DAIMLER NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION,
`MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, AND
`MERCEDES-BENZ U.S. INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`v.
`Stragent, LLC
`
` Case Nos:
`IPR2017-00457, Patent No. 8,566,843
`IPR2017-00458, Patent No. 8,209,705
`
`Petitioners’ Demonstratives
`
`Hearing: March 13, 2018
`
`1
`
`
`MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, AND
`MERCEDES-BENZ U.S. INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`v.
`Stragent, LLC
`
` Case Nos:
`IPR2017-00457, Patent No. 8,566,843
`IPR2017-00458, Patent No. 8,209,705
`
`Petitioners’ Demonstratives
`
`Hearing: March 13, 2018
`
`1
`
`
`
`Overview of the ‘843 and ‘705 Patents
`‘457 Petition at 1-9; ‘458 Petition at 1-9
`
` ‘457 Petition at 1 (citing Ex. 1001 (‘843 Patent) at Abstract);
`‘458 Petition at 1 (citing Ex. 1001 (‘705 Patent) at Abstract)
`
`2
`
`
`
`Overview of the ‘843 and ‘705 Patents
`‘457 Petition at 1-9; ‘458 Petition at 1-9
`
`‘457 Petition at 3 (citing Ex. 1001 (‘843 Patent) at 7:4-23);
`‘458 Petition at 3 (citing Ex. 1001 (‘705 Patent) at 7:4-23)
`
`‘457 Petition at 2 (citing Ex. 1001 (‘843 Patent) at Fig. 7);
`‘458 Petition at 2 (citing Ex. 1001 (‘705 Patent) at Fig. 7)
`
`‘457 Petition at 2 (citing Ex. 1001 (‘843 Patent) at 6:43-49);
`‘458 Petition at 2 (citing Ex. 1001 (‘705 Patent) at 6:43-49)
`
` ‘458 Petition at 3 (citing Ex. 1001 (‘705 Patent) at 7:38-49)
`
`3
`
`
`
`Overview of the ‘843 and ‘705 Patents
`‘457 Petition at 1-9; ‘458 Petition at 1-9
`
`Prosecution History: Miesterfeld
`
`‘843 Patent
`Filed 6/22/2012
`
`cont.
`‘705 Patent
`Filed 6/30/2008
`
`cont.
`‘263 Patent
`Filed 12/15/2003
`
`prov.
`‘018 Prov. App.
`Filed 12/17/2002
`
`Miesterfeld cited in
`an IDS after claims
`were allowed.
`‘457 Petition at 8;
`‘458 Petition at 9
`
`‘457 Reply at 5 (citing Ex. 1003 (‘705 File History) at 74 (May 10, 2012 IDS));
`‘458 Reply at 5 (same)
`
`‘457 Petition at 4-9 (citing Ex. 1002 (‘263 File History); Ex. 1003 (‘705 File
`History); Ex. 1004 (‘843 File History)); ‘457 Petition at 88; ‘458 Petition at
`5-9 (citing Ex. 1002 (same); Ex. 1003 (same)); ‘458 Petition at 90
`
`‘457 PO Response at 8;
`‘458 PO Response at 8
`
`4
`
`
`
`Instituted Grounds – ‘843 and ‘705 Patents
`
`’457 Inst. Dec. at 26-27; ‘458 Inst. Dec. at 30
`
`IPR2017-00457, ‘843 Patent
`
`IPR2017-00458, ‘705 Patent
`
`‘457 Inst. Dec. at 26-27
`
`‘458 Inst. Dec. at 30
`
`5
`
`
`
`Miesterfeld – Background
`
`‘457 Petition at 14-15; ‘458 Petition at 14-15
`
`‘457 Petition at 15 (citing Ex. 1010 (Miesterfeld) at Fig. 1);
`‘458 Petition at 15 (citing Ex. 1009 (Miesterfeld at Fig. 1)
`
`‘457 Petition at 59 (citing Ex. 1010 (Miesterfeld) at Abstract);
`‘458 Petition at 59 (citing Ex. 1009 (Miesterfeld) at Abstract)
`
`‘457 Petition at 61 (citing Ex. 1010 (Miesterfeld) at 3:18-25);
`‘458 Petition at 60 (citing Ex. 1009 (Miesterfeld) at 3:18-25)
`
`6
`
`
`
`Miesterfeld – Background
`
`‘457 Petition at 14-15; ‘458 Petition at 14-15
`
`‘457 Petition at 54 (citing Ex. 1010 (Miesterfeld) at Fig. 2);
`‘458 Petition at 66 (citing Ex. 1009 (Miesterfeld) at Fig. 2)
`
`‘457 Petition at 61 (citing Ex. 1010 (Miesterfeld) at 3:50-58);
`‘458 Petition at 60 (citing Ex. 1009 (Miesterfeld) at 3:50-58)
`
`7
`
`
`
`Posadas – Background
`
`‘457 Petition at 13-14; ‘458 Petition at 13-14
`
`‘457 Petition at 14 (citing Ex. 1007 (Posadas) at Fig. 1);
`‘458 Petition at 14 (citing Ex. 1006 (Posadas) at Fig. 1)
`
`‘457 Petition at 13 (citing Ex. 1007 (Posadas) at 8);
`‘458 Petition at 13 (citing Ex. 1006 (Posadas) at 8)
`
`‘457 Petition at 20 (citing Ex. 1007 (Posadas) at 10);
`‘458 Petition at 20 (citing Ex. 1006 (Posadas) at 10)
`
`8
`
`
`
`Posadas – Background
`
`457 Petition at 13-14; ‘458 Petition at 13-14
`
`‘457 Petition at 19 (citing Ex. 1007 (Posadas) at Fig. 4);
`‘458 Petition at 20 (citing Ex. 1006 (Posadas) at Fig. 4)
`
`‘457 Petition at 52 (citing Ex. 1007 (Posadas) at 11);
`‘458 Petition at 31 (citing Ex. 1006 (Posadas) at 11)
`
`‘457 Petition at 52 (citing Ex. 1007 (Posadas) at 11);
`‘458 Petition at 31 (citing Ex. 1006 (Posadas) at 11)
`
`9
`
`
`
`Stewart – Background
`
`‘457 Petition at 15-16; ‘458 Petition at 15-16
`
`‘457 Petition at 15 (citing Ex. 1008 (Stewart) at 6);
`‘458 Petition at 15 (citing Ex. 1007 (Stewart) at 6)
`
`‘457 Petition at 24-25 (citing Ex. 1008 (Stewart) at 11);
`‘458 Petition at 24 (citing Ex. 1007 (Stewart) at 11)
`
`‘457 Petition at 15 (citing Ex. 1008 (Stewart) at 7);
`‘458 Petition at 15 (citing Ex. 1007 (Stewart) at 7)
`
`‘457 Petition at 24-25 (citing Ex. 1008 (Stewart) at 11);
`‘458 Petition at 24 (citing Ex. 1007 (Stewart) at 11)
`
`10
`
`
`
`Wense – Background
`
`‘457 Petition at 16-17; ‘458 Petition at 16-17
`
`‘457 Petition at 38 (citing Ex. 1009 (Wense) at 13);
`‘458 Petition at 40 (citing Ex. 1008 (Wense) at 13)
`
`‘457 Petition at 42 (citing Ex. 1009 (Wense) at 11);
`‘458 Petition at 44 (citing Ex. 1008 (Wense) at 11)
`
`‘457 Petition at 40 (citing Ex. 1009 (Wense) at 10);
`‘458 Petition at 42 (citing Ex. 1008 (Wense) at 11)
`
`‘457 Petition at 17 (citing Ex. 1009 (Wense) at Fig. 3);
`‘458 Petition at 17 (citing Ex. 1008 (Wense) at Fig. 3)
`
`11
`
`
`
`‘705 and ‘843 Patents: Claim Construction - “Real Time”
`
`‘457 Petition at 9-10; ‘458 Petition at 10-11; ‘457 PO Resp. at 15-16; ‘458 PO Resp. at 15-16
`
`‘457 Institution Decision at 7; ‘458 Institution Decision at 11
`
`Cite the 458 petition at 10; [don’t say “citing”;
`
`‘457 PO Resp. at 5; ‘458 PO Resp. at 5
`
`‘457 PO Resp. at 5 fn. 1; ‘458 PO Resp. at 6 fn. 1
`
`12
`
`
`
`‘705 and ‘843 Patents: Claim Construction - “Sharing”
`
`‘457 Reply at 6-8; ‘458 Reply at 6-8; ‘457 PO Resp. at 15-16; ‘458 PO Resp. at 15-16
`
`‘457 Reply at 6; ‘458 Reply at 6
`
`‘457 PO Response at 15; ‘458 PO Response at 15
`
`13
`
`
`
`‘705 and ‘843 Patents: Claim Construction - “Sharing”
`
`‘457 Reply at 6-8; ‘458 Reply at 6-8; ‘457 PO Resp. at 15-16; ‘458 PO Resp. at 15-16
`
`‘457 Reply at 7 (citing Ex. 1001 (‘843 Patent) at claim 16);
`‘458 Reply at 7 (citing Ex. 1040 (‘843 Patent) at claim 16)
`
`“The Doctrine of claim differentiation is at its strongest in this
`type of case, “where the limitation that is sought to be ‘read
`into’ an independent claim already appears in a dependent
`claim . . . The presumption is ‘especially strong’ in this case,
`because ‘the limitation in dispute is the only meaningful
`difference between an independent and dependent claim”
`
`‘457 Reply at 7 (citing Interdigital Communications, LLC v. ITC, 690 F.3d 1318, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2012));
`‘458 Reply at 7 (same)
`
`14
`
`
`
`‘705 and ‘843 Patents: Claim Construction - “Sharing”
`
`‘457 Reply at 6-8; ‘458 Reply at 6-8; ‘457 PO Resp. at 15-16; ‘458 PO Resp. at 15-16
`
`Dictionary.com
`
`‘457 Reply at 8, (citing Ex. 1001 (‘843 patent) at 6:22-32);
`‘458 Reply at 8 (citing Ex. 1001 (‘705 patent) at 6:22-32)
`
`‘457 Reply at 8 (citing Ex. 1039, 1);
`‘458 Reply at 8 (citing Ex. 1038, 1)
`
`15
`
`
`
`‘843 and ’705 Patents: Miesterfeld
`‘457 Petition at 53-87; ‘458 Petition at 55-89
`
`§ PO: ‘843 and ‘705 claims not
`obvious over Miesterfeld because:
`• Miesterfeld does not disclose a CAN
`bus
`
`(‘457 PO Resp. at 51-52; ‘458 PO Resp. at 51-52)
`
`• Stewart does not disclose “sending a
`notification” (‘457 PO Resp. at 46-48; ‘458 PO Resp. at 46-48)
`• No motivation to combine Wense or
`Stewart (‘457 PO Resp. at 58-53; ‘458 PO Resp. at 48-53)
`
`
`
`‘457 Petition, App. A at 1
`
`16
`
`
`
`‘705 and ‘843 Patents: Miesterfeld Teaches a CAN Network
`
`‘457 Petition at 67-68; ‘458 Petition at 70; ‘458 PO Resp. at 23-24; ‘458 PO Resp. at 22-24
`
`§ No Dispute: Miesterfeld teaches and IDB network:
`
`(‘457 PO Resp. at 45; ‘458 PO Resp. at 45)
`
`§ SAE J2366-2 describes IDB as using CAN at the time of the invention:
`
`‘457 Petition at 15 (citing Ex. 1010 (Miesterfeld) at 9:55-58);
`‘458 Petition at 15 (citing Ex. 1009 (Miesterfeld) at 9:55-58)
`
`‘457 Reply at 23 (citing Ex. 1023 (IDB-C) at 2);
`‘458 Reply at 23 (citing Ex. 1022 (IDB-C) at 2
`
`‘457 Petition at 68 (citing Ex. 1005 (Koopman Decl.), ¶87 (citing Ex. 1024 (IDB-C) at 4));
`‘458 Petition at 70 (citing Ex. 1004 (Koopman Decl.), ¶87 (citing Ex. 1023 (IDB-C) at 4))
`17
`
`
`
`‘705 and ‘843 Patents: Miesterfeld Teaches a CAN Network
`
`‘457 Petition at 67-68; ‘458 Petition at 70; ‘458 PO Resp. at 23-24; ‘458 PO Resp. at 22-24
`
`§ SAE J2366-2 describes the IDB standard that existed at the time of the
`invention as using the CAN protocol:
`
`‘457 Reply at 24 (citing Ex. 1037 (Koopman Decl.), ¶70);
`‘458 Reply at 23 (citing Ex. 1036 (Koopman Decl., ¶67)
`
`‘457 Petition at 68 (citing Ex. 1005 (Koopman Decl.), ¶88);
`‘458 Petition at 70 (citing Ex. 1004 (Koopman Decl.), ¶88)
`
`‘457 Petition at 68 (citing Ex. 1005 (Koopman Decl.), ¶87);
`‘458 Petition at 70 (citing Ex. 1004 (Koopman Decl.), ¶87)
`
`Dr. Koopman
`(Expert for Petitioner)
`
`18
`
`
`
`‘705 and ‘843 Patents: Miesterfeld Teaches a CAN Network
`
`‘457 Petition at 67-68; ‘458 Petition at 70; ‘458 PO Resp. at 23-24; ‘458 PO Resp. at 22-24
`
`§ PO: a POSA would only have considered the 1997 version of the
`IDB standard (JS2355)
`
`“A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not
`identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if
`the differences between the subject matter sought to be
`patented 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.”
`
`‘457 Reply at 24 (ci1ng 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (pre-aia); ‘458 Reply at 23 (same)
`
`19
`
`
`
`‘705 and ‘843 Patents: Miesterfeld Teaches a CAN Network
`
`‘457 Petition at 67-68; ‘458 Petition at 70; ‘458 PO Resp. at 23-24; ‘458 PO Resp. at 22-24
`
` (‘457 PO Resp. at 45; ‘458 PO Resp. at 45)
`
`§ PO: The 1997 IDB standard is “incompatible” with CAN
`§ The 1997 Standard:
`
`§ The 1997 version of the IDB standard also refers to the
`2001 version:
`
`‘457 Reply at 24 (citing Ex. 2002 (J2355_199710) at 8); ‘458 Reply at 23-24 (same)
`
`‘457 Reply at 24 (citing Ex. 2002 (J2355_199710) at 3); ‘458 Reply at 24 (same)
`
`20
`
`
`
`‘705 and ‘843 Patents: Stewart Teaches “Sending a Notification”
`
`‘457 Petition at 62-63; ‘458 Petition at 62; ‘457 Reply at 17-19; ‘458 Reply at 17-19
`
`‘457 Pet. at 15 (citing Ex. 1008 (Stewart) at 1)
`
`‘457 Pet. at 24-25 (citing Ex. 1008 (Stewart) at 11);
`‘458 Pet. at 25 (citing Ex. 1007 (Stewart) at 11)
`
`21
`
`
`
`‘705 and ‘843 Patents: Stewart Teaches “Sending a Notification”
`
`‘457 Petition at 62-63; ‘458 Petition at 62; ‘457 Reply at 17-19; ‘458 Reply at 17-19
`
`A POSITA would understand that “error handlers” must be sent a message in
`order to be invoked
`
`‘457 Reply at 17-19; ‘458 Reply at 17-19
`
`‘457 Reply at 18 (citing Ex. 1037 (Koopman Decl.) at ¶¶ 54-56);
`‘458 Reply at 18 (citing Ex. 1036 (Koopman Decl.) at ¶¶ 51-52)
`
`‘457 Institution Dec. at 24;
`‘458 Institution Dec. at 28
`
`22
`
`
`
`‘705 and ‘843 Patents: Stewart Teaches “Sending a Notification”
`
`‘457 Petition at 62-63; ‘458 Petition at 62; ‘457 Reply at 17-19; ‘458 Reply at 17-19
`
`A POSITA would understand that error handlers must be sent a message in
`order to be invoked
`
`‘457 Reply at 17-19; ‘458 Reply at 17-19
`
`Ex. 1005 (Koopman Decl.), ¶237
`
`‘457 Reply at 18-19 (citing Ex. 1037 (Koopman Decl.), ¶57);
`‘458 Reply at 18 (citing Ex. 1036 (Koopman Decl.), ¶54)
`
`23
`
`
`
`‘705 and ‘843 Patents: Stewart Teaches “Sending a Notification”
`
`‘457 Petition at 62-63; ‘458 Petition at 62; ‘457 Reply at 17-19; ‘458 Reply at 17-19
`
`PO:
`
`Claim 51:
`
`‘457 PO Resp. at 1; ‘458 PO Resp. at 1
`
`‘457 Petition, App. A at 1
`
`24
`
`
`
`‘705 and ‘843 Patents: Stewart Teaches “Sending a Notification”
`
`‘457 Petition at 62-63; ‘458 Petition at 62; ‘457 Reply at 17-19; ‘458 Reply at 17-19
`
`PO misunderstands the concept of “error handling”:
`
`‘457 PO Resp. at 24; ‘ 458 PO Resp. at 24
`
`‘457 Reply at 18 (citing Ex. 1037 (Koopman Decl.) at ¶ 56)
`
`‘457 Reply at 19 (citing Ex. 1040 (Miller Depo.) at 120);
`‘458 Reply at 18 (citing Ex. 1039 (Miller Depo.) at 120)
`
`25
`‘457 Reply at 18-19 citing Ex. 1037 ¶¶ 54-56; ‘ 458 Response at ___
`(CITE).
`
`
`
`‘705 and ‘843 Patents: Stewart Teaches “Sending a Notification”
`
`‘457 Petition at 62-63; ‘458 Petition at 62; ‘457 Reply at 17-19; ‘458 Reply at 17-19
`
`Stewart does not “disclaim” sending a notification
`Dr. Koopman:
`Stewart:
`
`‘457 Pet. at 24-25 (citing Ex. 1008 (Stewart) at 11);
`‘458 Pet. at 25 (citing Ex. 1007 (Stewart) at 11)
`
`‘457 Reply at 19 (citing Ex. 1037 (Koopman Decl.) at ¶58);
`‘458 Reply at 19 (citing Ex. 1036 (Koopman Decl.) at ¶55)
`
`“ “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their
`own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the
`literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.”
`
`‘457 Reply at 16 (citing In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 1983)); ‘458 Reply at 16 (same)
`
`“[A] reference is no less anticipatory if, after disclosing the invention, the reference
`then disparages it.”
`
`457 Reply ay 16 (citing Upsher-Smith Labs v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005); ‘458 Reply at 16 (same)
`
`26
`
`
`
`A POSITA would have combined Stewart with Miesterfeld
`
`‘457 Petition at 59-62; ‘458 Petition at 58-61; ‘457 Reply at 25-27; ‘458 Reply at 24-26
`
`Dr. Koopman
`(Expert for Petitioner)
`
`Ex. 1005 (Koopman Decl.) at ¶229;
`Ex. 1004 (Koopman Decl.) at ¶226
`
`Ex. 1005 (Koopman Decl.) at ¶231;
`Ex. 1004 (Koopman Decl.) at ¶228
`
`Pet. at 61 (citing Ex. 1005 (Koopman Decl.) at ¶232);
`Pet at 60 (citing Ex. 1004 (Koopman Decl.) at ¶229)
`
`27
`
`
`
`‘705 and ‘843 Patents: A POSITA Would Have Combined Miesterfeld and Stewart
`
`‘457 Petition at 59-62; ‘458 Petition at 58-61; ‘457 Reply at 25-27; ‘458 Reply at 24-26
`
`PO argues that the existence of “handshake lines” in Miesterfeld would prevent a POSITA from
`combining it with Stewart
`PO:
`
`PO’s expert:
`
`‘457 PO Resp. at 49-50; ‘ 458 PO Resp. at 50-51
`
`‘457 PO Resp. at 49; ‘458 PO Resp. at 49
`
`‘457 PO Resp. at 51 (citing Ex. 2004 (Miller Decl.) at ¶67);
`‘458 PO Resp. at 50-51 (citing Ex. 2004 (Miller Decl.) at ¶71)
`
`‘457 PO Resp. at 51 (citing Ex. 2004 (Miller Decl.) at ¶ 68);
`‘458 PO Resp. at 50-51 (citing Ex. 2004 (Miller Decl.) at ¶72)
`
`28
`
`
`
`‘705 and ‘843 Patents: A POSITA Would Have Combined Miesterfeld and Stewart
`
`‘457 Petition at 59-62; ‘458 Petition at 58-61; ‘457 Reply at 25-27; ‘458 Reply at 24-26
`
`Using a spin-lock (Stewart) vs. handshake (Miesterfeld) would have been nothing more than a
`ordinary design choice that would have resulted in significant efficiencies of scale:
`
`
`
`‘457 Reply at 26 (citing Ex. 1037 (Koopman Decl.) at ¶75);
`‘458 Reply at 25 (citing Ex. 1037 (Koopman Decl.) at ¶72)
`
`‘457 Reply at 26-27 (citing Ex. 1037 (Koopman Decl.) at ¶76);
`‘458 Reply at 26 (citing Ex. 1037 (Koopman Decl.) at ¶73)
`
`29
`
`
`
`‘843 and ’705 Patents: Posadas
`‘457 Petition at 17-53; ‘458 Petition at 18-54
`
`§ PO: ‘843 and ‘705 claims not obvious over
`Posadas because:
`
`• Posadas does not disclose sharing
`information in “real-time”
`(‘457 PO Resp. at 25-27; ‘458 PO Resp. at 24-27)
`
`• Posadas does not disclose the bi-directional
`sharing of information.
`
`(‘457 PO Resp. at 30-35; ‘458 PO Resp. at 30-34)
`
`• No motivation to combine Posadas with Stewart
`
`(‘457 PO Resp. at 23-25; ‘459 PO Resp. at 23-24)
`
`• Stewart does not disclose “sending a
`notification.” (‘457 PO Resp. at 27-30; ‘458 PO Resp. at 27-30)
`
`
`
`‘457 Petition, App. A at 1
`
`30
`
`
`
`‘705 and ‘843 Patents: Posadas discloses “real time”
`
`‘457 Petition at 25-29; ‘457 Petition at 26-29; ‘457 PO Resp. at 25-27; ‘458 PO Resp. at 24-27
`
`‘457 Pet. at 14 (citing Ex. 1007 (Posadas) at 8);
`‘458 Pet. at 14 (citing Ex. 1006 (Posadas) at 8)
`
`‘457 Pet. at 14 (citing Ex. 1007 (Posadas) at 8);
`‘458 Pet. at 14 (citing Ex. 1006 (Posadas) at 8)
`
`31
`
`
`
`‘705 and ‘843 Patents: Posadas discloses “real time”
`
`‘457 Petition at 25-29; ‘457 Petition at 26-29; ‘457 PO Resp. at 25-27; ‘458 PO Resp. at 24-27
`
`Posadas expressly discloses that it is “capable” of sharing in a time that “may be measured in
`milli- or microseconds, and/or is less than one second”:
`
`‘457 Reply at 15 (citing Ex. 1007 (Posadas) at 12-13);
`‘458 Reply at 14 (citing Ex. 1006 (Posadas) at 12-13)
`
`‘457 Reply at 16 (citing Ex. 1007 (Posadas) at 11);
`‘458 Reply at 16 (citing Ex. 1006 (Posadas) at 11)
`
`‘457 Pet. at 28 (citing Ex. 1007 (Posadas) at 13);
`‘458 Pet. at 28 (citing Ex. 1006 (Posadas) at 13)
`
`32
`
`
`
`‘705 and ‘843 Patents: Posadas discloses “real time”
`
`‘457 Petition at 25-29; ‘457 Petition at 26-29; ‘457 PO Resp. at 25-27; ‘458 PO Resp. at 24-27
`
`PO:
`
`Claim 51:
`
`‘457 Response at 25; ‘458 Response at 25
`
`‘457 Response 25; ‘458 Response at 24
`
`33
`
`
`
`‘705 and ‘843 Patents: Posadas Teaches the “second interface” limitations
`
`‘457 Petition at 33-36; ‘458 Petition at 34-38; ‘457 PO Resp. at 30-35; ‘458 PO Resp. at 30-34
`
`• Posadas discloses a “second interface”:
`
`‘457 Petition at 34 (citing Ex. 1007 (Posadas) at 9, Fig. 2);
`‘458 Petition at 35, (citing Ex. 1006 (Posadas) at 9, Fig. 2)
`
`‘457 Petition at 35 (citing Ex. 1007 (Posadas) at 10, Fig. 4);
`‘458 Petition at 36, (citing Ex. 1006 (Posadas) at 10, Fig. 4)
`
`‘457 Petition at 26 (citing Ex. 1007 (Posadas) at 8);
`‘458 Petition at 26, (citing Ex. 1006 (Posadas) at 8)
`
`‘457 Reply at 11 (citing Ex. 1007 (Posadas) at 10);
`‘458 Reply at 10-11 (citing Ex. 1006 (Posadas) at 10)
`
`34
`
`
`
`‘705 and ‘843 Patents: Posadas Teaches the “second interface” limitations
`
`‘457 Petition at 33-36; ‘458 Petition at 34-38; ‘457 PO Resp. at 30-35; ‘458 PO Resp. at 30-34
`
`• Posadas discloses processed second data units:
`
`‘457 Petition at 36 (citing Ex. 1007 (Posadas) at 10, Fig. 4);
`‘458 Petition at 38, (citing Ex. 1006 (Posadas) at 10, Fig. 4)
`
`Ex. 1005 (Koopman Decl.), ¶165; Ex. 1004 (Koopman Decl.), ¶169
`
`‘457 Pet. at Appendix A, 1
`
`35
`
`
`
`‘705 and ‘843 Patents: Posadas Teaches the “second interface” limitations
`
`‘457 Petition at 24-25; ‘458 Petition at 24-25; ‘457 PO Resp. at 23-25; ‘458 PO Resp. at 23-24
`
`PO’s Processing argument:
`
`Posadas plainly discloses processing:
`
`‘457 Response at 35 (citing Ex. 2004 (Miller Dec.) at ¶¶ 42-43);
`‘458 Response at 34 (citing Ex. 2004 (Miller Dec.) at ¶¶ 42-43)
`
`‘457 Reply at 13 (citing Ex. 1037 (Koopman Decl.) at ¶ 43);
`‘458 Reply at 15 (citing Ex. 1037 (Koopman Decl.) at ¶ 43)
`
`‘457 Petition at 35 (citing Ex. 1001 (‘843 Patent) at 6:43-49);
`‘458 Petition at 31 (citing Ex. 1001 (‘705 Patent) at 6:43-49)
`
`36
`
`
`
`‘705 and ‘843 Patents: Posadas Teaches the “second interface” limitations
`
`‘457 Petition at 33-36; ‘458 Petition at 34-38; ‘457 PO Resp. at 30-35; ‘458 PO Resp. at 30-34
`
`§ PO misinterprets the claims
`
`‘457 Response at 21-22 (citing Ex. 2004 (Miller Dec.) at ¶¶ 21, 23); ‘458 Response at 21, (citing Ex. 2004 (Miller Dec.) at ¶¶ 21, 23)
`
`‘457 Reply at 10-11 (citing Ex. 1040 (Miller Depo) at 105:21-108:3);
`‘458 Reply at 10-11 (citing Ex. 1039 (Miller Depo) at 105:21-108:3)
`
`‘457 Pet. at Appendix A, 1
`
`37
`
`
`
`‘705 and ‘843 Patents: Posadas Teaches the “second interface” limitations
`
`‘457 Petition at 24-25; ‘458 Petition at 24-25; ‘457 PO Resp. at 23-25; ‘458 PO Resp. at 23-24
`
`Even if the claims are bidirectional, so is Posadas:
`
`‘457 Reply at 12 (citing Ex. 1007 (Posadas) at 11);
`‘458 Reply at 12 (citing Ex. 1006 (Posadas) at 11)
`
`‘457 Pet. at 12 (citing Ex. 1007 (Posadas) at Fig. 1);
`‘458 Pet. at 33 (citing Ex. 1006 (Posadas) at Fig. 1)
`
`38
`
`
`
`‘705 and ‘843 Patents: A POSITA Would Have Combined Posadas and Stewart
`‘457 Petition at 21-23; ‘458 Petition at 21-24; ‘457 Reply at 19-21; ‘458 Reply at 19-20
`
`Dr. Koopman
`(Expert for Petitioner)
`
`‘457 Petition at 22 (citing Ex. 1005 (Koopman Dec.) at ¶131);
`‘458 Petition at 22 (citing Ex. 1004 (Koopman Dec.) at ¶131)
`
`‘457 Petition at 22 (citing Ex. 1005 (Koopman Dec.) at ¶132);
`‘458 Petition at 22 (citing Ex. 1004 (Koopman Dec.) at ¶132)
`
`Reply at 20 (citing Ex. 1037 (Koopman Dec.) at ¶62);
`Reply at 20 (citing Ex. 1036 (Koopman Dec.) at ¶59)
`
`39
`
`
`
`‘705 and ‘843 Patents: A POSITA Would Have Combined Posadas and Stewart
`
`‘457 Petition at 21-23; ‘458 Petition at 21-24; ‘457 Reply at 19-21; ‘458 Reply at 19-20
`
`PO argues that the Stewart is incompatible with Posadas because it does not deal with a “blackboard
`architecture.”
`
`PO ignores that it was commonplace to use multiple protocols in the same system.
`
`‘457 PO Resp. at 28;
`‘458 PO Resp. at 28
`
`‘457 Reply at 20 (citing Ex. 1037 (Koopman Decl.) at ¶¶59-60);
`‘458 Reply at 20 (citing Ex. 1037 (Koopman Decl.) at ¶¶58-59)
`
`40
`
`
`
`‘705 and ‘843 Patents: A POSITA Would Have Combined Posadas and Stewart
`
`‘457 Petition at 21-23; ‘458 Petition at 21-24; ‘457 Reply at 19-21; ‘458 Reply at 19-20
`
`PO argues that combining Posadas and Stewart would not yield predictable results because “Posadas’
`data structure is accessed via the blackboard architecture, and not by way of a CAN bus interface”:
`
`
`
`
`‘457 Response at 29-30;
`‘458 Response at 29
`But writing to Posadas’ shared memory would have been a simple modification:
`
`‘457 Pet. at 22 (citing Ex. 1005 (Koopman Decl.) at ¶99);
`‘458 Reply at 20 (citing Ex. 1004 (Koopman Decl.) at ¶99)
`
`‘457 Pet. at 22 (citing Ex. 1005 (Koopman Decl.) at ¶101);
`‘458 Pet. at 23 (citing Ex. 1004 (Koopman Decl.) at ¶101)
`
`41
`
`
`
`‘705 and ‘843 Patents: A POSITA Would Have Combined Posadas and Wense
`‘457 Petition at 39-45; ‘458 Petition at 42-47; ‘457 Reply at 21-22; ‘458 Reply at 21-22
`
`Dr. Koopman
`(Expert for Petitioner)
`
`‘457 Institution Decision at 14 (citing Ex. 1005 (Koopman Decl.), ¶175)
`
`‘457 Petition at 42 (citing Ex. 1009 (Wense) at 11);
`‘458 Petition at 44 (citing Ex. 1008 (Wense) at 11)
`
`‘457 Petition at 40 (citing Ex. 1005 (Koopman Decl.), ¶176)
`
`42
`
`
`
`‘705 and ‘843 Patents: A POSITA Would Have Combined Posadas and Wense
`
`‘457 Petition at 39-45; ‘458 Petition at 42-47; ‘457 Reply at 21-22; ‘458 Reply at 21-22
`
`PO: Posadas’ use of “UDP” is “antithetical to Wense,” and LIN is slower than Ethernet.
`
`‘457 PO Resp. at 36; ‘458 PO Resp. at 35
`
`‘457 PO Resp. at 37; ‘458 PO Resp. at 36
`
`‘457 PO Resp. at 38; ‘458 PO Resp. at 37
`
`Dr. Koopman:
`
`
`‘457 Reply at 22 (citing Ex. 1037 (Koopman Decl.), ¶64);
`‘458 Reply at 21 (citing Ex. 1036 (Koopman Decl.), ¶61)
`
`‘457 Reply at 22 (citing Ex. 1037 (Koopman Decl.), ¶66);
`‘458 Reply at 24 (citing Ex. 1036 (Koopman Decl.), ¶66)
`
`43
`
`
`
`‘705 and ‘843 Patents: A POSITA Would Have Combined Posadas and Wense
`
`‘457 Petition at 39-45; ‘458 Petition at 42-47; ‘457 Reply at 21-22; ‘458 Reply at 21-22
`
`PO argues Posadas uses a “UDP” Ethernet with “long delays” that are “antithetical” to Wense:
`
`‘457 PO Resp. at 36; ‘458 PO Resp. at 35
`
`‘457 PO Resp. at 37; ‘458 PO Resp. at 36
`
`Posadas’ real-time system does not use UDP and would benefit from LIN’s predictability:
`
`
`‘457 Reply at 22 (citing Ex. 1037 (Koopman Decl.), ¶64);
`‘458 Reply at 21 (citing Ex. 1036 (Koopman Decl.), ¶61)
`
`‘457 Reply at 22 (citing Ex. 1037 (Koopman Decl.), ¶66);
`‘458 Reply at 22 (citing Ex. 1036 (Koopman Decl.), ¶63)
`
`44
`
`
`
`‘705 and ‘843 Patents: A POSITA Would Have Combined Posadas and Wense
`
`‘457 Petition at 39-45; ‘458 Petition at 42-47; ‘457 Reply at 21-22; ‘458 Reply at 21-22
`
`PO argues a POSITA would not have used LIN because it was slower than Ethernet:
`
`Data transfer is but a single factor considered in choosing a design:
`
`‘457 PO Resp. at 37;
`‘458 PO Resp. at 36
`
`‘457 Reply at 22 (citing Ex. 1037 (Koopman Decl.), ¶66);
`‘458 Reply at 24 (citing Ex. 1036 (Koopman Decl.), ¶66)
`
`45
`
`
`
`‘705 Patent: Dependent Claim 2 (Posadas)
`
`‘458 Petition at 47
`§ Claim 2 requires that “information is replicated among a plurality of storage resources.”
`
`‘458 Petition, App. A at 18
`
`§ PO: Posadas does not disclose “identical” copies of the distributed blackboard:
`
`§ Partial, “identical” copies of Posadas’ distributed blackboard is stored across nodes.
`
`‘458 PO Resp. at 38
`
`‘459 Petition at 47 (citing Ex. 1006 (Posadas) at 10)
`
`46
`
`
`
`‘705 Patent: Dependent Claims 3 and 4 (Posadas)
`
`‘458 Petition at 48-49
`
`§ Claim 3: “information is extracted from the message received by a storage manager.”
`
`§ Claim 4: “information that is stored is converted from a signal received by a storage resource manager.”
`
`‘458 Petition, App. A at 19
`
`§ PO:
`
`§ The ISCCAN gateway must extracts data from CAN frames to store it in SC objects.
`
`‘458 PO Resp. at 39
`
`‘458 PO Resp. at 40
`
`‘458 Petition at 48 (citing Ex. 1006 (Posadas) at 11)
`
`‘458 Petition at 48 (citing Ex. 1006 (Posadas) at 11)
`
`47
`
`
`
`‘705 Patent: Dependent Claim 5 (Posadas)
`
`‘458 Petition at 49
`§ Claim 5 requires that “information is shared in a single task.”
`
`‘458 Petition, App. A at 2
`
`§ PO: Posadas’ distributed blackboard uses multiple tasks:
`
`§ Petitioners rely on Stewart’s disclosure of sharing information “in a separate task”:
`
`‘458 PO Resp. at 41
`
`‘458 Petition at 48 (citing Ex. 1007 (Stewart) at 6 fn. 1)
`
`‘458 Petition at 48 (citing Ex. 1007 (Stewart) at 6)
`
`48
`
`
`
`‘705 Patent: Dependent Claim 6 (Posadas)
`
`‘458 Petition at 49-50
`§ Claim 6 requires that “information is shared according to a schedule.”
`
`‘458 Petition, App. A at 2
`
`§ PO: Posadas doesn’t disclose “sharing” under PO’s proposed construction, requiring the
`“delivery of information to storage.”
`
`§ Posadas discloses sending CAN messages to blackboard storage in a queue:
`
`‘458 PO Resp. at 41-42
`
`‘458 Petition at 49 (citing Ex. 1006 (Posadas) at 12)
`
`‘458 Petition at 49 (citing Ex. 1006 (Posadas) at 12)
`
`49
`
`
`
`‘705 and ‘843 Patents: the terms “in the event” are conditional
`
`’457 Reply at 27-29; ‘458 Reply at 26-29
`§ The Institution decision questioned whether claim 47’s recitation of “in the event” is
`conditional and entitled to no weight:
`
`The phrase “in the event” is conditional and should not be given any patentable weight
`
`‘457 I.D. at 16, fn. 6; ‘458 I.D. at 11, fn. 6
`
`50
`
`
`
`‘705 and ‘843 Patents: the terms “in the event” are conditional
`
`’457 Reply at 27-29; ‘458 Reply at 26-29
`§ Claim 47 includes two steps that are only performed in the event something occurs:
`
`In the event the threshold has been reached,
`causing an error notification to be sent
`
`In the event the storage resource is available,
`causing storage of information utilizing the storage
`resource;
`
`‘457 Reply at 27-28, (citing Ex. 1001 (‘843 Patent) at claim 47)
`
`51
`
`
`
`‘705 and ‘843 Patents: the terms “in the event” are conditional
`
`’457 Reply at 27-29; ‘458 Reply at 26-29
`
`§
`
`In Re Gibbings, 2016 WL 7174630 (PTAB 2016) – the claim at issue:
`
`if the minimum number of links in the parallel link configuration are not operational, advertising one or
`more artificial metrics associated with any remaining operational links in the parallel link configuration
`
`‘457 Reply at 27; Gibbings at *4; ‘458 Reply at 27; Gibbings at *4
`
` This disputed limitation, however, is a conditional step . . . A conditional method step
`generally does not need to be performed under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`claim, which encompasses instances in which the method ends when the prerequisite condition for
`the step is not met. . . . Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation encompasses methods
`where only the non-conditional steps are performed and the conditional method step need
`not be shown in establishing invalidity.
`
`‘457 Reply at 27; Gibbings at *6; ‘458 Reply at 27; Gibbings at *6
`
`52
`
`
`
`‘705 and ‘843 Patents: the terms “in the event” are conditional
`
`’457 Reply at 27-29; ‘458 Reply at 26-29
`
`§ Ex Parte Schulhauser, 2016 WL 6277792 (PTAB 2016):
`
` If the electrocardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria, then an alarm
`is triggered and the remaining method steps need not be performed. Given the language
`recited in the remaining steps of claim 1, the remaining steps need only need to be reached if the
`determining step is reached.
`
`‘457 Reply at 27-29; Schulhauser at 6 (emphasis in original); ‘458 Reply at 27-29; Schulhauser at 6 (emphasis in original)
`
` In other words, claim 1 as written covers at least two methods, one in which the prerequisite
`condition for the triggering step is met and one in which the prerequisite condition for the
`determining step is met….
`It is of course true that method steps may be contingent. If the condition for performing a
`contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in
`order for the claimed method to be performed.
`
`
`‘457 Reply at 27; Schulhauser at 8, 10; ‘458 Reply at 27; Schulhauser at 8, 10
`
`53
`
`
`
`‘705 and ‘843 Patents: the terms “in the event” are conditional
`
`’457 Reply at 27-29; ‘458 Reply at 26-29
`• Ex Parte Schulhauser, 2016 WL 6277792 (PTAB 2016):
`
`‘457 Response at 59, citing Schulhauser at 14 (Emphasis Patent Owner’s)
`
`‘457 Reply at 27-28, (citing Ex. 1001 (‘843 Patent) at claim 47)
`
`54
`
`
`
`‘705 and ‘843 Patents: the terms “in the event” are conditional
`
`’457 Reply at 27-29; ‘458 Reply at 26-29
`• Ex Parte Hehenberger, Appeal No. 2015-007421 (PTAB Jan. 31, 2016), the claim at issue:
`
`‘457 Reply at 28; ‘458 Reply at 28
`
` I concur in the decision . . . But add the following discussion to explain Ex parte
`Schulhauser . . .is not controlling here. Claim 13 reproduce above recites the “supplying” step–
`the only step positively recited in the claim. . . . Because the “supplying step” is the only step
`recited in the claim, one skilled in the relevant art would not have interpreted the “supplying” step
`as a step that need not be performed . . . Otherwise, the claimed method would not require any
`step at all, which would render the entire claim meaningless
`
`‘457 Reply at 28; Hehenberger at 6; ‘458 Reply at 27-28; Hehenberger at 6
`
`55
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
