UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`Hyundai Motor Company Ltd., Hyundai Motor America, Hyundai Motor
`Manufacturing Alabama, LLC, Kia Motors Corporation, Kia Motors America, Inc.,
`and Kia Motors Manufacturing Georgia, Inc.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`Blitzsafe Texas, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,489,786
`Filing Date: December 11, 2002
`Issue Date: February 10, 2009
`Title: Audio Device Integration System
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No.: (Unassigned)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,489,786
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.1-100, ET SEQ.
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. COMPLIANCE WITH FORMAL REQUIREMENTS .................................. 1
`A. Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(1)-(4) ....................... 1
`1.
`Real Parties-In-Interest .............................................................. 1
`2.
`Related Matters .......................................................................... 2
`3.
`Lead and Backup Counsel ......................................................... 2
`4.
`Service Information.................................................................... 3
`Proof of Service on the Patent Owner .................................................. 3
`B.
`Power of Attorney ................................................................................ 3
`C.
`Standing ................................................................................................ 3
`D.
`Fees ....................................................................................................... 3
`E.
`III. STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ................................... 4
`A.
`Prior Art Patents and Publications ....................................................... 4
`B.
`The Beckert References Should Be Considered One
`Anticipatory Reference ........................................................................ 5
`Identification of Challenges and Relief Requested .............................. 8
`C.
`IV. FULL STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR REQUESTED RELIEF ............. 9
`A.
`Summary of the ’786 Patent ................................................................. 9
`B.
`The ’786 Patent’s Prosecution History .............................................. 11
`C.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art .................................................... 14
`D.
`Claim Construction ............................................................................ 14
`1.
`“car stereo” ............................................................................... 16
`2.
`“integration” / “integrating” ..................................................... 17
`3.
`“interface” ................................................................................ 17
`4.
`“device presence signal” .......................................................... 17
`5.
`“portable” ................................................................................. 18
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`6. “maintain … in an operational state” ............................................. 18
`Ground 1: Claims 1, 10, 14, 23, and 24 are Obvious Under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a) (pre-AIA) in Light of Beckert ’710 And
`Beckert ’164 ....................................................................................... 18
`1.
`Overview of Beckert ’710 ........................................................ 18
`2.
`Overview of Beckert ’164 ........................................................ 20
`3.
`Obvious to Combine Beckert ’164 with Beckert ’710 ............ 21
`4.
`Detailed Analysis ..................................................................... 22
`Ground 2: Claim 5 Is Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (pre-
`AIA) In Light Of Beckert ’710, Beckert ’164, The AutoPC
`Manual And USB 2.0 ......................................................................... 45
`1.
`Overview of the AutoPC Manual ............................................ 45
`2.
`Overview of USB 2.0 ............................................................... 46
`3.
`Obvious to Combine the AutoPC Manual and USB 2.0
`with Beckert ’710 and Beckert ’164 ........................................ 47
`Detailed Analysis ..................................................................... 48
`4.
`G. Ground 3: Claim 6 Is Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (pre-
`AIA) in Light of Beckert ’710, Beckert ’164 and Beckert ’363 ........ 51
`1.
`Overview of Beckert ’363 ........................................................ 51
`2.
`Obvious to Combine Beckert ’363 with Beckert ’710 and
`Beckert ’164 ............................................................................. 51
`Detailed Analysis ..................................................................... 52
`3.
`H. Ground 4: Claim 7 is Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (pre-
`AIA) in Light of Beckert ’710, Beckert ’164and the AutoPC
`Manual ................................................................................................ 54
`1.
`Obvious to Combine the AutoPC Manual with Beckert
`’710 and Beckert ’164 .............................................................. 54
`Detailed Analysis ..................................................................... 55
`
`2.
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Ground 5: Claim 8 is Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (pre-
`AIA) in Light of Beckert ’710, Beckert ’164 and the Sony XR-
`C5120R Manual ................................................................................. 56
`1.
`Overview of the Sony XR-C5120R Manual ............................ 56
`2.
`Obvious to Combine the AutoPC Manual and the Sony
`XR-C5120R Manual with Beckert ’710 and Beckert ’164 ..... 56
`Detailed Analysis ..................................................................... 57
`3.
`Ground 6: Claims 57, 60, 64 and 65 are Obvious Under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a) (pre-AIA) in Light of Beckert ’710, Beckert
`’164 and USB ADF ............................................................................ 60
`1.
`Overview of USB ADF ............................................................ 60
`2.
`Obvious to Combine USB ADF with Beckert ’710 and
`Beckert ’164 ............................................................................. 60
`Detailed Analysis ..................................................................... 61
`3.
`K. Ground 7: Claim 61 is Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (pre-
`AIA) in Light of Beckert ’710, Beckert ’164, USB ADF and the
`AutoPC Manual .................................................................................. 66
`1.
`Obvious to Combine the AutoPC Manual with Beckert
`’710, Beckert ’164 and USB ADF ........................................... 66
`Detailed Analysis ..................................................................... 67
`2.
`Ground 8: Claim 62 is Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (pre-
`AIA) in Light of Beckert ’710, Beckert ’164, USB ADF, the
`AutoPC Manual and the Sony XR-C5120 Manual ............................ 68
`1.
`Obvious to Combine the AutoPC Manual and the Sony
`XR-C5120 Manual with Beckert ’710, Beckert ’164 and
`USB ADF ................................................................................. 68
`Detailed Analysis ..................................................................... 69
`2.
`V. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 70
`
`J.
`
`L.
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`1007
`1008
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 7,489,786 (“’786 patent”)
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 7,489,786
`Declaration of Chris Kyriakakis, Ph.D.
`Joint Claim Construction Chart from Blitzsafe Texas, LLC v. Honda
`Motor Co., Ltd. et al., 2:15-cv-01274 (E.D. Tex.)(lead case)
`Plaintiff’s Disclosure Of Asserted Claims And Infringement
`Contentions (with Appendices A-D) from Blitzsafe Texas, LLC v.
`Honda Motor Co., Ltd. et al., 2:15-cv-01274 (E.D. Tex.)(lead case)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,085,710 (“Beckert ’710”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,794,164 (“Beckert ’164”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,009,363 (“Beckert ’363”)
`Clarion AutoPC 310C Owner’s Manual, Clarion Co. Ltd. 1998
`(“AutoPC Manual”)
`Universal Serial Bus Specification - Rev. 2.0, April 27, 2000
`(“USB 2.0”)
`Universal Serial Bus Device Class Definition for Audio Data
`Formats - Release 1.0, March 18, 1998 (“USB ADF”)
`Sony XR-C5120 FM/AM Cassette Car Stereo Operating
`Instructions Manual (“Sony XR-C5120 Manual”)
`Minagawa et al., Open Architectural Car Multimedia Platform,
`Clarion Co., Ltd., Convergence 98 Int’l Congress on Transportation
`Elec’s., October 19-21, 1998 (“Minagawa,” Ex. 1013)
`Decision Instituting Inter Partes Review, Case IPR2015-00421,
`Paper No. 13 (July 7, 2016)
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42, Petitioners
`
`Hyundai Motor Company (“HMC”), Hyundai Motor America (“HMA”),
`
`Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama, LLC (“HMMA”), Kia Motors
`
`Corporation (“KMC”), Kia Motors America, Inc. (“KMA”), and Kia Motors
`
`Manufacturing Georgia, Inc. (“KMMG”) (collectively, “Hyundai and Kia”
`
`or “Petitioners”) respectfully request Inter Partes Review of claims 1, 5-8,
`
`10, 14, 23, 24, 57, 60-62, and 64-65 of U.S. Patent 7,489,786 (Ex. 1001, the
`
`“’786 patent”), which is currently assigned to Blitzsafe Texas LLC
`
`(“Blitzsafe”) according to the US Patent and Trademark Office assignment
`
`records. There is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioners will prevail with
`
`respect to at least one of the claims challenged herein.
`
`II. COMPLIANCE WITH FORMAL REQUIREMENTS
`A. Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(1)-(4)
`1.
`Real Parties-In-Interest
`Hyundai Motor Company (“HMC”), Hyundai Motor America
`
`(“HMA”), Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama, LLC (“HMMA”), Kia
`
`Motors Corporation (“KMC”), Kia Motors America, Inc. (“KMA”), and Kia
`
`Motors Manufacturing Georgia, Inc. (“KMMG”) (collectively, “Hyundai
`
`and Kia” or “Petitioners”) are the real parties-in-interest.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`
`
`2.
`Related Matters
`The ’786 patent is subject to the following pending actions: Blitzsafe
`
`Texas, LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp. et al., 2:15-cv-01277 (E.D. Tex.);
`
`Blitzsafe Texas, LLC v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd. et al., 2:15-cv-01274 (E.D.
`
`Tex.); Blitzsafe Texas, LLC v. Hyundai Motor Co. et al., 2:15-cv-01276
`
`(E.D. Tex); and Blitzsafe Texas, LLC v. Volkswagen Group of Am., Inc. et
`
`al., 2:15-cv-01278 (E.D. Tex.); IPR2016-00421 and IPR2016-00422. The
`
`’786 Patent was previously asserted in the following matters: Marlowe
`
`Patent Holdings LLC v. DICE Elecs., LLC et al., 3:10-cv-01199 (D. NJ) and
`
`Marlowe Patent Holdings LLC v. Ford Motor Co., 3:10-cv-07044 (D. NJ).
`
`Lead and Backup Counsel
`
`3.
`Lead counsel is Paul R. Steadman, Reg. No. 43,932, of DLA Piper
`
`LLP (US), 203 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1900, Chicago, Illinois 60601-
`
`1293; paul.steadman@dlapiper.com, 312.368.2135 (phone), 312.251.2850
`
`(fax). Backup counsel is Matthew D. Satchwell, Reg. No. 58,870, of DLA
`
`Piper LLP (US), 203 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1900, Chicago, Illinois
`
`60601-1293; matthew.satchwell@dlapiper.com, 312.368.4000 (phone), 312.
`
`236-7516 (fax); Gianni Minutoli, Reg. No. 41,198, of DLA Piper LLP (US),
`
`11911 Freedom Drive, Suite 300; Reston, VA 20190;
`
`gianni.minutoli@dlapiper.com, 703-773-4045 (phone), 703-773-5200 (fax);
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`and Nicholas Panno, Reg. No. 68,513, of DLA Piper LLP (US), 11911
`
`Freedom Drive, Suite 300; Reston, VA 20190;
`
`nicholas.panno@dlapiper.com, 703-773-4157 (phone), 703-773-5200 (fax).
`
`Service Information
`
`4.
`Service information for lead and back-up counsel is provided in the
`
`designation of lead and back-up counsel above.
`
`Proof of Service on the Patent Owner
`
`B.
`As identified in the attached Certificate of Service, a copy of this
`
`Petition in its entirety is being served to the Patent Owner’s attorney of
`
`record at the address listed in the USPTO’s records by overnight courier
`
`pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6.
`
`Power of Attorney
`
`C.
`Powers of attorney are being filed with designation of counsel in
`
`accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.10(b).
`
`Standing
`
`D.
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. §42.104(a), Petitioners certify that the
`
`’786 patent is available for inter partes review and that Petitioners are not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review challenging the
`
`patent claims on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`Fees
`
`E.
`The undersigned authorizes the Director to charge the fee specified by
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) and any additional fees that might be due in connection
`
`with this Petition to Deposit Account No. 50-3266.
`
`III. STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`A.
`Prior Art Patents and Publications
`The claims of the ’786 patent have an effective filing date no earlier
`
`than Dec. 11, 2002, which is the filing date of the application that issued as
`
`the ’786 patent. Petitioners rely upon the following patents and publications,
`
`all of which are prior art to the claims of the ’786 patent:
`
` U.S. Patent No. 7,085,710 to Beckert et al. (“Beckert ’710”, Ex.
`
`1006) was filed on Jan. 7, 1998 and issued on Aug. 1, 2006. Beckert ’710 is
`
`prior art to the ’786 patent under at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and (e) (pre-
`
`AIA).
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,794,164 to Beckert et al. (“Beckert ’164”, Ex.
`
`1007) was filed on Nov. 29, 1995 and issued on Aug. 11, 1998. Beckert ’164
`
`is prior art to the ’786 patent under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (pre-AIA).
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,009,363 to Beckert et al. (“Beckert ’363”, Ex.
`
`1008) was filed as a continuation-in-part of Beckert ’164 on June 24, 1996
`
`and issued on Dec. 28, 1999. Beckert ’363 is prior art to the ’786 patent
`
`under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (pre-AIA).
`
` The Clarion AutoPC 310C Owner’s Manual (“AutoPC
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`
`Manual”, Ex. 1009) bears a copyright date of 1998. The AutoPC Manual is
`
`prior art to the ’786 patent under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (pre-AIA).
`
` The Universal Serial Bus Specification - Rev. 2.0 (“USB 2.0”,
`
`Ex. 1010) was published on April 27, 2000. USB 2.0 is prior art to the ’786
`
`patent under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (pre-AIA).
`
` The Universal Serial Bus Device Class Definition for Audio
`
`Data Formats - Release 1.0 (“USB ADF”, Ex. 1011) was published on
`
`March 18, 1998. USB ADF is prior art to the ’786 patent under at least 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(b) (pre-AIA).
`
` The Sony XR-C5120R FM/MW/LW Cassette Car Stereo
`
`Operating Instructions Manual (“Sony XR-C5120R Manual”, Ex. 1012)
`
`bears a copyright date of 1999. The Sony XR-C5120R Manual is prior art to
`
`the ’786 patent under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (pre-AIA).
`
` Minagawa et al., Open Architectural Car Multimedia Platform,
`
`Clarion Co., Ltd., Convergence 98 Int’l Congress on Transportation Elec’s.
`
`(“Minagawa,” Ex. 1013) is dated October 19-21, 1998, and bears a copyright
`
`date of 1998. Minagawa is prior art to the ’786 patent under at least 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(b) (pre-AIA).
`
`B.
`
`The Beckert References Should Be Considered One
`Anticipatory Reference
`
`Beckert ’710 incorporates specific disclosure from Beckert ’164 and
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`Beckert ’363. Specifically, Beckert ’710 incorporates details of its computer,
`
`support and faceplate modules 84, 82, 80 from Beckert ’164:
`
`A more detailed explanation of the three modules in the
`
`vehicle computer system is provided in co-pending US.
`
`patent application Ser. No. 08/564,586 entitled “Vehicle
`
`Computer System,” which was filed on Nov. 29, 1995 in
`
`the names of Richard D. Beckert, Mark M. Moeller, and
`
`William Wong. This application is assigned to Microsoft
`
`Corporation and is incorporated herein by reference.
`
`Ex. 1006 at 7:19-25. Furthermore, Beckert ’710 incorporates details of its
`
`logic unit 110 from Beckert ’363:
`
`A detailed description of one implementation of the logic
`
`unit 110 is provided in co-pending US. patent application
`
`Ser. No. 08/668,781, entitled “Vehicle Computer System
`
`With High Speed Data Buffer and Serial Interconnect”,
`
`which was filed on Jun. 24, 1996 in the names of Richard
`
`D. Beckert, Mark M. Moeller, Ron Randall, and William
`
`Wong. This application is assigned to the Microsoft®
`
`Corporation and is incorporated herein by reference. The
`
`logic circuitry described in this disclosure represents
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`another implementation of the logic unit 110 that is more
`
`specifically tailored to implement the audio
`
`entertainment system.
`
`Ex. 1006 at 7:37-47. A host document incorporates material by reference if
`
`it “identif[ies] with detailed particularity what specific material it
`
`incorporates and clearly indicate[s] where that material is found in the
`
`various documents.” Vicor Corp. v. SynQor, Inc., 603 Fed.Appx. 969, 874
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Advanced Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ., 212
`
`F.3d 1272, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Whether the host document describes the
`
`material with sufficient particularity is determined from the point of view of
`
`a person of reasonable skill in the art. Id.
`
`Beckert ’164 provides detail about the computer, support and
`
`faceplate modules 84, 82, 80 and data interface of the vehicle computer
`
`system, and Beckert ’363 provides low-level detail on the operation of the
`
`logic unit 110 of the support module. Beckert ’710 explicitly incorporates
`
`and references specific disclosure from Beckert ’164 and Beckert ’363.
`
`Because the three disclosures describe the same underlying invention and
`
`device, a person of ordinary skill in the art reading Beckert ’710 would have
`
`known to look to Beckert ’164 for additional details on the three modules of
`
`the vehicle computer system described in the Beckert patents, and would
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`also have known to look to Beckert ’363 for additional detail on the support
`
`unit’s logic unit, especially as it relates to an audio entertainment system.
`
`Ex. 1003 at 28-29, ¶ 56.
`
`Nevertheless, Petitioners have treated Beckert ’710, Beckert ’164 and
`
`Beckert ’363 as separate references in the following Grounds. Motivation to
`
`combine Beckert ’710 with Beckert ’164 and/or Beckert ’363 is clearly set
`
`out in Beckert ’710’s incorporation by reference of Beckert ’164 and
`
`Beckert ’363. Ex. 1003 at 29-30, ¶ ¶ 57-59.
`
`Identification of Challenges and Relief Requested
`
`C.
`In accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 311, Petitioners request cancelation of
`
`claims 1, 5-8, 10, 14, 23, 24, 57, 60-62, and 64-65 of the ’786 patent in view
`
`of the following grounds:
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1, 10, 14, 23, and 24 are Obvious Under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) (pre-AIA) in Light of Beckert ’710 and Beckert ’164;
`
`Ground 2: Claim 5 is Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (pre-AIA)
`
`in Light of Beckert ’710, Beckert ’164, the AutoPC Manual and USB 2.0;
`
`Ground 3: Claim 6 is Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (pre-AIA)
`
`in Light of Beckert ’710, Beckert ’164 and Beckert ’363;
`
`Ground 4: Claim 7 is Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (pre-AIA)
`
`in Light of Beckert ’710, Beckert ’164 and the AutoPC Manual;
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`Ground 5: Claim 8 is Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (pre-AIA)
`
`in Light of Beckert ’710, Beckert ’164 and the Sony XR-C5120R Manual;
`
`Ground 6: Claims 57, 60, 64 and 65 are Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103(a) (pre-AIA) in Light of Beckert ’710, Beckert ’164 and USB ADF;
`
`Ground 7: Claim 61 is Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (pre-AIA)
`
`in Light of Beckert ’710, Beckert ’164, USB ADF and the AutoPC Manual;
`
`and
`
`Ground 8: Claim 62 is Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (pre-AIA)
`
`in Light of Beckert ’710, Beckert ’164, USB ADF and the Sony XR-C5120
`
`Manual.
`
`IV. FULL STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR REQUESTED
`RELIEF
`A.
`The ’786 patent relates to an “audio device integration system” that
`
`Summary of the ’786 Patent
`
`integrates a car stereo (also referred to as “car radio”) and one or more
`
`external or “after-market” devices, such as a CD changer or an MP3 player,
`
`that may otherwise be incompatible with the car stereo. See Ex. 1001 at
`
`abstract; 1:20-35 and FIG. 1. In the context of the ’786 Patent, this
`
`integration is provided by an “interface,” which is separate from the car
`
`stereo and the external device. Id.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TThe interfacce convertss control siignals fromm the car sttereo into aa format
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`compatiible with aan after-maarket externnal device,, thus allowwing commmands
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`input att the car steereo to conntrol the exxternal deviice. Figuree 2B of thee ’786
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`patent rreveals the control paanel buttonns 14 of thee car radio
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10 may bee used to
`
`
`
`control the operatiion of an eexternal devvice (MP33 player 300) as a resu
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`lt of
`
`a
`
`
`
`interface 20 conveerting the ccontrol signnals from tthe car raddio 10 into
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`format ccompatiblee with the MMP playerr. Ex. 1001
`
`
`
` at 6:1-19.. Similarly
`
`, the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`interface receives data from the externnal device aand converrts the dataa into a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`format ccompatiblee with car rradio 10 too allow infoformation, ssuch as arttist,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`song titlle, and tracck and timee information, to be ddisplayed oon displayy 13 of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`car radio 10. Ex. 11001 at 6:119-24. The interface iincludes a
`
`
`
`
`
`microconttroller
`
`
`
`programmmed to peerform the format connversion foor signals ssent by thee car
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`stereo too the exterrnal device to the car stereo. Exx. 1001 at 88:31-9:7.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`The interface of the ’786 patent also provides auxiliary inputs (inputs
`
`35 in Figure 2E) to allow additional audio devices to be connected. Ex. 1001
`
`at 7:23-29. Devices connected to an auxiliary input may be selectively
`
`activated by the microcontroller to channel audio from the selected to the car
`
`stereo. Ex. 1001 at 7:30-37.
`
`The interface also generates a “device presence signal” that it
`
`transmits to the car stereo to maintain the car stereo in an operational state,
`
`such as “prevent[ing] 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 at 12:29-35; 13:15-19; FIGs. 4A and 4B.
`
`The ’786 Patent’s Prosecution History
`
`B.
`The application for the ’786 patent, U.S. App. No. 10/316,961, was
`
`filed on December 11, 2002. See Ex. 1002.0001. Portions of the file history
`
`pertinent to the issues in this Petition are summarized below.
`
`In a first Non-Final Office Action dated June 5, 2006, all pending
`
`claims were rejected on prior art grounds. Ex. 1002 at 204-230. The
`
`Examiner relied primarily on U.S. Patent No. 6,993,615 (Falcon). Id. In
`
`response, the Applicant distinguished Falcon on the basis that it failed to
`
`show an interface “connected between a car stereo and an external audio
`
`source.” Ex. 1002 at 267 (Sept. 11, 2006 Amendment). The applicant also
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
`distinguished Falcon as “unconcerned with integrating an external audio
`
`device, which is ordinarily alien to and incompatible with a car stereo
`
`system, for use with the car stereo system.” Id. In response, the Examiner
`
`issued another Non-Final Office Action on November 14, 2006 rejecting all
`
`of the claims on new grounds, relying primarily on U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,163,079 (Miyazaki). Ex. 1002 at 282-326. A final rejection was issued on
`
`April 19, 2007, again relying primarily on Miyazaki. Ex. 1002 at 378-442.
`
`In response to these Office Actions, the Applicant amended the
`
`independent claims to specify that the interface performed a “format”
`
`conversion of control commands from the car stereo to the external device.
`
`Ex. 1002 at 334-369 (Feb. 14, 2007 Amendment). The Applicant then
`
`distinguished Miyazaki because its interface was directed to devices that
`
`were “already compatible with each other.” Ex. 1002 at 604 (Sept. 6, 2007
`
`Amendment). The Applicant also amended some claims to add “connectors”
`
`to the interface (e.g., claim 1 amended to add a “first connector” that
`
`connects the interface to the “car stereo” and a “second connector” that
`
`connects the interface to the after-market (external) device; application
`
`claims 55 and 81 were amended similarly, which issued as claims 57 and
`
`86.) Ex. 1002 at 575-576; 588-.589; 595-596.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`
`On February 20, 2008, the Examiner issued a Final Office Action
`
`rejecting all of the pending claims on new grounds, relying primarily on U.S.
`
`Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0084910 (Owens) and U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,175,789 (Beckert). Ex. 1002 at 616-665. Thereafter, the Applicant
`
`filed an Amendment on April 21, 2008. (Ex. 1002 at 678-709.) The
`
`Amendment included additional claim language requiring that the
`
`microcontroller be “pre-programmed” to perform the recited format
`
`conversion operations (e.g., “for remotely controlling the after-market audio
`
`device…” and “for receiving data from the after-market audio device…”
`
`E.g., Ex. 1002 at 679 (amendment to claim 1); 1002 at 707-709 (arguing
`
`“pre-programmed” aspect as basis for overcoming prior art).
`
`A Notice of Allowance followed on July 31, 2008. Ex. 1002 at 1035-
`
`1041. The Examiner stated that although interfacing auxiliary after-market
`
`devices with a car stereo was known, “the Examiner has not found prior art
`
`that teaches or suggests an interface unit containing a pre-programmed
`
`microcontroller that allows for the communication of incompatible audio
`
`devices as presented in the independent claims 1, 24, 30, 42, 55, 63 and 72”
`
`or “to execute a code portion for generating and transmitting a device
`
`presence signal to a car stereo to maintain the stereo in an operational state
`
`responsive to signals from an after-market device as presented in the
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`
`independent claims 47, 81, 83, 104.” Ex. 1002 at 1039-1040 (emphasis
`
`added).
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`C.
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the
`
`alleged invention of the ’786 patent would have had at least at least a
`
`Bachelor’s Degree in Electrical Engineering or equivalent
`
`science/engineering degree and at least two years’ experience in signal
`
`processing and/or electronic system design, or at least four years’
`
`experience in signal processing and/or electronic system design. Ex. 1003 at
`
`13, ¶ 25.
`
`D. Claim Construction
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3), Petitioners provide the
`
`following statement regarding construction of the ’786 patent claims. A
`
`claim subject to inter partes review receives the “broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation” (“BRI”) in light of the specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`
`The Patent Owner in the pending litigations has argued that many of the
`
`claim terms at issue should be given their plain meaning. See generally, Ex.
`
`1004. The Patent Owner, however, has construed some of the limitations of
`
`the ’786 patent. The limitations that have been construed by the Patent
`
`Owner and that are pertinent to the challenged claims are discussed below.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`
`
`In presenting this Petition, unless otherwise stated, the grounds set
`
`forth herein are based on (1) the claim constructions adopted by the Panel in
`
`the recent institution of IPR2016-00421, Paper No. 13 (Ex. 1014); (2) the
`
`proposed claim constructions offered by the Patent Owner in Blitzsafe Texas,
`
`LLC v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd. et al., 2:15-cv-01274 (E.D. Tex.)(lead case);
`
`or (3) for terms where Patent Owner has not explicitly offered a claim
`
`construction, on Petitioner’s understanding of Patent Owner’s claim
`
`construction based upon Patent Owner’s infringement contentions submitted
`
`in Blitzsafe Texas, LLC v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd. et al., 2:15-cv-01274 (E.D.
`
`Tex.)(lead case). See generally, Ex. 1005 at Appendices A, B.
`
`Petitioners do not concede that any claim interpretation impliedly or
`
`expressly proposed by Patent Owner is appropriate for the district court
`
`litigation, where a different legal standard applies to the construction of the
`
`asserted claim terms. Petitioners present these interpretations to the Board
`
`for consideration in determining the BRI because Patent Owner has
`
`advanced them as proper, and therefore necessarily within the scope of the
`
`BRI. Petitioners further submit these interpretations under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`301(a)(2), which encourages submission of claim construction materials to
`
`prevent patentees from arguing broad interpretations under Phillips while
`
`simultaneously arguing narrow constructions as the BRI.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`
`
`“car stereo”
`
`1.
`The term “car stereo” appears in challenged claims 1, 6, 8, and 57. In
`
`the underlying litigation, Patent Owner said this term means “components
`
`that process audio signals and produce audible output in a car.” Ex. 1004 at
`
`10. But this construction does not account for the specification, which
`
`expressly and broadly states that “car stereo” can encompass “software-
`
`driven receivers”:
`
`[A]s used herein, the terms “car stereo” and “car radio” are used
`interchangeably and are intended to include all presently
`existing car stereos and radios, such as physical devices that are
`present at any location within a vehicle, in addition to software
`and/or graphically-or display-driven receivers. An example of
`such a receiver is a software-driven receiver that operates on a
`universal LCD panel within a vehicle and is operable by a user
`via a graphical user interface displayed on the universal LCD
`panel. Further, any future receiver, whether a hardwired or
`software/graphical receiver operable on one or more displays, is
`considered within the definition of the terms “car stereo” and
`“car radio,” as used herein, and is within the spirit and scope of
`the present invention.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 5:1-13. Accordingly, Petitioner submits this is the proper
`
`construction for this term.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`
`
`“integration” / “integrating”
`
`2.
`The term “integration” appears in challenged claims 1 and 57 while
`
`the term “integrating” appears in challenged claim 5. In the underlying
`
`litigations, the parties agreed that these terms mean “connecting one or more
`
`external devices or inputs to an existing car radio or stereo via an interface,
`
`processing and handling signals and audio channels, allowing a user to
`
`control the devices via the car stereo, and displaying data from the devices
`
`on the radio.” Ex. 1004 at 9.
`
`“interface”
`
`3.
`The term “interface” appears in challenged claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 14, 57
`
`and 64 and has been construed by the Patent Owner to mean “a device
`
`configured to integrate an external device with a car stereo.” Ex. 1004 at 15.
`
`But in a recent institution decision in Case IPR2015-00421, a Panel of
`
`Administrative Patent Judges (“the Panel”) interpreted this term as “a
`
`physical unit that connects one device to another and that has a functional
`
`and structural identity separate from that of both connected devices.” Ex.
`
`1014 at 15. Accordingly, that is the construction Petitioners apply here.
`
`“device presence signal”
`
`4.
`The term “device presence signal” appears in challenged claims 6 and
`
`57. Patent Owner has construed this term to mean “a signal indicating an
`
`audio device is present.” Ex. 1004 at 23. But in the institution of Case
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-00421, the Panel construed this term 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.” Ex. 2015
`
`at 18. Petitioners apply this construction to the grounds below.
`
`“portable”
`
`5.
`The term “portable” appears in challenged claims 57 and 62. Patent
`
`Owner did not construe this term in the underlying litigations, but in the
`
`institution of Case IPR2015-00421, the Panel construed it as “capable of
`
`being carried by a user.” Ex. 2015 at 12. Petitioners apply this construction
`
`to the grounds below.
`
`6.
`
`“maintain … in an operational state”
`
`The term “maintain … in an operational state” appears in challenged
`
`claim 57. In the underlying litigations, the parties have agreed that this term
`
`means “maintain in a state responsive to processed data and audio signals
`
`from the external device.” Ex. 1004 at 34.
`
`E. Ground 1: Claims 1, 10, 14, 23, and 24 are Obvious Under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (pre-AIA) in Light of Beckert ’710 And
`Beckert ’164
`1. Overview of Beckert ’710
`Beckert ’710 relates to a vehicle-borne, com