Petitioner’s Demonstratives
`
`BMW of North America, LLC
`Petitioner
`v.
`Stragent, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`PTAB Oral hearing for
`IPR2017-00676
`IPR2017-00677
`
`March 14, 2018
`
`Page 1 of 133
`
`BMW v. STRAGENT
`IPR2017-00676
`BMW EXHIBIT 1027
`
`

`

`Patent at Issue in IPR2017-00676
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,209,705
`
`“System, Method, and Computer
`Program Product for Sharing
`Information in a Distributed
`Framework”
`
`Petition (IPR2017-00676 - Paper 1).
`
`2
`
`Page 2 of 133
`
`

`

`Instituted Grounds of Unpatentability in IPR2017-00676
`
`Grounds
`
`Prior Art References
`
`[1] Claims 1-6 and 20
`Unpatentable Under § 102(a)
`
`
`
`Staiger
`
`[2] Claims 1-6 and 20
`Unpatentable Under § 103(a)
`
`Staiger, Millsap, and
`Wong
`
`[4] Claims 1-6 and 20
`Unpatentable Under § 103(a)
`
`[5] Claims 1-6 and 20
`Unpatentable Under § 103(a)
`
`
`
`OSEK1
`
`
`OSEK1, Millsap, and
`Wong
`
`OSEK1
`
`Wong
`
`Millsap
`
`Staiger
`
`Institution Decision (Paper 8) at 33.
`
`1 OSEK Binding, OSEK COM, OSEK FTCom, and OSEK NM (collectively referred to as “OSEK”)
`
`3
`
`Page 3 of 133
`
`

`

`Representative Claim for ’705 Patent
`
`4
`
`Page 4 of 133
`
`

`

`Patent at Issue
`For IPR2017-00677
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,566,843
`
`“System, Method, and Computer
`Program Product for Sharing
`Information in a Distributed
`Framework”
`
`Petition (IPR2017-00677 - Paper 2).
`
`5
`
`Page 5 of 133
`
`

`

`Instituted Grounds of Unpatentability
`For IPR2017-00677
`
`Grounds
`
`Prior Art References
`
`[1] Claims 51-59 Unpatentable
`Under § 103(a)
`
`
`
`Staiger and Millsap
`
`[2] Claims 51-59 Unpatentable
`Under § 103(a)
`
`
`
`OSEK1
`
`[4] Claims 51-59 Unpatentable
`Under § 103(a)
`
`
`
`OSEK1 and Millsap
`
`OSEK1
`
`Millsap
`
`Staiger
`
`Institution Decision (Paper 8) at 33.
`
`1 OSEK Binding, OSEK COM, OSEK FTCom, and OSEK NM (collectively referred to as “OSEK”)
`
`6
`
`Page 6 of 133
`
`

`

`Representative Claim for ’843 Patent
`
`Claim 51: An apparatus, comprising:
`[51.1] a control unit for:
`[51.2] identifying information associated with a message received utilizing a first network protocol associated with a first network;
`[51.3] issuing a storage resource request in connection with a storage resource and determining whether the storage resource is
`available;
`[51.4] determining whether a threshold has been reached in association with the storage resource request;
`[51.5] in the event the storage resource is available and the threshold associated with the storage resource request has not been
`reached, issuing another storage resource request in connection with the storage resource;
`[51.6] in the event the storage resource is not available and the threshold associated with the storage resource request has been
`reached, sending a notification; and
`[51.7] in the event the storage is available, storing the information utilizing the storage resource;
`[51.8] wherein the apparatus is operable such that the information that is capable of being shared in real-time utilizing a second
`network protocol associated with a second network, and the control unit includes:
`[51.9] a first interface for interfacing with the first network, the first interface including a first interface-related first component for
`receiving first data units and a first interface-related second component, the control unit being operable such that the first data units are
`processed after which processed first data units are provided, where the first network is at least one of a Controller Area Network type, a
`Flexray type, or a Local Interconnect Network type; and
`[51.10] a second interface portion for interfacing with the second network, the second interface including a second interface-related
`first component for receiving second data units and a second interface-related second component, the control unit being operable such
`that the second data units are processed after which processed second data units are provided, where the second network is at least one
`of the Controller Area Network type, the Flexray network type, or the Local Interconnect Network type.
`
`7
`
`Page 7 of 133
`
`

`

`Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard Should Apply
`Apparent Agreement On Constructions Between the Parties (the ’705 Patent)
`
`Claim Term
`
`BMW’s Construction
`Petitioner
`
`Board’s Preliminary
`Construction
`
`“real-time”
`
`“storage resource
`manager”
`
`Responses that occur in
`less than one second
`hardware or software
`that controls interaction
`with the storage
`resource
`
`“schedule”
`
`According to a time and
`sequence of operation
`
`Responses that occur in
`less than one second
`“We do not find it
`necessary, for purposes of
`this Decision, to construe
`these terms expressly”
`“We do not find it
`necessary, for purposes of
`this Decision, to construe
`these terms expressly”
`
`Stragent’s Construction
`Patent Owner
`Any response time that may
`be measured in milli- or
`microseconds, and/or is less
`than 1 second.
`hardware or software that
`controls storage of
`information in accordance
`with the algorithm of Fig. 10
`
`A procedural plan that
`indicates the time and
`sequence of each operation
`
`Petition, Paper No. 1 at 13-14.
`
`Institution Decision, Paper No. 8 at 9-10.
`
`Patent Owner Response, Paper No. 11 at 13-22.
`
`8
`
`Page 8 of 133
`
`

`

`Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard Should Apply
`Apparent Agreement On Constructions Between the Parties (the ’843 Patent)
`
`Claim Term
`
`BMW’s Construction
`Petitioner
`
`Board’s Preliminary
`Construction
`
`“real-time”
`
`“threshold”
`
`Responses that occur in less
`than one second
`“value above which
`something is true or will take
`place and below which it is
`not or will not,” and include
`the maximum value (i.e,
`time-out) of a timer
`
`Responses that occur in less
`than one second
`“value above which
`something is true or will
`take place and below which
`it is not or will not,” and
`include the maximum value
`(i.e, time-out) of a timer
`
`Stragent’s Construction
`Patent Owner
`Any response time that
`may be measured in milli-
`or microseconds, and/or is
`less than 1 second.
`
`“value above which
`something is true or will
`take place and below
`which it is not or will not”
`
`“heterogeneous
`networks”
`
`Networks having at least one
`aspect that is different
`
`Networks having at least
`one aspect that is different
`
`Networks having at least
`one aspect that is different
`
`Petition, Paper No. 2 at 13-14.
`
`Institution Decision, Paper No. 8 at 9-10.
`
`Patent Owner Response, Paper No. 11 at 15-19.
`
`9
`
`Page 9 of 133
`
`

`

`Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard Should Apply
`Disputed Claim Construction For Elements [1.7] and [51.7]
`
`Claim Term
`
`BMW’s
`Construction
`Petitioner
`
`Board’s
`Preliminary
`Construction
`
`’705 Patent
`[1.7] “in real-time, sharing
`the information utilizing at
`least one message format
`corresponding to a second
`network protocol associated
`with a second network
`which is different from the
`first network protocol”
`
`’843 Patent
`
`[51.8] “shared in real-time
`utilizing a second network
`protocol associated with a
`second network”
`
`
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning in view of
`“real-time”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning in view of
`“real-time”
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply (IPR2017-00676),
`Paper No. 18. at 7.
`Petitioner’s Reply (IPR2017-00677),
`Paper No. 18. at 8.
`
`N/A
`
`
`N/A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ID (IPR2017-00676),
`Paper No. 8.
`ID (IPR2017-00677),
`Paper No. 8.
`
`10
`
`Stragent’s Construction
`Patent Owner
`“can only mean that the method has received a
`first message in a ‘first network protocol
`associated with a first network’ (element 1.1), has
`then delivered that ‘first network message’ to
`storage, where the ‘first network message’ is
`partaken of, used, experienced or occupied (that is
`‘shared’) with a second network by way of a
`second network protocol which is different from
`the first network protocol, and that the entire
`process is conducted ‘in milli- or microseconds,
`and/or is less than 1 second.’”
`
`“can only mean that the first data units have been
`delivered to storage, where they are partaken of,
`used, experienced or occupied (that is “shared”)
`by the second network, and that the entire
`process is conducted “in milli- or microseconds,
`and/or is less than 1 second.”
`POR (IPR2017-00676) at 16-18.
`
`POR (IPR2017-00677) at 16-18.
`
`Page 10 of 133
`
`

`

`Representative Claim for ’705 Patent
`
`11
`
`Page 11 of 133
`
`

`

`Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard Should Apply
`Disputed Claim Construction For Elements [1.7] and [51.7]
`
`BMW’s
`Construction
`Petitioner
`
`Board’s
`Preliminary
`Construction
`
`Claim Term
`
`Stragent’s Construction
`Patent Owner
`“can only mean that the method has received a
`first message in a ‘first network protocol
`associated with a first network’ (element 1.1), has
`[1.7] “in real-time, sharing
`Plain and ordinary
`N/A
`First, Stragent’s construction is wrong because it improperly limits the scope of the plain
`then delivered that ‘first network message’ to
`the information utilizing at
`meaning in view of
`
`claim language. The plain language of the limitations [1.7] and [51.8] only requires
`storage, where the ‘first network message’ is
`least one message format
`“real-time”
`
`partaken of, used, experienced or occupied (that is
`“sharing” the information “utilizing a second network protocol” not delivering to storage
`corresponding to a second
`
`
`‘shared’) with a second network by way of a
`as Stragent contends.
`network protocol associated
`
`
`second network protocol which is different from
`
`with a second network
`
`
`the first network protocol, and that the entire
`[1.7] “can only mean that the method has received a first message in a ‘first network
`which is different from the
`
`
`process is conducted ‘in milli- or microseconds,
`protocol associated with a first network’ (element 1.1), has then delivered that ‘first
`first network protocol”
`
`
`and/or is less than 1 second.’”
`
`network message’ to storage . . .”
`[51.7] “shared in real-time
`Plain and ordinary
`N/A
`
`“can only mean that the first data units have been
`utilizing a second network
`meaning in view of
`
`delivered to storage, where they are partaken of,
`[51.8] “can only mean that the first data units have been delivered to storage . . .”
`protocol associated with a
`“real-time”
`
`used, experienced or occupied (that is “shared”)
`second network”
`
`
`by the second network, and that the entire
`
`
`
`process is conducted “in milli- or microseconds,
`
`
`
`and/or is less than 1 second.”
`
`Reply at 8; 10.
`
`12
`
`Page 12 of 133
`
`

`

`Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard Should Apply
`Disputed Claim Construction For Elements [1.7] and [51.7]
`
`Claim Term
`
`BMW’s
`Construction
`Petitioner
`
`Board’s
`Preliminary
`Construction
`
`Stragent’s Construction
`Patent Owner
`“can only mean that the method has received a
`first message in a ‘first network protocol
`associated with a first network’ (element 1.1), has
`[1.7] “in real-time, sharing
`Plain and ordinary
`N/A
`First, Stragent’s construction is wrong because it improperly limits the scope of the plain
`then delivered that ‘first network message’ to
`the information utilizing at
`meaning in view of
`
`claim language. The plain language of the limitations [1.7] and [51.8] only requires
`storage, where the ‘first network message’ is
`least one message format
`“real-time”
`
`partaken of, used, experienced or occupied (that is
`“sharing” the information “utilizing a second network protocol” not delivering to storage
`corresponding to a second
`
`
`‘shared’) with a second network by way of a
`as Stragent contends.
`network protocol associated
`
`
`second network protocol which is different from
`
`with a second network
`
`
`the first network protocol, and that the entire
`[1.7] “can only mean that the method has received a first message in a ‘first network
`which is different from the
`
`
`process is conducted ‘in milli- or microseconds,
`protocol associated with a first network’ (element 1.1), has then delivered that ‘first
`first network protocol”
`
`
`and/or is less than 1 second.’”
`
`network message’ to storage . . .”
`[51.8] “shared in real-time
`Plain and ordinary
`N/A
`
`“can only mean that the first data units have been
`utilizing a second network
`meaning in view of
`
`delivered to storage, where they are partaken of,
`[51.7] “can only mean that the first data units have been delivered to storage . . .”
`protocol associated with a
`“real-time”
`
`used, experienced or occupied (that is “shared”)
`second network”
`
`
`by the second network, and that the entire
`
`
`
`process is conducted “in milli- or microseconds,
`
`
`
`and/or is less than 1 second.”
`
`There is simply no link between storing the information (element 1.5) and
`sharing the information (element 1.7). The claim language does not
`prevent the information from being stored and also shared in real-time.
`
`Reply at 8; 10.
`
`13
`
`Page 13 of 133
`
`

`

`Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard Should Apply
`Disputed Claim Construction For Elements [1.7] and [51.7]
`
`Claim Term
`
`BMW’s
`Construction
`Petitioner
`
`Board’s
`Preliminary
`Construction
`
`Stragent’s Construction
`Patent Owner
`“can only mean that the method has received a
`first message in a ‘first network protocol
`associated with a first network’ (element 1.1), has
`[1.7] “in real-time, sharing
`Plain and ordinary
`N/A
`then delivered that ‘first network message’ to
`Second, Stragent’s construction is wrong because it improperly limits “sharing” to only
`the information utilizing at
`meaning in view of
`
`storage, where the ‘first network message’ is
`certain embodiments of the specification while excluding other embodiments.
`least one message format
`“real-time”
`
`partaken of, used, experienced or occupied (that is
`
`corresponding to a second
`
`
`‘shared’) with a second network by way of a
`
`network protocol associated
`
`
`second network protocol which is different from
`with a second network
`
`
`the first network protocol, and that the entire
`which is different from the
`
`
`process is conducted ‘in milli- or microseconds,
`first network protocol”
`
`
`and/or is less than 1 second.’”
`
`
`N/A
`
`In an alternate embodiment of the
`remote message communication
`process (706) any remote process
`network interface.
`
`“can only mean that the first data units have been
`can access data via a single
`delivered to storage, where they are partaken of,
`used, experienced or occupied (that is “shared”)
`by the second network, and that the entire
`process is conducted “in milli- or microseconds,
`and/or is less than 1 second.”
`
`[51.7] “shared in real-time
`utilizing a second network
`protocol associated with a
`second network”
`
`
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning in view of
`“real-time”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`’705 Patent at 7:38-49; ’843 Patent at 7:38-49; Reply at 9; 11.
`
`14
`
`Page 14 of 133
`
`

`

`Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard Should Apply
`Disputed Claim Construction For Elements [1.7] and [51.7]
`
`Claim Term
`
`BMW’s
`Construction
`Petitioner
`
`Board’s
`Preliminary
`Construction
`
`Stragent’s Construction
`Patent Owner
`“can only mean that the method has received a
`first message in a ‘first network protocol
`associated with a first network’ (element 1.1), has
`[1.7] “in real-time, sharing
`Plain and ordinary
`N/A
`then delivered that ‘first network message’ to
`Second, Stragent’s construction is wrong because it improperly limits “sharing” to only
`the information utilizing at
`meaning in view of
`
`storage, where the ‘first network message’ is
`certain embodiments of the specification while excluding other embodiments.
`least one message format
`“real-time”
`
`partaken of, used, experienced or occupied (that is
`
`corresponding to a second
`
`
`‘shared’) with a second network by way of a
`
`network protocol associated
`
`
`second network protocol which is different from
`with a second network
`
`
`the first network protocol, and that the entire
`which is different from the
`
`
`process is conducted ‘in milli- or microseconds,
`first network protocol”
`
`
`and/or is less than 1 second.’”
`
`In an alternate embodiment of the
`Stragent’s construction would exclude alternative embodiments of
`remote message communication
`“sharing” where storage is not required. Therefore, not the BRI.
`process (706) any remote process
`network interface.
`
`[51.8] “shared in real-time
`utilizing a second network
`protocol associated with a
`second network”
`
`
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning in view of
`“real-time”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“can only mean that the first data units have been
`can access data via a single
`delivered to storage, where they are partaken of,
`used, experienced or occupied (that is “shared”)
`by the second network, and that the entire
`process is conducted “in milli- or microseconds,
`and/or is less than 1 second.”
`
`
`N/A
`
`’705 Patent at 7:38-49; ’843 Patent at 7:38-49; Reply at 9; 11.
`
`15
`
`Page 15 of 133
`
`

`

`GROUND 1: Staiger Anticipates Claims 1-6 and 20
`
`Page 16 of 133
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Response Does Not Argue That Staiger Does Not
`Discloses Elements [1.1] – [1.6] & [1.8]
`
`17
`
`POR at 26-36.
`
`Page 17 of 133
`
`

`

`Staiger Anticipates Element [1.7] of the ’705 Patent
`
`Claim 1
`
`[1.7] in real-time, sharing the
`information utilizing at least one
`message format corresponding to a
`second network protocol
`associated with a second network
`which is different from the first
`network protocol;
`
`CPUs 207 and 208 are connected to bus systems such as
`FireWire or MOST (i.e. the first network protocol), which are
`different than CAN busses 202-205 (i.e. a “second network
`protocol”)
`
`Pet. at 35-36; Reply at 11-14.
`
`
`
`18 18
`
`Page 18 of 133
`
`

`

`Staiger Anticipates Element [1.7] of the ’705 Patent
`
`Claim 1
`
`[1.7] in real-time, sharing the
`information utilizing at least one
`message format corresponding to a
`second network protocol
`associated with a second network
`which is different from the first
`network protocol;
`
`CAN busses may be either CAN-B or CAN-C. CAN-B is typically
`ISO 11898-2 implementation, while CAN-C is usually Fault-
`Tolerant CAN implementation, which are not compatible with
`each other.
`
`Pet. at 35-36; Reply at 11-14.
`
`
`
`19 19
`
`Page 19 of 133
`
`

`

`CAN B and C Are Heterogeneous Networks
`
`ISO 118898-2
`
`“Road vehicles – Controller area
`network (CAN)—
`Part 2: High-speed medium access
`unit”
`
`ISO 118898-3
`
`“Road vehicles – Controller area
`network (CAN)—
`Part 3: Low-speed, fault-tolerant,
`medium-dependent interface”
`
`Ex. 1022; Ex. 1023; Ex. 1026 at ¶ 31.
`
`20
`
`Page 20 of 133
`
`

`

`Staiger Anticipates Element [1.7] of the ’705 Patent
`
`Claim 1
`
`[1.7] in real-time, sharing the
`information utilizing at least one
`message format corresponding to a
`second network protocol
`associated with a second network
`which is different from the first
`network protocol;
`
`Staiger discloses that CAN, FireWire, and MOST busses are
`“real-time” busses, i.e., “response time, typically [in]
`milliseconds or microseconds.”
`
`Ex.1004 at ¶ 7.
`
`
`
`21 21
`
`Page 21 of 133
`
`

`

`Stragent’s Declarant, Dr. Miller
`• Agrees that Staiger discloses that CAN busses 202-205 connect to different network
`protocols from those protocols busses 210 and 211 connect to, and that these network
`protocols use different message formats.
`• Agrees that the Staiger busses 202-205, 210, and 211 can receive and send messages.
`• Agrees that Staiger discloses messages received from busses 210-211 can be shared
`with CAN busses 202-205 through bus adapters 214-217.
`• Only disagreement is whether “sharing” requires storing the information versus the
`plain language of the claim of just sharing the information (i.e. claim construction issue)
`
`Ex. 1025 at 66:21-68:13; Reply at 13.
`
`22
`
`Page 22 of 133
`
`

`

`Dr. Miller Agrees Staiger Discloses Multiple Network Protocols
`Stragent’s Declarant, Dr. Jeffery Miller
`
`Q: Dr. Miller, do you agree that IEEE 1394 is a different network protocol from CAN?
`A: Yes, that’s true.
`Q: And do you agree that MOST is a different network protocol from CAN?
`A: Yes, that’s true.
`Q: Dr. Miller, do you agree IEEE1394 network protocol uses a different message format
`than the CAN network protocols?
`A: Yes.
`Q: And do you also agree that MOST network protocol uses a different message format
`than the CAN network protocols?
`A: I’m not intimately familiar with “MOST,” but I would assume that’s probably true.
`Q: Are buses 202 to 205 different from buses 210 or 211?
`A: They could be, yes.
`Q: And Staiger discloses that buses 202 to 205 and 210 and 211 can receive or send
`message, correct?
`A. Yes.
`
`Ex.1025 at 67:24-65:13; 69:16-21.
`
`23
`
`Page 23 of 133
`
`

`

`Stragent’s Declarant, Dr. Miller
`
`Q: So, if you have a message for a CAN B network protocol, it absolutely has to be converted to a
`message format for the CAN C network protocol before it can be received by the CAN C network,
`correct?
`A: Yes.
`
`Q: Do you agree, Dr. Miller, that FireWire uses a different message format from CAN B network?
`A: I believe so.
`Q: And you would also agree that FireWire uses a different message format from CAN C network?
`A: Again, I believe so.
`Q: And MOST also uses different message format from CAN C network, correct?
`A: Same answer.
`
`Ex.1025 at 79:1-5, 145:11-22.
`
`24
`
`Page 24 of 133
`
`

`

`Staiger Discloses Element [1.7]
`
`✓
`
`25
`
`POR at 26-36.
`
`Page 25 of 133
`
`

`

`GROUND 4: OSEK Renders Obvious Claims 1-6 and 20
`
`Page 26 of 133
`
`

`

`OSEK/VDX (“OSEK”) Renders Obvious Claims 1-6 and 20
`
`• OSEK/VDX Binding, OSEK/VDX Com, OSEK/VDX NM, & OSEK/VDX FTCom (collectively “OSEK”)
`
`27
`
`Page 27 of 133
`
`

`

`OSEK Teaches or Suggests Element [1.3]
`
`✓ ✓
`
`28
`
`POR at 44-54.
`
`Page 28 of 133
`
`

`

`Claim 1
`
`OSEK Teaches Element [1.7] of the ’705 Patent
`
`[1.7] in real-time, sharing the
`information utilizing at least one
`message format corresponding to a
`second network protocol
`associated with a second network
`which is different from the first
`network protocol
`
`OSEK discloses sharing message data that a node receives
`from a logical predecessor with a logical successor within
`predetermined time TTyp. Ttyp is described as the “typical time
`between two ring messages.” And is described as being 70ms
`(i.e., “real-time”).
`
`Pet. at 65-68; Reply at 21-23; Ex.1009 at 7-10, 20-26, 45; Figs. 10, 35.
`
`
`
`29 29
`
`Page 29 of 133
`
`

`

`Claim 1
`
`OSEK Teaches Element [1.7] of the ’705 Patent
`
`[1.7] in real-time, sharing the
`information utilizing at least one
`message format corresponding to a
`second network protocol
`associated with a second network
`which is different from the first
`network protocol
`
`Figure 1 illustrates a μController (e.g., an ECU or node)
`connected to two or more networks. FIG. 1 can, receive
`messages on “network 1” (e.g., low-speed CAN) and
`transmit the messages on “network k” (e.g., high-speed
`CAN). Low-speed CAN and high-speed CAN utilize different
`protocols and have different network architectures.
`
`Pet. at 65-68; Reply at 21-23; Ex.1009 at 7-10, 20-26, 45; Figs. 1, 10, 35.
`
`
`
`30 30
`
`Page 30 of 133
`
`

`

`Claim 1
`
`OSEK Teaches Element [1.7] of the ’705 Patent
`
`[1.7] in real-time, sharing the
`information utilizing at least one
`message format corresponding to a
`second network protocol
`associated with a second network
`which is different from the first
`network protocol
`
`OSEK discloses “[a]ny node must be able to send NM
`messages to all other nodes and receive messages from
`them.”
`
`Pet. at 65-68; Reply at 21-23; Ex.1009 at 7-10, 20-26, 45; Figs. 2, 10, 35.
`
`
`
`31 31
`
`Page 31 of 133
`
`

`

`OSEK Teaches Element [1.7] of the ’705 Patent
`
`Stragent’s Declarant, Dr. Miller
`• Agrees that Fig. 2 shows two communication media.
`• Admitted that when he opined that “nodes on a logical ring [are] confined to a single
`network,” he meant “a single logical network,” not a “single physical network.”
`
`Pet. at 65-68; Reply at 21-23; Ex.1009 at 7-10, 20-26, 45; Figs. 10, 35; Ex. 1025 at 100:18-21; 103:16-19.
`32
`
`Page 32 of 133
`
`

`

`OSEK Teaches or Suggests Element [1.7]
`
`✓ ✓
`
`✓
`
`33
`
`POR at 44-54.
`
`Page 33 of 133
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00677
`
`Claims 51-59 of the ’843 Patent are Unpatentable Under § 103(a)
`
`Page 34 of 133
`
`

`

`Instituted Grounds of Unpatentability
`For IPR2017-00677
`
`Grounds
`
`Prior Art References
`
`[1] Claims 51-59 Unpatentable
`Under § 103(a)
`
`
`
`Staiger and Millsap
`
`[2] Claims 51-59 Unpatentable
`Under § 103(a)
`
`
`
`OSEK1
`
`[4] Claims 51-59 Unpatentable
`Under § 103(a)
`
`
`
`OSEK1 and Millsap
`
`OSEK1
`
`Millsap
`
`Staiger
`
`Institution Decision (Paper 8) at 33.
`
`1 OSEK Binding, OSEK COM, OSEK FTCom, and OSEK NM (collectively referred to as “OSEK”)
`
`35
`
`Page 35 of 133
`
`

`

`Representative Claim for ’843 Patent
`
`Claim 51: An apparatus, comprising:
`[51.1] a control unit for:
`[51.2] identifying information associated with a message received utilizing a first network protocol associated with a first network;
`[51.3] issuing a storage resource request in connection with a storage resource and determining whether the storage resource is
`available;
`[51.4] determining whether a threshold has been reached in association with the storage resource request;
`[51.5] in the event the storage resource is available and the threshold associated with the storage resource request has not been
`reached, issuing another storage resource request in connection with the storage resource;
`[51.6] in the event the storage resource is not available and the threshold associated with the storage resource request has been
`reached, sending a notification; and
`[51.7] in the event the storage is available, storing the information utilizing the storage resource;
`[51.8] wherein the apparatus is operable such that the information that is capable of being shared in real-time utilizing a second
`network protocol associated with a second network, and the control unit includes:
`[51.9] a first interface for interfacing with the first network, the first interface including a first interface-related first component for
`receiving first data units and a first interface-related second component, the control unit being operable such that the first data units are
`processed after which processed first data units are provided, where the first network is at least one of a Controller Area Network type, a
`Flexray type, or a Local Interconnect Network type; and
`[51.10] a second interface portion for interfacing with the second network, the second interface including a second interface-related
`first component for receiving second data units and a second interface-related second component, the control unit being operable such
`that the second data units are processed after which processed second data units are provided, where the second network is at least one
`of the Controller Area Network type, the Flexray network type, or the Local Interconnect Network type.
`
`36
`
`Page 36 of 133
`
`

`

`GROUND 1: Staiger in View of Millsap
`Renders Obvious Claims 51-59
`
`Page 37 of 133
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Response Does Not Argue That Staiger and Millsap
`Do Not Teach Elements [51.1] – [51.7], [51.9], & [51.10]
`
`Claim 51: An apparatus, comprising:
`[51.1] a control unit for:
`[51.2] identifying information associated with a message received utilizing a first network protocol associated with a first network;
`[51.3] issuing a storage resource request in connection with a storage resource and determining whether the storage resource is
`available;
`[51.4] determining whether a threshold has been reached in association with the storage resource request;
`[51.5] in the event the storage resource is available and the threshold associated with the storage resource request has not been
`reached, issuing another storage resource request in connection with the storage resource;
`[51.6] in the event the storage resource is not available and the threshold associated with the storage resource request has been
`reached, sending a notification; and
`[51.7] in the event the storage is available, storing the information utilizing the storage resource;
`[51.8] wherein the apparatus is operable such that the information that is capable of being shared in real-time utilizing a second
`network protocol associated with a second network, and the control unit includes:
`[51.9] a first interface for interfacing with the first network, the first interface including a first interface-related first component for
`receiving first data units and a first interface-related second component, the control unit being operable such that the first data units are
`processed after which processed first data units are provided, where the first network is at least one of a Controller Area Network type, a
`Flexray type, or a Local Interconnect Network type; and
`[51.10] a second interface portion for interfacing with the second network, the second interface including a second interface-related
`first component for receiving second data units and a second interface-related second component, the control unit being operable such
`that the second data units are processed after which processed second data units are provided, where the second network is at least one
`of the Controller Area Network type, the Flexray network type, or the Local Interconnect Network type.
`
`38
`
`POR at 21-40.
`
`Page 38 of 133
`
`

`

`Claim 51
`
`Staiger and Millsap Teaches Element [51.8]
`
`[51.8] wherein the apparatus is
`operable such that the information
`that is capable of being shared in
`real-time utilizing a second network
`protocol associated with a second
`network, and the control unit
`includes:
`
`Incoming
`message
`
`Processing
`message
`
`Message is
`output and shared
`
`Staiger discloses that “[i]t analyses an incoming message,
`illustrated as block 102. . . and determines its further
`processing based on configuration data. . . After the
`completion of the tasked performed during the dynamic
`process the PP execution unit outputs a message 112 as a
`result of the computation of the incoming message 102.”
`
`Pet. at 34-35; Reply at 21-23; Ex.1004 at ¶¶ 32-36, 48; Fig. 1.
`
`
`
`39 39
`
`Page 39 of 133
`
`

`

`Claim 51
`
`Staiger and Millsap Teaches Element [51.8]
`
`[51.8] wherein the apparatus is
`operable such that the information
`that is capable of being shared in
`real-time utilizing a second network
`protocol associated with a second
`network, and the control unit
`includes:
`
`Staiger discloses that CPUs 207 and 208 can send messages to
`one of the different CAN bus networks (202 to 205) through use
`of the intercommunication processor 200. CPUs 207 and 208
`are connected to bus systems such as FireWire or MOST (i.e., a
`“first network protocol”), which are different than CAN buses
`202-205 (i.e., a “second network protocol”).
`
`
`
`40 40
`
`Pet. at 34-35; Reply at 21-23; Ex.1004 at ¶¶ 32-36, 48; Fig. 2.
`
`Page 40 of 133
`
`

`

`Claim 51
`
`Staiger and Millsap Teaches Element [51.8]
`
`[51.8] wherein the apparatus is
`operable such that the information
`that is capable of being shared in
`real-time utilizing a second network
`protocol associated with a second
`network, and the control unit
`includes:
`
`Staiger discloses “bus adapters 214 to 217 might be
`formed by standardized CAN controllers providing
`connections to the respective CAN-busses 202 to 205 via
`CAN-C or CAN-B physical layers.”
`
`Pet. at 34-35; Reply at 21-23; Ex.1004 at ¶¶ 32-36, 48; Fig. 2.
`
`
`
`41 41
`
`Page 41 of 133
`
`

`

`Claim 51
`
`Staiger and Millsap Teaches Element [51.8]
`
`[51.8] wherein the apparatus is
`operable such that the information
`that is capable of being shared in
`real-time utilizing a second network
`protocol associated with a second
`network, and the control unit
`includes:
`
`Patent Owner and its Declarant admit that Staiger discloses
`two networks with different rates thereof.
`
`POR
`
`POR: “[I]t may be true that Staiger discloses CAN-C or CAN-B,
`and that it was well known in the prior art that CAN-C and
`CAN-B had different transmission bit rates. ”
`
`Q: What is required to convert message format of CAN B
`network protocol to a message format of CAN C network
`protocol?
`A: So I don’t have the CAN B and CAN C specifications in
`front of me right now, but there are differences between
`them. One that I know of is the transmission rate.
`
`Pet. at 34-35; Reply at 21-23; Ex.1004 at ¶¶ 32-36, 48; Fig. 1; POR at 36; Ex.1025 at 78:13-20.
`
`42 42
`
`Page 42 of 133
`
`

`

`“Heterogeneous Network” as Defined by the ’843 Patent
`
`
`
`heterogeneous networks may refer to any
`different communication networks with at
`
`In the context of the present description,
`least one aspect that is different.
`
`’843 patent (Ex.1001) at 7:27-29
`
`43
`
`Page 43 of 133
`
`

`

`Staiger Discloses Multiple Heterogeneous Networks
`
`BMW’s Expert, Dr. Vijay Madisetti
`
`• Each CAN adapter m