPR2016-00421,
`
`the Board construed the term “device presence signal” as: “a signal
`
`indicating that an audio device (claim 57) or video device (claim 86) or
`
`portable audio device (claim 92), other than the car stereo, is connected to
`
`the interface.” Pet. 17–18 (quoting Toyota Motor Corp. v. Blitzsafe Texas,
`
`LLC, Case IPR2016-00421, slip op. at 18 (PTAB July 7, 2016) (Paper 13)
`
`(“IPR2016-00421 Inst. Dec.”)) (emphasis omitted). Petitioner represents
`
`that it adopts and applies this construction in the Petition. Id. at 18. Patent
`
`Owner also adopts this construction of the term. Prelim. Resp. 3.
`
`
`
`Having reconsidered the issue, we maintain our construction of the
`
`term “device presence signal” from the Institution Decision in
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01477
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`IPR2016-00421 for the reasons given in that decision. IPR2016-00421 Inst.
`
`Dec. 16–18. We repeat the relevant analysis below.
`
`A description of a “device presence signal” is contained in the
`
`specification of the ’786 patent 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 (emphasis added). All other disclosed embodiments,
`
`whether they are for connecting an MP3 player or an auxiliary device to the
`
`car stereo, refer back to this 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.
`
`As we explained in IPR2016-00421, continuous transmission of a
`
`signal is not necessary to accord meaning to “device presence signal.”
`
`IPR2016-00421 Inst. Dec. 17. The manner of transmission simply reflects
`
`how the signal is transmitted and does not change what the signal was
`
`generated and intended to accomplish, and actually accomplishes. Id. The
`
`specification also does not put continuous transmission in the same category
`
`of importance as the requirements in the italicized portion of the
`
`above-quoted text. Id.
`
`Moreover, in claims 6 and 57, the device presence signal is generated
`
`and transmitted by the interface that is connected between the first and
`
`second electrical connector, where the first electrical connector is
`
`connectable to a car stereo and the second electrical connector is connectable
`
`to an after-market audio device (claim 6) or portable MP3 player (claim 57).
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01477
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`See Ex. 1001, 21:30–44, 22:13–15, 26:13–27; IPR2016-00421 Inst.
`
`Dec. 17–18. Claim 6, based on its dependency from claim 1, recites that the
`
`interface is for “channeling audio signals to the car stereo from the
`
`after-market audio device.” Ex. 1001, 21:38–44. Claim 57 recites that the
`
`interface is for “transmitting audio from a portable MP3 player to a car
`
`stereo.” Id. at 26:17–22. In the context of these claims, the device the
`
`presence of which is signaled by the interface is the device that connects to
`
`the interface to communicate with the car stereo.
`
`Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt our previous
`
`construction of “device presence signal” from IPR2016-00421 and adjust
`
`this construction to reflect the relevant challenged claims in this proceeding:
`
`a signal indicating that an audio device (claim 6) or portable MP3 player
`
`(claim 57), other than the car stereo, is connected to the interface.
`
`2. Other Claim Terms
`
`
`
`Based on our review of the record and the dispositive issues in our
`
`determination of whether to institute inter partes review on the asserted
`
`grounds of unpatentability, we need not address the construction of any
`
`other claim terms. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d
`
`795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that only claim terms that “are in
`
`controversy” need to be construed and “only to the extent necessary to
`
`resolve the controversy”); Pet. 14–18; Prelim. Resp. 3–5.
`
`C. ALLEGED OBVIOUSNESS OVER BECKERT ’710 AND BECKERT ’164
`
`Petitioner argues claims 1, 10, 14, 23, and 24 of the ’786 patent are
`
`unpatentable as obvious over Beckert ’710 and Beckert ’164. Pet. 8, 18–45.
`
`1. Beckert ’710
`
`
`
`Beckert ’710 discloses a vehicle computer system, implementing an
`
`audio entertainment system, that is designed to support multiple audio
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01477
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`sources, such as radio, CD, and auxiliary inputs. Ex. 1006, [57], 1:5–9,
`
`1:60–63, 12:57–61. The disclosed vehicle computer system 20 includes
`
`three modules: (1) faceplate module 80, (2) support module 82, and
`
`(3) computer module 84. Id. at 1:63–65, 5:34–37, Fig. 3. Beckert ’710
`
`explains that support module 82 and computer module 84 typically reside in
`
`a stationary base unit that is mounted in the dashboard of a vehicle, whereas
`
`faceplate module 80 resides on a faceplate to the base unit. Id. at 5:55–58,
`
`6:48–49, 6:62–63, Fig. 1. Figure 3 is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 3 depicts one implementation of the vehicle computer system
`
`disclosed in Beckert ’710. Id. at 3:34–36.
`
`Beckert ’710 explains that support module 82 includes logic unit 110,
`
`which “performs many of the functions for the audio entertainment system.”
`
`Id. at 1:65–67, 5:55–58, 7:49–54. Logic unit 110 can be implemented as a
`
`“field programmable gate array (FPGA), application specific integrated
`
`circuit (ASIC), customized processor, or the like.” Id. at 1:67–2:3; see id.
`
`at 5:64–6:4. Support module 82 also features hardware interfaces, including
`
`universal serial bus (“USB”) interface 112, which connects support
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01477
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`module 82 to various USB peripheral devices, such as a CD-ROM changer
`
`and a TV tuner. Id. at 5:44–54, 6:5–11.
`
`
`
`Beckert ’710 discloses that computer module 84 features
`
`microprocessor 150, which runs an operating system. Id. at 2:6–9, 6:62–65.
`
`According to Beckert ’710, “computer module 84 is operatively connected
`
`to the support module 82 via a multi-bit bus 86,” which is preferably a
`
`peripheral component interconnect (“PCI”) bus. Id. at 5:37–40; see id.
`
`at 2:9–11. In addition, faceplate module 88 is attached to support module 82
`
`through a “detachable connector.” Id. at 6:48–53.
`
`
`
`Beckert ’710 explains that “[a] more detailed explanation of the three
`
`modules in the vehicle computer system is provided in” the patent
`
`application that resulted in Beckert ’164 and “[a] detailed description of one
`
`implementation of the logic unit 110 is provided in” the patent application
`
`that resulted in Beckert ’363. Id. at 7:19–25, 7:37–47; Ex. 1007, [21];
`
`Ex. 1008, [21]. Beckert ’710 “incorporate[s]” these applications “by
`
`reference.” Ex. 1006, 7:19–25, 7:37–47.
`
`In addition, Beckert ’710 discloses that “computer system 20
`
`implements an audio manager API (application program interface) to enable
`
`applications running on the computer to control the various audio sources
`
`without knowing the hardware and implementation details of the underlying
`
`sound system.” Id. at 12:65–13:2; see id. at [54], 2:64–3:1. Figure 8 of
`
`Beckert ’710 is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01477
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`
`Figure 8 illustrates the “application-to-hardware architecture” discussed in
`
`Beckert ’710. Id. at 13:7; see id. at 3:44–45. Audio hardware 270 forms the
`
`lowest level of the architecture. Id. at 13:8–9. Audio hardware abstraction
`
`layer (“HAL”) 272, in turn, “defines a basic interface layer between the
`
`audio related drivers for the hardware 270 and the audio manager API
`
`layer 274.” Id. at 13:9–12. Next, audio manager API 274—which has five
`
`core components, audio source control API 278, wave-in and wave-out
`
`API 280, surround sound decoder API 282, equalization API 284, and
`
`volume/balance/fade API 286—“defines the APIs to access and control the
`
`underlying audio system.” Id. at 13:14–18. “[A]udio manager API 274
`
`communicates with the audio device drivers for specific devices via the
`
`audio HAL interface 272” and “transfers calls made by the applications to
`
`the appropriate device driver(s).” Id. at [57], 3:4–6, 13:5–6, 14:38–40.
`
`Finally, “[a]top the audio manager API 274 are the applications 276.” Id.
`
`at 13:13–14.
`
`
`
`Beckert ’710 further explains that “[d]ifferent APIs control different
`
`aspects of the audio system.” Id. at 13:19–20. For example, wave-out
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01477
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`API 280 controls foreground audio sources, whereas audio source control
`
`API 278 “control[s]” and “is used to select” background audio sources,
`
`including the “AM/FM tuner, CD player, auxiliary inputs, and other sources
`
`from the USB.” Id. at 13:22–32, 13:39–47.
`
`2. Beckert ’164
`
`
`
`Similar to Beckert ’710, Beckert ’164 discloses a vehicle computer
`
`system with three modules, namely a computer module, support module, and
`
`faceplate module. Ex. 1007, [57], 1:4–5, 1:65, 2:22–42. Computer
`
`module 64 includes a processor that runs the operating system “to support
`
`the vehicle-related applications,” including “navigation, security,
`
`diagnostics, communications, and entertainment systems.” Id. at [57], 2:21–
`
`30, 3:14–17, 8:34–39.
`
`3. Discussion
`
`A patent claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). As the Supreme Court
`
`explained in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), an
`
`invention “composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by
`
`demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the
`
`prior art.” Id. at 418. Rather, “it can be important to identify a reason that
`
`would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to
`
`combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does.” Id. In
`
`other words, “there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational
`
`underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” Id. (quoting
`
`In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Accordingly, the U.S.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01477
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has made clear that a petitioner in
`
`an inter partes review proceeding cannot “satisfy its burden of proving
`
`obviousness” by “employ[ing] mere conclusory statements” and “must
`
`instead articulate specific reasoning, based on evidence of record” to support
`
`an obviousness determination. In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d
`
`1364, 1380–81 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`a. Independent Claim 1
`
`Independent claim 1 of the ’786 patent recites that the
`
`“microcontroller,” included in the “interface,” is “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.
`
`Ex. 1001, 21:38–54 (line breaks added). Accordingly, the claim requires
`
`that the recited microcontroller perform a format conversion of a control
`
`command received from the car stereo, specifically converting the command
`
`from a format incompatible with the after-market audio device to one
`
`compatible with the after-market audio device.
`
`
`
`Relevant to this claim requirement, Petitioner identifies support
`
`module 82 of Beckert ’710 as the recited “interface,” a customized processor
`
`implementing logic unit 110 of Beckert ’710 as the recited
`
`“microcontroller,” and computer module 84 of Beckert ’710 and
`
`corresponding computer module 64 of Beckert ’164 as the recited “car
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01477
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`stereo.” See Pet. 22–24, 29–31. Specifically regarding the recited “first
`
`pre-programmed code portion for . . . processing the received control
`
`command into a formatted command compatible with the after-market audio
`
`device,” the Petition argues, and Dr. Kyriakakis opines, that audio manager
`
`API 274 and hardware abstraction layer 272 of Beckert ’710 perform the
`
`required format conversion. Id. at 32–35; Ex. 1003, 40–43; see Pet. 31–32;
`
`Ex. 1003, 39–40. The Petition and Dr. Kyriakakis’s declaration represent
`
`that in Beckert ’710, “commands issued by the car stereo (e.g., from the
`
`Computer Applications 276) . . . are converted through the Audio Manager
`
`API and the hardware abstraction layer to be able to communicate with a
`
`connected USB audio hardware device.” Pet. 35; Ex. 1003, 43. According
`
`to Petitioner, Beckert ’710 describes using the hardware abstraction layer “to
`
`process received commands from the car stereo into formatted commands
`
`for transfer to the audio system hardware.” Pet. 33; Ex. 1003, 41. Petitioner
`
`relies exclusively on these alleged teachings of Beckert ’710 and does not
`
`refer to Beckert ’164 for the “first pre-programmed code portion” limitation.
`
`See Pet. 31–35; Ex. 1003, 39–43.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner contests Petitioner’s arguments that Beckert ’710
`
`teaches the “first pre-programmed code portion” limitation, asserting that
`
`Petitioner merely “make[s] general allegations regarding an ‘API,’” but the
`
`API of Beckert ’710 “does not receive commands in an incompatible format,
`
`or translate commands.” Prelim. Resp. 12–13. Patent Owner argues that
`
`Beckert ’710 instead refers to “several other components involved in the
`
`command structure including device ‘drivers’ as well as the hardware itself.”
`
`Id. at 13. According to Patent Owner, Beckert ’710 expressly states only
`
`that the API “‘transfers calls made by the applications to the appropriate
`
`device drivers’” and does not “describe the format that commands are
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01477
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`relayed from an API to a device driver and then subsequently to the
`
`devices.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1006, 2:64–3:6). Moreover, Patent Owner faults
`
`Petitioner for failing to “allege the location of the API with any further
`
`specificity” than Beckert ’710 itself, which states merely that the API is
`
`within the “vehicle computer system.” Id. Therefore, according to Patent
`
`Owner, Petitioner’s allegations are insufficient to demonstrate that
`
`Beckert ’710’s teaches the claim limitation because the vehicle computer
`
`system contains not only the component Petitioner identifies as the alleged
`
`“interface” but also the components Petitioner identifies as the alleged “car
`
`stereo” and “after-market audio device.” Id. Moreover, with regard to the
`
`hardware abstraction layer, Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner does “not
`
`map the hardware abstraction layer to the conversion limitations” and does
`
`“not explain where the . . . [l]ayer is located or how it represents
`
`‘pre-programmed’ code.” Id.
`
`
`
`We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not sufficiently
`
`explained and supported its position that Beckert ’710 teaches or suggests
`
`claim 1’s requirement that a microcontroller “process[] the received control
`
`command into a formatted command compatible the after-market audio
`
`device.” See id. Nor has Petitioner adequately supported and explained its
`
`supporting assertion that this recitation is performed by audio manager
`
`API 274 and hardware abstraction layer 272, as opposed to, for example, the
`
`device drivers for specific audio devices. Moreover, even if this
`
`functionality is covered by audio manager API 274 and hardware abstraction
`
`layer 272, it is not explained adequately why or how either one maps to a
`
`“microcontroller” performing those functions.
`
`With regard to hardware abstraction layer 272, Petitioner’s citation to
`
`Figure 8 and the accompanying general disclosure that “audio hardware
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01477
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`abstraction layer . . . 272 defines a basic interface layer between the audio
`
`related drivers for the hardware 270 and the audio manager API layer 274”
`
`fails to specify and show adequately that the hardware abstraction layer,
`
`rather than the device drivers of the audio devices, perform the format
`
`conversion of control commands required by claim 1. Ex. 1006, 13:9–12,
`
`Fig. 8; see Pet. 33–34 (citing Ex. 1006, 13:7–15, Fig. 8); Ex. 1003, 41–42
`
`(citing Ex. 1006, 13:7–15, Fig. 8).
`
`The relevant citations to Beckert ’710 regarding audio manager
`
`API 274 fare no better. Although Petitioner proffers citations to disclosures
`
`of Beckert ’710 that audio manager API 274 “enable[s] applications running
`
`on the computer to control the various audio sources without knowing the
`
`hardware and implementation details of the underlying sound system” and
`
`similarly, “defines the APIs to access and control the underlying audio
`
`system,” these general statements regarding “control” of audio sources do
`
`not show that audio manager API 274, in particular, converts a command
`
`into a format compatible with the relevant audio source device. Ex. 1006,
`
`[57], 2:64–3:1, 12:65–13:2, 13:14–15; see Pet. 32–34 (citing Ex. 1006,
`
`2:64–3:6, 13:7–15); Ex. 1003, 40–42 (citing Ex. 1006, 2:64–3:6, 13:7–15).
`
`Moreover, the cited discussion in Beckert ’710 explaining that audio source
`
`control 278, a component of audio manager API 274, “control[s]” and “is
`
`used to select” background audio sources, such as “sources from the USB,”
`
`similarly lacks detail sufficient to demonstrate that audio manager API 274
`
`performs the recited format conversion. Ex. 1006, 13:16–18, 13:28–31,
`
`13:39–41, Fig. 9; see Pet. 32, 34–35 (citing Ex. 1006, 13:22–31, 13:37–42,
`
`Fig. 9); Ex. 1003, 40, 42–43 (citing Ex. 1006, 13:22–31, 13:37–42, Fig. 9).
`
`
`
`In more particularly addressing the function of audio manager
`
`API 274, Beckert ’710 explains that its role is to “communicate[] with the
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01477
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`audio device drivers for specific devices via the audio HAL interface 272”
`
`and “transfer[] calls made by the applications to the appropriate device
`
`driver(s).” Ex. 1006, [57], 3:2–6, 13:2–6, 14:37–40 (emphases added); see
`
`Pet. 32–34 (citing Ex. 1006, 2:64–3:6); Ex. 1003, 40–42 (citing Ex. 1006,
`
`2:64–3:6). Petitioner has not explained or demonstrated sufficiently, with
`
`adequate record support, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`understood the function of audio manager API 274, including transferring
`
`calls to device drivers for audio devices through the hardware abstraction
`
`layer, to involve the recited format conversion of control commands.
`
`Petitioner also fails to address or provide explanation as to why it is
`
`not the device driver(s) for each specific audio device that perform such a
`
`conversion of a control command into a format compatible with the
`
`particular device. We find Petitioner’s failure in this regard particularly
`
`problematic given that device drivers were known in the art at the relevant
`
`time period to perform functionality consistent with the required format
`
`conversion. See Ex. 3001 (MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY (5th ed.
`
`2002)), 155 (explaining that a “device driver” is “[a] software component
`
`that permits a computer system to communicate with a device” and performs
`
`“data translation”); Ex. 1001, [22]. Moreover, it is unclear why the
`
`individual device drivers for particular audio devices in Beckert ’710 would
`
`be necessary, and what function they would perform, if audio manager
`
`API 274 or hardware abstraction layer 272 converts control commands into a
`
`format compatible with the relevant audio device before the drivers receive
`
`the command.
`
`
`
`In addition, Petitioner has not addressed or shown that the device
`
`drivers in Beckert ’710 are part of the customized processor implementing
`
`logic unit 110 in support module 82, which Petitioner identifies as the
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01477
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`“microcontroller” of the “interface” recited in claim 1. See Pet. 29–35;
`
`Ex. 1003, 37–43; see also, e.g., Ex. 1006, [57], 3:2–3, 13:2–3 (“Different
`
`audio d

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket