UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Case IPR2017-01502
`Patent 8,209,705
`
`Case IPR2017-01503
`Case IPR2017-01504
`Patent 8,566,843
`
`Patent Owner Stragent LLC’s Demonstrative Exhibit
`
`1
`
`

`

`Background
`
`The ‘843 Patent is a continuation of the ‘705 Patent
`
`• “A system, method and computer program product are
`provided for sharing information in a distributed system. After
`information is received, it is stored on a bulletin board. In use,
`the information is shared, in real-time, among a plurality of
`heterogeneous processes.”
`‘705 Patent at 1:29-33
`• “The system architecture may be situated in automotive
`electronics or industrial control and monitoring systems. In an
`automotive environment, the various Electronic Control Units
`(ECUs, 102) control complex applications such as engine
`control, brake control, or diagnostics. They are either
`connected to sensors and actuators via discrete links or simple
`standard functions such as sensors and actuators are organized
`into separate sub networks.”
`‘705 Patent at 3:11-18
`
`2
`
`

`

`‘705 Patent Claim 9, 18
`
`7. A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a computer program product for sharing information,
`the computer program product comprising:
`7a. computer code for allowing receipt of information associated with a message, utilizing a first network
`protocol associated with a first network;
`7b. computer code for causing a determination as to whether a storage resource is available;
`7c. computer code for, in the event the storage resource is not available, determining whether a timeout has
`been reached and causing a re-request in connection with the storage resource;
`7d. computer code for, in the event the storage resource is available and the timeout has not been reached,
`causing storage of the information utilizing the storage resource;
`7e. computer code for, in the event the timeout has been reached, causing an error notification to be sent; and
`7f. computer code for causing the information to be shared by:
`7g. 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;
`7h. wherein the computer program product is associated with an electronic control unit with at least one
`gateway function, and a plurality of interface portions including:
`7i. a first interface portion for interfacing with the first network,
`7j. the first interface portion including a first interface-related first layer part for receiving first interface-related
`first layer messages and a first interface-related second layer part, the first interface-related first layer
`messages being processed after which first interface-related second layer messages are provided,
`7k. where the first network is at least one of a Controller Area Network, a Flexray network, or a Local
`Interconnect Network; and
`7.l. a second interface portion for interfacing with the second network,
`7m. the second interface portion including a second interface-related first layer part for receiving second
`interface-related first layer messages and a second interface-related second layer part, the second interface-
`related first layer messages being processed after which second interface-related second layer messages are
`provided,
`7n. where the second network is different from the first network and is at least one of the Controller Area
`Network, the Flexray network, or the Local Interconnect Network,
`
`3
`
`

`

`‘705 Patent Claims 9, 18
`9. wherein the computer program product is operable such that the
`first interface-related second layer part carries out the
`processing of the first interface-related first layer messages.
`
`18. The non-transitory computer-readable medium as recited in claim
`7, wherein the computer program product is operable such
`that multiple modes of operation are enabled, wherein at least
`one of the modes includes a diagnostic mode.
`
`4
`
`

`

`‘843 Patent Claims 27 - 29
`
`1. A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a computer program product for sharing
`information, the computer program product, comprising:
`1.1 code for allowing receipt of information associated with a message received utilizing a first network
`protocol associated with a first network;
`1.2 code for causing a determination as to whether a storage resource is available;
`1.3 code for determining whether a threshold has been reached and causing a request in connection with the
`storage resource if the threshold has not been reached;
`1.4 code for, in the event the threshold has been reached, causing an error notification to be sent;
`1.5 code for, in the event the storage resource is available, causing storage of the information utilizing the
`storage resource; and
`1.6 code for causing the information to be shared by:
`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;
`1.8 wherein the computer program product is associated with an electronic control unit with a plurality of
`interface portions including:
`1.9 a first interface portion for interfacing with the first network, the first interface portion including a first
`interface-related first layer part for receiving first interface-related first layer messages and a first interface-
`related second layer part, the computer program product being operable such that the first interface-related
`first layer messages are processed after which first interface-related second layer messages are provided,
`where the first network is at least one of a Controller Area Network type, a Flexray network type, or a Local
`Interconnect Network type; and
`1.10 a second interface portion for interfacing with the second network, the second interface portion
`including a second interface-related first layer part for receiving second interface-related first layer
`messages and a second interface-related second layer part, the computer program product being operable
`such that the second interface-related first layer messages are processed after which second interface-related
`second layer messages 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,
`
`5
`
`

`

`‘843 Patent Claims 27 - 29
`
`27. … wherein the computer program product is operable such that the second
`network protocol is different than the first network protocol.
`
`28. … wherein the computer program product is operable such that the second
`network protocol is different than the first network protocol such that rates
`thereof are different.
`
`29. … wherein the computer program product is operable such that the second
`network protocol is different than the first network protocol, and the at least one
`message format corresponding to the second network protocol is different than a
`particular message format corresponding to the first network protocol, such that
`the information is converted from the particular message format to the at least
`one message format.
`
`6
`
`

`

`‘705 and ‘843 Patent Claims Common Points
`
`‘705
`
`‘843
`
`… receipt of information associated with a message,
`utilizing a first network protocol associated with a first
`network;
`
`… receipt of information associated with a message
`received utilizing a first network protocol associated with a
`first network;
`
`… code for causing the information to be shared by:
`…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;
`
`an electronic control unit [with] a first interface portion for
`interfacing with the first network, …, where the first
`network is at least one of a Controller Area Network, a
`Flexray network, or a Local Interconnect Network; and
`
`code for causing the information to be shared by:
`7g/27/28/29 … sharing the information utilizing at least
`one message format corresponding to a second network
`protocol associated with a second network, wherein … the
`second network protocol is different than the first network
`protocol;
`
`an electronic control unit [with] a first interface portion for
`interfacing with the first network, …, where the first
`network is at least one of a Controller Area Network type, a
`Flexray network type, or a Local Interconnect Network
`type; and
`
`a second interface portion for interfacing with the second
`network, … after which second interface-related second
`layer messages are provided, where the second network is
`different from the first network and is at least one of the
`Controller Area Network, the Flexray network, or the Local
`Interconnect Network.
`
`a second interface portion for interfacing with the second
`network, … after which second interface-related second
`layer messages 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
`
`

`

`‘705 and ‘843 Patent Claims Common Points
`
`• An electronic control unit which
`• Receives information utilizing a first network
`protocol associated with a first network;
`• Shares that first network/first protocol information
`with
`– (1) a second network
`– (2) which uses a second protocol which is different from
`the first network protocol;
`• Using
`– (3) a first interface portion for interfacing with the first
`network (CAN, FlexRay or LIN); and
`– (4) a second interface portion for interfacing with the
`second network which uses a second protocol which is
`different from the first network protocol.
`
`8
`
`

`

`The ‘705 and ‘843 Patents
`
`“three heterogeneous 
`network controllers
`(702, 703, 704)” [‘705 Pat 
`at 6:34‐35]
`
`“Operating System 
`interfaces (705)” [‘705 Pat 
`at 6:35‐36]
`
`“extracts the data (e.g. real 
`time variables) from the 
`message PDU and stores the 
`data in the bulletin board 
`(608)” [‘705 Pat at 7:11‐12]
`
`9
`
`

`

`Institution Decisions
`
`• Case IPR2017-01502 Patent 8,209,705
`
`(a) Claims 8–19 as obvious over Posadas, Stewart, and Wense; and
`(b) Claims 8–19 as obvious over Miesterfeld, Stewart, and Wense
`
`• Case IPR2017-01503 Patent 8,566,843
`
`(a) Claims 2–29, 31–46, and 52–58 as obvious over Posadas, Stewart, and Wense;
`(b) Claims 30 and 59 as obvious over Posadas, Stewart, Wense, and Zhao; and
`(c) Claims 52 and 53 as obvious over Posadas, Stewart, Wense, and Upender
`
`• Case IPR2017-01504 Patent 8,566,843
`
`(a) Claims 2–29, 31–46, and 52–58 as obvious over Miesterfeld, Stewart, and
`Wense;
`(b) Claims 30 and 59 as obvious over Miesterfeld, Stewart, Wense, and Zhao; and
`(c) Claims 52 and 53 as obvious over Miesterfeld, Stewart, Wense, and Upender
`
`[Paper 7 in ‘1502; ‘1503; ‘1504]
`
`10
`
`

`

`Broadest Reasonable Claim Construction of
`“Sharing The Information”
`
`Term: “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”
`
`Construction:
`“the information” is information associated with a message
`received utilizing a first network protocol associated with a first
`network which was caused to be stored utilizing the storage
`resource.
`
`[‐01502, Exhibit 2006,¶ 28]  
`
`11
`
`

`

`Broadest Reasonable Claim Construction of
`“Sharing The Information”
`Antecedent claim structure for “the information”:
`
`‘705
`
`‘843
`
`7. …. a computer program product for sharing information,
`the computer program product comprising:
`
`1. …. a computer program product for sharing information,
`the computer program product, comprising:
`
`…code for allowing receipt of information associated with
`a message, utilizing a first network protocol associated with
`a first network; …
`
`code for allowing receipt of information associated with a
`message received utilizing a first network protocol
`associated with a first network;
`
`…code for, in the event the storage resource is available
`and the timeout has not been reached, causing storage of
`the information utilizing the storage resource; …
`
`code for, in the event the storage resource is available,
`causing storage of the information utilizing the storage
`resource; and
`
`…code for causing the information to be shared by:
`
`code for causing the information to be shared by:
`
`… in real-time, sharing the information….;
`
`in real-time, sharing the information
`
` Last antecedent for “the information” is the stored information
`
`[‐01502, Exhibit 2006,¶ 28]
`
`12
`
`

`

`Broadest Reasonable Claim Construction of
`“Sharing The Information”
`
`• Broadest Reasonable Construction requires
`“construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it
`appears.”
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, __ U.S. __, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142 (2016) (quoting 37 CFR § 42.100(b)); see also TF3 Ltd. v. Tre
`Milano, LLC, 894 F.3d 1366, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2018), where the Court reversed a PTAB IPR decision, because the “Board declined to
`construe [a claim term] as set forth in the specification,” and held that “[a]bove all, the broadest reasonable interpretation must be
`reasonable in light of the claims and specification,” and a “construction that is unreasonably broad and which does not reasonably reflect
`the plain language and disclosure will not pass muster.” (citing and quoting PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc’ns RF, LLC,
`815 F.3d 747, 755 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015), overruled on other
`grounds by Aqua Prods., Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (en banc))
`
`13
`
`

`

`Broadest Reasonable Claim Construction of
`“Sharing The Information”
`
`Summary of the Invention supports that “the information” is stored:
`
`“A system, method and computer program product are provided for
`sharing information in a distributed system. After information is
`received, it is stored on a bulletin board. In use, the information is
`shared, in real-time, among a plurality of heterogeneous processes. ”
`
`(‘705 Patent Col. 1 lines 29-33).
`
`Case 2017‐01502, Exhibit 2006,¶ 28, 35  
`
`14
`
`

`

`Broadest Reasonable Claim Construction of
`“Sharing The Information”
`Specification supports that “the information” is stored:
`
`“The information sharing mechanism relies on a bulletin board that
`may include a small database operating under hard real-time
`conditions with minimal delays, communication latency, and jitter. The
`embedded database or bulletin board isolates a real-time application in
`a Electronic Control Unit (ECU) from various other real time
`applications and from input output signals in the same module (local
`information sharing), from event-triggered communications with
`applications in other modules, and from time-triggered
`communications with applications in other modules”
`
`(‘705 Patent Col. 10 line 67- Col 11 line 9) (emphases supplied).
`
` ‘705/’843 Patents do not disclose or enable any sharing of the information
`without the information first being stored
`
`[‐01502, Exhibit 2006,¶ 28, 35]  
`
`15
`
`

`

`Broadest Reasonable Claim Construction of
`“Sharing The Information”
`Patent Specification cited by the Board supports construction:
`“Then the ECU (102) processes the input variables and generates a set of output variables that are
`either shared with other ECUs (102) as described above, or which are output to local actuators
`(109), which are connected via discrete signal lines (113), or to networked actuators, which are
`connected through a multiplexing bus (112). ECUs (102) typically share information with
`devices that are connected on the same physical multiplexing system. This method of
`information sharing is called horizontal information sharing in a hierarchical system. Gateways
`(101,103,104) link multiple physical multiplexing systems together. In the context of the present
`description, such information may include data, a signal, and/or anything else capable of being
`stored and shared.”
`(‘705 Patent Col. 3 lines46-59) (emphases supplied).
`
`
`
`
`
`“Stored and shared” consistent with other record that the present invention
`requires “the information” to be stored before sharing
`
`Statement re “horizontal system” does not exclude storing before sharing
`
`[‐01502, Exhibit 2006,¶ 28, 35
`Paper 31, FWD in 2017‐00458 at 10‐11; Paper 33, FWD in 2017‐00676 at 18‐19]
`
`16
`
`

`

`Broadest Reasonable Claim Construction con’t
`
`“shared” and “sharing” means “to partake of, use, experience,
`occupy, or enjoy with others; to have in common”; or, alternately,
`“to make files, directories, or folders accessible to other users
`over a network”; or, alternately, “making the information
`available to another process.”
`
`[‐01502, Ex. 2006,¶¶ 29‐32; 
`Paper 31, FWD in 2017‐00458 at 11; Paper 33, FWD in 2017‐00676 at 18]    
`
`17
`
`

`

`Broadest Reasonable Claim Construction con’t
`“protocol” means “a set of rules or procedures utilizing
`preexisting agreement as to how information will be structured
`and how each side will send and receive it for transmitting
`information between electronic devices”; or, alternately, “a
`standard that specifies the format of data as well as the rules to be
`followed in transmitting it.”
`
`“real-time” means “any response time that may be measured in
`milli- or microseconds, and/or is less than 1 second.”
`
`[‐01502, Ex. 2006,¶¶ 29‐32; ‐01502 Ex. 1038 ¶28]
`
`18
`
`

`

`“Diagnostic Mode of Operation” Construction
`
`Dependent Claim 18: “multiple modes of operation are enabled, wherein at least
`one of the modes includes a diagnostic mode”
`
`Broadest Reasonable Construction: “an alternate mode of operation, distinct from
`normal operations, that still allows inspection of the system while it is running”
`
`Term is defined in the specification:
`
`The concept that an embedded communication and computing network can run in multiple modes in order to
`provide for a guaranteed deterministic behavior of the system. This property can be achieved by only allowing
`change to the configuration and/or the functions (SW code) in a secured configuration and upgrade mode. If the
`network is booted in the normal operating mode, all processors execute the existing code and only allow data
`sharing through the bulletin boards. The emergency or debug mode lets the network run in a fail-safe reduced
`operation mode or in a diagnostic mode that allows inspection of the system, while it is running. For each
`operating mode, the gateway can store a processing image on the bulletin board. The advantage of this procedure
`is that only the communication hubs need to deal with secure data transfer and encryption while the peripheral
`nodes in the network can be relative simple in design.
`(Exh.1001, 11:51-67) (emphasis added).
`
`[‐01502, Ex. 2006, ¶¶ 36; 96‐101]  
`
`19
`
`

`

`“Diagnostic Mode of Operation” Construction
`
`Petitioner’s Construction: “a mode that is designed to determine whether a
`computer system is functioning properly or to detect programming errors”
`
`Petitioner’s only support is assertion by Dr. Koopman
`– who does not cite any support
`
`Dr. Koopman ignores the first part of the limitation that “diagnostic mode” be a
`“mode of operation”:
`“multiple modes of operation are enabled, wherein at least one of the modes
`includes a diagnostic mode”
`
`[‐01502 Ex. 1038 ¶¶32‐36]
`
`20
`
`

`

`“Diagnostic Mode of Operation” Construction
`• Contrary to Dr. Koopman’s representation, Dr. Miller did not agree with Dr.
`Koopmans assertion
`
`• Dr. Miller testified only about potential uses of the diagnostic mode:
`Q: Would it be reasonable to say that diagnostic mode is a mode that is designed to determine
`whether a computer system is functioning properly or to detect programming errors?
`A: I think that's -- that's one or a couple different potential uses of a diagnostic mode. I don't think
`that that's exclusively the purpose of a diagnostic mode.
`Q: But it captures the idea of a diagnostic mode. Is that fair?
`A: No. I think that's one of the uses of diagnostic mode; that there's potentially other uses of a
`diagnostic mode, as well.
`
` The questions to Dr. Miller never addressed whether a “diagnostic mode of
`operation” was distinct from a normal mode of operation; and Dr. Miller cited
`testimony did not address the claim limitation of the ‘705/’843 Patents
`
`[-01502 Ex. 1038 ¶¶32-36; -01503 Ex. 1042 ¶¶ ; -01504 Ex. 1042 ¶¶
`-01502 Ex. 1039 66:21-67:9; -01503 Ex.; -01504 Ex. ]
`
`21
`
`

`

`Petitioner Invents Disclosures
`
`• Petitioner as to both Posadas and Miesterfeld invents
`disclosures
`• Error, because theories not enough and Petitioner must point to
`some concrete evidence
`• Petitioner has not argued, and can not argue, inherency
`
`“First, we agree with Southwire that the Board erred in relying on inherency in making
`its obviousness determination. We have held that “the use of inherency in the context of
`obviousness must be carefully circumscribed because ‘[t]hat which may be inherent is
`not necessarily known’ and that which is unknown cannot be obvious.” While “[w]e
`have recognized that inherency may supply a missing claim limitation in an obviousness
`analysis,” we have emphasized that “the limitation at issue necessarily must be present”
`in order to be inherently disclosed by the reference.
`
`Southwire Co. v. Cerro Wire LLC, 870 F.3d 1306, 1310–11 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (internal citations omitted)
`
`22
`
`

`

`Posadas Does Not Disclose
`“Sharing” the Information
`
`23
`
`

`

`Posadas
`
`Radio 
`Ethernet
`
`24
`
`

`

`Posadas’ Deficiencies
`
`• Posadas does not disclose “sharing the information,” which is
`“information associated with a message, utilizing a first
`network protocol associated with a first network” that was
`“stored in storage resource”
`
`• Posadas does not disclose “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”
`
`• Posadas is not enabled
`
`25
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Argument Re Posadas
`
`Data is communicated from 
`CAN bus to ethernet, via 
`something called “SC” and/or 
`“ISCCAN”
`
`26
`
`

`

`Posadas Does Not Share “The Information”
`
`• Posadas does not disclose any storing of data before sharing –
`thus, does not disclose “sharing the information” if “the
`information” must be stored
`
`• Petitioner does not argue to contrary
`
`•
`
`Issue of claim construction
`
`[‐01502, Exhibit 2006, ¶¶ 68‐74] 
`
`27
`
`

`

`Posadas Does Not Share “The Information”
`
`Limitation: “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”
`
`• Petitioner relies on “SC” and “ISCCAN”
`
`• But, Posadas does not disclose what “SC” or “ISCCAN” are,
`what they do, or how they do it.
`
`[‐01502, Ex. 2006, ¶¶ 68‐74]  
`
`28
`
`

`

`Dr. Miller’s Unchallenged Testimony
`That SC & ISCCAN Are Black Boxes
`“43. Posadas does not disclose how the YAIR actually communicates.
`Posadas refers to the ‘ISCCAN’ software, the ‘SC,’ ‘supplied object
`toolbox’ and ‘SC general bind notification scheme.’ But, Posadas never
`discloses what either ISCANN or SC, or these toolboxes or schemes
`actually do or how they do it.
`
`“44. Posadas does not disclose any conversion of data from one
`protocol to another. I note that Posadas states that ‘The ISCCAN
`gateway solves the data format conversion and serialisation using
`ASCII-Hex representation of CAN binary streams.’ But, going from
`binary to ASCII is not a true ‘conversion,’ but merely just a different
`representation though. Instead of representing ‘A’ as a character, it’s
`being represented as a binary string – 0100 0001. That is not
`‘conversion,’ but just a different way of representing the same data.”
`
`[‐01502, Exhibit 2006, ¶¶ 43‐44]  
`
`29
`
`

`

`Dr. Miller’s Unchallenged Testimony
`That SC & ISCCAN Are Black Boxes
`
`“[H]ow the translation occurs is not provided in the paper.” (96:18-19)
`
`“The exact description of how this happens thoroughly seems to be missing.” (100:5-6)
`
`“From the CAN network, there is the one SC, which is labeled "1" in Figure 4. That
`then transmits over ethernet radio, I assume, the data or some data from the CAN to an
`ethernet network which then gets to the other silos labeled "2" in Figure 4. How it goes
`about that, though, is unknown.” (102:20-25)
`
`“We don't know what happens in SC in ‘1.’” (103:7)
`
`“Posadas is discussing that, but is not giving any means how to go about doing it.”
`(103:20-21)
`
`“[Posadas] actually hides a lot more than that because he doesn't explain anything
`about how SC works or what's happening there.” (104:15-18)
`
`“Again, it doesn't explain how, it just says that it does.” (105:5-6)
`
`[‐01502, Exhibit 1039]
`
`30
`
`

`

`Posadas Does Not Share “The Information”
`
`Limitation is: “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”
`
` Posadas does not disclose the limitation
`
`31
`
`

`

`Posadas Does Not Enable Sharing
`Information Using Different Protocols
`• “Mere naming or description of the subject matter is
`insufficient.”
`Elan Pharm., Inc. v. Mayo Found. For Med. Educ. & Research, 346 F.3d 1051, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 2003);
`MPEP §2121.01.
`
`• No indication that person of ordinary skill in the art would
`know how to practice the claimed element
`
`•
`
`Invention cannot be obvious if the prior art as a whole does not
`enable a claimed invention
`
`32
`
`

`

`Posadas Does Not Disclose Claimed Interface
`
`Elements 7l-m:
`“a second interface portion for interfacing with the second
`network, … after which second interface-related second layer
`messages are provided, where the second network is different
`from the first network ….”
`
`Construction:
`The antecedent to “the second network” is the network
`referenced in limitations 7g/1g as “a second network” that
`utilizes a different protocol than the first network.
`
`33
`
`

`

`Posadas Does Not Disclose
`Claimed Interfaces
`• Petitioner splits the “SC” into two
`
`Actual
`
`Petitioner’s Depiction
`
`34
`
`

`

`Posadas Does Not Disclose
`Claimed Interfaces
`• Dr. Miller testified without
`challenge that
`Posadas never discloses what
`“SC” or “ISCANN” are, or what
`they do, or how they do it
`
`[‐01502, Exhibit 2006, ¶¶ 43‐44;
`‐01502, Exhibit 1039, 96:18‐19; 100:5‐6; 102:20‐25; 
`103:7; 103:20‐21; 104:15‐18; 105:5‐6] 
`
`35
`
`

`

`Posadas Does Not Disclose
`Claimed Interfaces
`– “the second network” must be
`recipient of the information
`stored from first network
`
`– But ISCCAN is between the
`CAN network and the
`“distributed blackboard”
`storage (including the ethernet
`backbone of the storage area)
`
`[‐01502, Exhibit 2006, ¶¶ 43‐44, 70‐74, 79‐83;
`‐01502, Exhibit 1039, 96:18‐19; 100:5‐6; 102:20‐25; 
`103:7; 103:20‐21; 104:15‐18; 105:5‐6] 
`
`36
`
`

`

`Stewart Cannot Be Combined With Posadas
`
`Dr. Miller testified:
`
`57. … Posadas discloses a particular distributed blackboard storage
`system that includes an undisclosed storage medium utilizing an unknown
`process. … The architecture, however, is not described as involving a
`“shared memory” [used by Stewart]. In fact, Posadas states that ‘each
`computer has a partial copy of the blackboard.’ (p. 153). Further, ... rather
`than there being a shared memory, all the data is stored in particular silos,
`with each silo having its own processor performing undisclosed
`operations. There is too much possibility that the silos shown in Posadas –
`combining both a blackboard and a processor—present unique issues to
`assume anything about whether some unrelated technology could be
`combined with such a unique Posadas environment.”
`
`[‐01502 Ex. 2006 ¶57]
`
`37
`
`

`

`Stewart Does Not Disclose
`“Causing an Error Notification to be Sent”
`
`• Single sentence in Stewart:
`“When using the time-out mechanism, error handlers should be installed to detect
`tasks that suffer successive time-out errors.”
`• Petitioner’s expert asserts, without any support:
`“41. … Error handlers have a well-understood meaning in the art—they
`include code that is notified and executed when an error occurs.”
`• Petitioner cites prior Board decision:
`“Stewart’s reference to error handlers …would be understood by one of
`ordinary skill in the art as teaching ‘sending a notification.’ In particular,
`in order for an error handler to act regarding an error after it has occurred,
`we agree a notification would be sent.”
`
`38
`
`

`

`Stewart Does Not Disclose
`“Causing an Error Notification to be Sent”
`• “’Error handler’ does not necessarily or
`inherently include sending a notification”
`
`[‐01502 Ex.  2006 ¶¶52, 65‐67, 106‐107]
`
`39
`
`

`

`Stewart Does Not Disclose
`“Causing an Error Notification to be Sent”
`• No authority that a patent claim may be held invalid solely on
`basis of an adversary expert’s unsupported assertion that a
`limitation would be “understood” by one skilled in the art
`
`• Concept contradicts well-established law of inherency
`
`• Petitioner could not assert inherency
`– error notification remains, at best, a possibility, and not an
`inevitable result, of an “error handler.”
`
`“[I]nherency ‘may not be established by probabilities or possibilities.’ ‘The
`mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is
`not sufficient.’”
`
`Endo Pharm. Sols., Inc. v. Custopharm Inc., 894 F.3d 1374, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2018);
`see also PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharm., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1194–95 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
`40
`
`

`

`Posadas Lacks a “Diagnostic Mode” (‘705 Patent Claim 18)
`
`• Petitioner’s argument:
`
`1
`
`2
`“The REC test bed has been 
`designed to stress the
`communication system in 
`order to evaluate its
`performance.” 
`(Ex. 1006 at 11)
`
`• The “Diagnostic Socket” is unrelated to the “REC test bed”
`• Posadas does not say anything about “Diagnostic Socket”
`• REC test bed evaluates performance
`– REC is not a diagnostic mode; and does not inspect the system
`
`[‐01502 Ex. 1038 ¶¶32‐36]
`
`41
`
`

`

`Posadas Does Not Disclose “Bulletin Board”
`(‘705 Patent Claim 8; ‘843 Patent Claim 3)
`• Limitation: “the storage resource includes a bulletin board”
`
`“In the context of the present description, the bulletin board may refer
`to any data base that enables users to send and/or read electronic
`messages, file, and/or other data that are of general interest and/or
`addressed to no particular person/process.” [Ex. 1001, ‘705 Patent, 5:9-14]
`
`“The approach uses a common, or shared storage system that is
`connected to all of the system networks through network interfaces. A
`critically important feature of the bulletin board approach is that the
`complexity of the bulletin board grows linearly with the number of
`networks (as opposed to as N(N-1) for the gateway approach), and in
`one-to-many situations the number of message transformations is half
`that of the standard networking approach.” [Ex. 1001, ‘705 Patent, 7:30-37]
`
`[‐01502, Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 85‐88]
`
`42
`
`

`

`Posadas Does Not Disclose “Bulletin Board”
`(‘705 Patent Claim 8; ‘843 Patent Claim 3)
`
`43
`
`

`

`Posadas Does Not Disclose “Bulletin Board”
`(‘705 Patent Claim 8; ‘843 Patent Claim 3)
`
`• Posadas has distributed blackboard, where every silo has its
`own SC interface, processor and only part of the entire
`blackboard
`– No other description
`
`• Petitioner’s Dr. Koopman essentially reads-out the “bulletin
`board” dependent limitation by making it co-extensive with
`the “storage resource” of the independent claim
`
`• No support for argument that any “shared memory” is a
`“bulletin board”
`
`[‐01502, Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 85‐88]
`
`44
`
`

`

`Claim 11 of ‘705 Patent Not Obvious
`
`• Claim 11 adds “the information is shared with an operating system”
`
`• Posadas does not disclose sharing “the information” with operating
`system
`
`•
`
`In reply, Petitioner cites Posadas’ statement :
`“High-level access to distributed data in WinNT processes has been provided by
`the development of a system (SC) that hides communication details behind a
`uniform bind-notification interface (Fig. 4).”
`
`• That does not say that “the information” is shared with an operating
`system
`• Merely ambiguous statement that data is available “in WinNT
`processes”
`
`45
`
`

`

`Claim 11 of ‘705 Patent Not Obvious
`
`• Dr. Miller’s testimony points to deficiency of Posadas’
`statement:
`
`Q And [Posadas] also describes that Windows NT processes has been provided high-
`level access to distributed data by the development of a SC system. And I'm reading
`from page 153 on the right-hand side under heading "4." So he does describe that
`Windows NT processes have access to distribute data; is that correct?
`
`A ….It actually hides a lot more than that b