UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Stragent, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR20 17-0067 6
`
`U.S. Patent 8,209,705
`
`DECLARATION OF JEFFREY A. MILLER
`
`Page 1 of 48
`
`BMW EXHIBIT 1023
`BMW v. STRAGENT
`IPR2017-01521
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Stragent, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR20 17-0067 6
`
`U.S. Patent 8,209,705
`
`DECLARATION OF JEFFREY A. MILLER
`
`Page 1 of 48
`
`BMW EXHIBIT 1023
`BMW v. STRAGENT
`IPR2017-01521
`
`
`
`IPR20 17-0067 6
`-!.. n 2nn 7n""
`U n
`.~. rmenLlS, v~, V:J
`I am an adult individual and make this Declaration based on personal
`
`T-..
`
`......
`
`~~
`
`~ -
`
`1.
`
`knowledge.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained by Stragent LLC ("Patent Owner") to provide
`
`analysis regarding U.S. Pat. No. 8,209,705 (the '"705 Patent"; Pet. Ex. 1001). I
`
`have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this Declaration unless otherwise
`
`stated. If called as a witness, I could and would competently testify to the facts set
`
`forth in this Declaration.
`
`Qualifications
`
`3.
`
`I am an Associate Professor of Engineering Practice in the
`
`Department of Computer Science at the University of Southern California. I was
`
`awarded a Ph.D. in Computer Science from the University of Southern California in
`
`2007. I have authored numerous publications and a supplement to a book. I have
`
`given many presentations. I have assisted in developing curricula for the Computer
`
`Science and Computer Systems Engineering programs at UAA. I am a named
`
`inventor on one U.S. Patent Application. A copy of my curriculum vitae is attached
`
`hereto as Exhibit 2002.
`
`4.
`
`I was previously the Editor-in-Chief and an Associate Editor of the
`
`IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Magazine.
`
`I am currently an Associate
`
`Editor of IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems.
`
`2
`
`Page 2 of 48
`
`
`
`IPR20 17-0067 6
`U C'l Tln+--+ 0 1'1/\ll 7/\C
`.Lt. raLClll O,L.V7, V.J
`I have conducted research on the software and network architectures
`
`5.
`
`and algorithms used in mobile and wireless communication. Since 2008, I have
`
`secured over $1,500,000 for projects concerning Intelligent Transportation Systems
`
`networks and architectures and STEM education.
`
`6.
`
`I was the General Chair for the IEEE 69th Vehicular Technology
`
`Conference in fa112009, the IEEE 15th Intelligent Transportation Systems
`
`Conference in fall2012, and the IEEE 77th Vehicular Technology Conference in
`
`fall 2013. I was also a Program Co-Chair and Technical Program Chair for the
`
`IEEE 73rd Vehicular Technology Conference in fall 2011. I was on the IEEE
`
`Intelligent Transportation Systems Society Board of Governors for the term from
`
`January 2009- December 2011 and January 2017-December 2019, and was elected
`
`as Vice President for Administrative Activities in the same society from January
`
`2011- December 2012. I was also on the IEEE Vehicular Technology Society
`
`Board of Governors for the term from September 2011- December 2013. From
`
`October 2011- December 2013, I was the Editor-in-Chief of the IEEE ITS
`
`Magazine. Within the ITSS, I have been an Associate Editor for the IEEE
`
`Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems since 2010. In 2010, I was the
`
`treasurer for the Alaska section of the IEEE and was the chair of the section from
`
`January 2011-December 2011. During my time as chair of the IEEE Alaska
`
`Section, the section won the 2011 Outstanding Section Award for the Region 6
`
`3
`
`Page 3 of 48
`
`
`
`IPR20 17-0067 6
`U.S. Patent 8,209,705
`Northwest Area. In addition to being a member of the Intelligent Transportation
`
`Society of Alaska, I was also the president from January 2010-December 2011.
`
`7.
`
`I have reviewed the patent at issue as well as the prior art patents and
`
`printed publications discussed in this declaration and Petitioner's Request for Inter
`
`Partes Review of that same patent. I am familiar with the state of and nature of the
`
`art at the time of the invention by virtue of my review of contemporaneous
`
`materials, including but not limited to the prior art patents and printed publications
`
`addressed in this declaration. I am also familiar with the state of and nature of the
`
`art at the time of the invention based on my studies, research, publications and
`
`experience as explained in the attached CV. Ex. 2002. For example, my studies,
`
`research, publications and experience related to intelligent vehicles have included
`
`significant study of references of the time period of, before, and after the time of the
`
`invention.
`
`8.
`
`Patent Owner's counsel, O'Kelly, Ernst & Joyce LLC, has explained
`
`to me that a patent claim is invalid for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 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.
`
`4
`
`Page 4 of 48
`
`
`
`IPR20 17-0067 6
`U.S. Patent 8,209,705
`I have also been informed that various rationales may be used to find
`
`9.
`
`a patent claim obvious. For example, a combination of familiar elements according
`
`to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield
`
`predictable results. And when a work is available in one field, design incentives
`
`and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or in
`
`another. Rearranging parts in a manner that does not change operation of the device
`
`is also not a patentable improvement. And still further, where a skilled artisan
`
`merely pursues known options from a finite number of identified, predictable
`
`solutions, the result was merely obvious to try. Obviousness also exists when a
`
`claimed improvement is but a predictable use of prior art elements according to
`
`their established functions.
`
`10.
`
`I have been further informed that to determine whether there was an
`
`apparent reason to combine the known elements in the way a patent claims, it is
`
`often necessary to look to interrelated teachings of multiple patents; to the effects of
`
`demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace; and to the
`
`background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art. In
`
`addition, I understand that a validity analysis need not seek out precise teachings
`
`directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, as the inferences and
`
`creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ can be
`
`5
`
`Page 5 of 48
`
`
`
`IPR20 17-0067 6
`U.S. Patent 8,209,705
`recognized, and that the legal determination of obviousness may include recourse to
`
`logic, judgment, and common sense.
`
`11.
`
`Patent Owner's counsel has also informed me that an obviousness
`
`analysis under 35 U.S.C. § l03(a) proceeds by setting a background against which
`
`obviousness is measured. In this analysis, the inquiry is to: (1) determine the scope
`
`and content of the prior art, (2) ascertain the differences between the prior art and
`
`the claims at issue, and (3) resolve the level of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`12.
`
`Considering the types of problems encountered in the art, the prior art
`
`solutions to those problems and the high sophistication of the technology, a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art of the '705 Patent at the time of the invention would have
`
`had at least the qualifications of or equivalent to either a master's degree in
`
`electrical engineering, computer science, or computer engineering with course work
`
`or research in embedded networking technologies or an undergraduate degree in
`
`electrical engineering, computer science, or computer engineering with at least two
`
`years of relevant work experience in industry.
`
`The '705 Patent
`
`13.
`
`The '705 Patent is entitled "System, Method and Computer Program
`
`Product for Sharing Information in a Distributed Framework." The '705 Patent was
`
`filed on July 30, 2008, issued on June 26, 2012, and has not yet expired.
`
`6
`
`Page 6 of 48
`
`
`
`IPR20 17-0067 6
`U.S. Patent 8,209,705
`The Petitioner alleges that claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 20 of the '705
`
`14.
`
`Patent are anticipated on one ground, or invalid for obviousness on four other
`
`grounds. At least for the reasons discussed below, claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 20 of
`
`the '705 Patent are not anticipated or invalid for obviousness on any ground.
`
`15.
`
`Petitioner relies on Claim 1 of the '705 Patent as the template for its
`
`analysis of the '705 Patent and had presented the elements of Claim 1 in a table
`
`below. I will follow Petitioner's listing of the elements. The elements of the
`
`challenged independent claim 1 of the '705 Patent are as follows:
`
`1.0
`1.1
`
`1.2
`1.3
`
`1.4
`
`1.5
`
`1.6
`1.7
`
`1.8
`
`1.9
`
`A method for sharing information, the method comprising:
`allowing receipt of information associated with a message, utilizing a
`first network protocol associated with a first network;
`causing a determination as to whether a storage resource is available;
`in the event the storage resource is not available, determining whether a
`timeout has been reached and causing are-request in connection with the
`storage resource if the timeout has not been reached;
`in the event the timeout has been reached, causing an error notification to
`be sent;
`in the event the storage resource is available, causing storage of the
`information utilizing the storage resource; and
`causing the information to be shared by:
`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;
`wherein the method is associated with an electronic control unit with at
`least one gateway function, and a plurality of interface portions
`including:
`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
`
`7
`
`Page 7 of 48
`
`
`
`IPR20 17-0067 6
`U.S. Patent 8,209,705
`
`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,
`
`1.10
`
`where the first network is at least one of a Controller Area Network, a
`Flexray network, or a Local Interconnect Network;
`and 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 second interface-related first layer messages being processed 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 Ar~a Network, the Flexray network, or the
`Local Interconnect Network.
`
`Constructions of Claim Terms
`
`16.
`
`I have been advised that "real-time" has already been construed by the
`
`Patent Trial And Appeal Board, and that I should accept the construction.
`
`Additionally, Patent Owner's counsel has asked me to construe the terms "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"; "storage resource manager"; and "schedule." The
`
`"ordered" construction and the requested constructions are set forth below.
`
`8
`
`Page 8 of 48
`
`
`
`IPR20 17-0067 6
`U.S. Patent 8,209,705
`
`"real-time"
`
`17.
`
`I understand that "real-time" has already been defmed as "any
`
`response time that may be measured in milli- or microseconds, and/or is less than 1
`
`second." I agree that this is the definition of "real-time" provided by the '705
`
`Patent.
`
`"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"
`
`18.
`
`The term "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" has three aspects
`
`to it. First, the term "sharing" should generally be given its ordinary meaning. The
`
`typical dictionary meaning of "sharing" is "to partake of, use, experience, occupy,
`
`or enjoy with others; to have in common." See Merriam-Webster Dictionary, lOth
`
`Edition (2002), Exhibit 2003. See also Microsoft Computer Dictionary, 3d Edition
`
`(1997), Exhibit 2004. In the context of the claims of the '705 Patent, the term has
`
`three aspects that are pertinent. First, the plain language of claim 1 requires that the
`
`method must be configured for processed first messages to be delivered to the
`
`ultimate destination, i.e., the bulletin board or the storage area from which the
`
`information can be partaken of, used, experienced or occupied (that is "shared") by
`
`9
`
`Page 9 of 48
`
`
`
`IPR20 17-0067 6
`U.S. Patent 8,209,705
`the second network. Second, the apparatus must be configured so that the first
`
`messages must be "shared" (partaken of, used, experienced or occupied) by the
`
`second network. Third, the delivery and the sharing of the first data units must
`
`occur within real-time, as "real-time" has been defined above. The limitation "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 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."
`
`19.
`
`The above construction is, I believe, inherent in the plain language of
`
`the claim. Pet. Ex. 1001, col. 12, 11. 33-35. The above construction is also
`
`supported by the specification. For example, the specification notes that
`
`a. "In use, the information is shared, in real-time, among a plurality of
`
`heterogeneous processes" ('705 Patent Col. 111. 30-33).
`
`b. "ECUs (102) typically share information with devices that are
`
`connected on the same physical multiplexing system. This method of
`
`10
`
`Page 10 of 48
`
`
`
`IPR20 17-0067 6
`U n p-L- L 8 2{'\r\ 70!:"
`. .:). aLelll
`, v~, :J
`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
`
`ll. 51-59);
`
`c. "By placing local information in a shared memory (local bulletin
`
`board), it can be used by multiple processes on this processor node. A
`
`group bulletin board allows devices on a sub-network to share
`
`information with a minimum of network traffic" ('705 Patent Col. 6,
`
`11. 27-31.
`
`d. "The approach uses a common, or shared storage system that is
`
`connected to all of the system networks through network interfaces"
`
`('705 Patent Col. 6, ll. 27-31).
`
`e. "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
`
`11
`
`Page 11 of 48
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00676
`U.S. Patent 8,209,705
`(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 11line 9).
`
`f. "The present embodiment addresses the shortcomings of traditional
`
`computer networks with following enhancements: *** The bulletin
`
`board is a multi -mode storage that can be thought of an extension to
`
`shared memory that can be accessed by local and remote processes at
`
`attached networks.*** The concept of a direct-access bulletin board
`
`that does not require a network layer translation of messages on each
`
`node of the network. Even though this approach restricts the reach of
`
`each node~o only adjacent nodes and the next gateway, this still
`~ ..
`allows crdss-network variable sharing though vertical real-time
`
`replication of data. *** 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" ('705 Patent Col. 11,
`
`ll. 20-58).
`
`"storage resource manager}}
`
`20.
`
`The term "storage resource manager" means a "hardware or software
`
`that controls storage of information in accordance with the algorithm of Figure 10."
`
`12
`
`Page 12 of 48
`
`
`
`IPR20 17-0067 6
`U.S. Patent 8,209,705
`The term "storage resource manager" does not have any recognized meaning in the
`
`field, and, thus, a skilled artisan would look to the specification for the proper
`
`construction. The specification states that "FIG. 10 describes the bulletin board
`
`store procedure (804) in more detail. Before new data can be stored in the bulletin
`
`board, the procedure has to request the access right to the common resource, a
`
`section of the non-volatile or volatile memory, from the operating system (1001).
`
`This is called explicit resource management." ('705 Patent at 8:13-18).
`
`21.
`
`The above construction comports with the preceding limitations 1.1
`
`through 1.5, because all the elements of limitations 1.1 through 1.5 are reflected in
`
`the Figure 10 algorithm.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that Petitioner has asserted that "Consistent with its
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation, the '705 patent describes this tenn as hardware
`
`or software that controls interaction with the storage resource. See Ex. 1001, 6: 11-
`
`21; Ex. 1003, <][58."
`
`23.
`
`I disagree with Petitioner's argument, because Petitioner cites an
`
`excerpt from the '705 Patent that discusses various communication processes and
`
`"the bulletin manager (602)," but does not actually say what is "the bulletin
`
`manager (602)" and does not refer to a "storage resource manager." Figure 10, on
`
`the other hand, is specifically entitled "Bulletin Board Store Mechanism," and thus
`
`directly corresponds to the claim term "storage resource manager."
`
`13
`
`Page 13 of 48
`
`
`
`IPR20 17-0067 6
`U.S. Patent 8,209,705
`
`"schedule JJ
`
`24.
`
`The term "schedule" is a common term that the Patent appears to use
`
`in its ordinary form.
`
`25.
`
`Petitioner states:
`
`Sharing infonnation "according to a schedule" should be given its
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate
`
`Dictionary defines "schedule" in the context of a program as "a
`
`procedural plan that indicates the time and sequence of each
`
`operation." Ex. 1016, 5 (emphasis added). Thus, consistent with its
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation, the term should be construed as
`
`"according to a time and sequence of operation," which would include
`
`"periodically or at set times." Ex. 1003, ~59.
`
`Petition at p. 14.
`
`26.
`
`I agree with Petitioner that "schedule" is properly defined here as "a
`
`procedural plan that indicates the time and sequence of each operation." That
`
`should be the construction.
`
`27.
`
`After properly stating the ordinary meaning of the term "schedule,"
`
`however, Petitioner thereafter states that "schedule" means "according to a time and
`
`sequence of operation, which would include periodically or at set times."
`
`Petitioner's addition appears consistent with the dictionary definition proposed by
`
`Petitioner, and with which I agree, but in my opinion it is best to retain the accepted
`
`14
`
`Page 14 of 48
`
`
`
`IPR20 17-0067 6
`U.S. Patent 8,209,705
`dictionary definition and not create alternative non-standard definitions, particularly
`
`when they are not supported by the patent specification or any other authority.
`
`28.
`
`"Schedule" should be construed as "a procedural plan that indicates
`
`the time and sequence of each operation," which is exactly the dictionary definition
`
`provided by Petitioner, and which is consistent with specification.
`
`Petitioner's Asserted Prior Art Does Not Disclose
`The '705 Patent Claimed Inventions
`
`29.
`
`The references cited by Petitioner in support of its obviousness
`
`contentions are as follows:
`
`a. Exhibit 1004- U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0073243
`
`to Staiger ("Staiger").
`
`b. Exhibit 1007- OSEK/VDX Binding Specification, Version 1.3 (Sept.
`
`17, 2001) ("OSEK Binding").
`
`c. Exhibit 1008 -OSEKIVDX Communication Specification, Version
`
`2.2.2 (Dec. 18, 2000) ("OSEK COM").
`
`d. Exhibit 1009 -OSEKIVDX Network Management Concept and
`
`Application Programming Interface, Version 2.51 (May 31, 2000)
`
`("OSEK NM").
`
`e. Exhibit 1010 -OSEKIVDX Fault-Tolerant Communication, Version
`
`1.0 (July 24, 2001) ("OSEK FTCom").
`
`f. Exhibit 1012 -William Wong, Software And Hardware Standards
`
`15
`
`Page 15 of 48
`
`
`
`IPR20 17-0067 6
`U.S. Patent 8,209,705
`Help, But In-Vehicle Network Growth Will Be Conservative: CAN
`
`networks and OSEKNDX -compatible operating systems will drive
`
`tomorrow's vehicles, Electronic Design, vol. 49, issue 1, 62 (Jan. 8,
`
`2001) ("Wong").
`
`g. Exhibit 1015 -U.S. Patent No. 6,484,082 to Millsap ("Millsap").
`
`30.
`
`I understand that the Patent Trial And Appeal Board has identified the
`
`issue as to whether claims 1-6 and 20 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) by
`
`Staiger ("Ground 1 ").
`
`31.
`
`I also understand that the Patent Trial And Appeal Board has
`
`identified the issue as to whether claims 1-6 and 20 as unpatentable for obviousness
`
`over Staiger, Millsap, and Wong ("Ground 2").
`
`32.
`
`I also understand that the Patent Trial And Appeal Board has
`
`identified the issue as to whether claims 1-6 are unpatentable for obviousness over
`
`OSEK Binding, OSEK COM, OSEK FTCom, and OSEK NM ("Ground 3").
`
`33.
`
`I also understand that the Patent Trial And Appeal Board has
`
`identified the issue as to whether claims 1-6 are unpatentable for obviousness over
`
`OSEK Binding, OSEK COM, OSEK FTCom, OSEK NM, Millsap and Wong
`
`("Ground 4").
`
`16
`
`Page 16 of 48
`
`
`
`IPR20 17-0067 6
`U.S. Patent 8,209,705
`I note parenthetically that the Staiger and the OSEK documents are
`
`34.
`
`listed as prior art on the face of the '705 Patent. I, however, do not comment on any
`
`implication from such citation. Millsap and Wong are not cited in the '705 Patent.
`
`35.
`
`I consider Grounds 1, 2, 3 and 4 below. In my analysis, I will not
`
`attempt to address each and every claim element, or why the element may not be
`
`found in the prior art cited by the Board. Instead, I will focus on what I consider to
`
`be the dispositive points, and, specifically, the claim elements that I do not believe
`
`can be found in the prior art, even if the prior art were to be combined as in the
`
`stated Ground.
`
`36.
`
`It is useful to generally point out that the distinction between the prior
`
`art and the claimed invention is not a mere matter of some obvious minor
`
`improvement being missing or, at least, undisclosed in the prior art. There is a huge
`
`gap between Petitioner's key reference, Staiger, and the claimed invention. The
`
`invention provided a layered system and method for automotive electronic control
`
`units (ECU s) by which data units or other information can be shared by multiple
`
`ECUs operating under different protocols and on different networks, by the
`
`architecture of standardized interfaces that share information produced by different
`
`protocols on different networks.
`
`37.
`
`Staiger does not disclose such an architecture. Rather, Staiger
`
`provides only communication between remote units over one or more data
`
`17
`
`Page 17 of 48
`
`
`
`· IPR20 17-0067 6
`U.S. Patent 8,209,705
`networks, where an ECU receives a message, processes the message and then
`
`presents the result of the message processing for forwarding to a destination unit.
`
`The word "sharing" or its derivatives is entirely missing from Staiger, because
`
`Staiger does not "share" information between different ECU s operating on different
`
`protocols. Staiger only distributes information, but does not convert the message to
`
`a format that can be recognized and used by different ECU s using different
`
`protocols. Thus, Staiger discloses a central message processing device which has a
`
`first unit to receive a message from a network and determine the kind of treatment
`
`to be performed with the received message, a second unit for performing the
`
`determined treatment, and a third unit for "presenting the result of the message
`
`processing to be forwarded to a destination unit." Staiger's central device acts
`
`merely to receive, process and distribute messages. Staiger does not disclose the
`
`heart of the claimed invention, which is to receive data or other information from
`
`one network, and then process that message so that it can be shared with a second
`
`network utilizing a second network protocol associated with the second network.
`
`Thus, for example, Staiger discloses the COI).cept that the central device can receive
`
`CAN messages via CAN-Cor CAN-B busses and physical layers, process and
`
`distribute them to a final destination. However, information received via a CAN-B
`
`bus, using a CAN-B protocol in Staiger cannot be made available to a destination
`
`via a CAN-C protocol. Claim 1 is directed specifically to providing a solution that
`
`18
`
`Page 18 of 48
`
`
`
`IPR20 17-0067 6
`U.S. Patent 8,209,705
`a message using a CAN-B protocol can be made available to a node regardless of
`
`the format or protocol of the devices.
`
`Ground 1
`
`Claim 1
`
`Element 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 ...
`
`28.
`
`Staiger does not disclose limitation 1.7.
`
`3 8.
`
`Indeed, Petitioner has not pointed to anything in Staiger that
`
`corresponds to the claim term. Petitioner's sole reference in attempting to show
`
`correspondence of Staiger to limitation 1.7 is that:
`
`Staiger discloses receiving messages from "one of the CPUs 207 and
`
`208" and broadcasting the 1nessage "to several CAN busses 202 to
`
`. 205 identically." Id., ~51.
`
`Petition at p. 35. Thus, Petitioner has quoted the limitation and asserted that <_[51 of
`
`Staiger discloses that limitation.
`
`39.
`
`The paragraph to which Petitioner cites, however, does not correspond
`
`to the limitation. Rather, Par. 51 of the Patent refers to multiplexing, and states:
`
`[0051] The switchboard 201 is a multiplexing scheme controlled
`
`either by one of the CPUs 207 and 208 or the intercommunication
`
`preprocessor 200. This allows the CPUs 207 and 208 to use the
`
`19
`
`Page 19 of 48
`
`
`
`IPR20 17-0067 6
`U.S. Patent 8,209,705
`functionality of the intercommunication preprocessor 200. For
`
`example, a message generated by one of the CPUs 207 and 208 has to
`
`be broadcasted to several CAN busses 202 to 205 identically. In this
`
`case, the message is multiplexed by the switchboard 201 to the
`
`intercommunication preprocessor 200, then, the intercommunication
`
`preprocessor 200 processes the message and initiates immediate
`
`distribution. This procedure significantly saves time, since the
`
`intercommunication preprocessor 200, specialized to operate this tasks
`
`{sic j, will require only a fraction of processing time in compmison to
`
`a master CPU formed by one of the CPUs 207 and 208. Furthermore,
`
`the master CPU only has to execute one single message operation, in
`
`case the message needs to be computed before forwarding, which
`
`saves processing time as well.
`
`40.
`
`The concept of "multiplexing" is well known in computing. In
`
`telecommunications and computer networks, multiplexing means that multiple
`
`signals are transmitted simultaneously over a single channel, or vice versa. See, for
`
`example, Microsoft Computer Dictionary, 3d Edition (1997), Exhibit 2004; see also
`
`Webster's New World Computer dictionary, lOth Edition (2003), Exhibit 2005.
`
`41.
`
`The description in Staiger Par. 51 is a type of multiplexing - where
`
`the switchboard (201) is a multiplexer for selecting multiple outputs from a single
`
`input.
`
`42.
`
`Staiger Par. 51 does not relate to limitation 1.7. It will be recalled that
`
`the Claim starts with "receipt of information associated with a message, utilizing a
`
`20
`
`Page 20 of 48
`
`
`
`IPR20 17-0067 6
`U.S. Patent 8,209,705
`first network protocol associated with a first network" (limitation 1.1 ). Only after
`
`that, the method requires "causing storage of the information utilizing the storage
`
`resource" (limitation 1.5). It is then that the method further requires that "the
`
`information" be shared by ''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" (limitation 1. 7). Petitioner has not pointed to anything in
`
`Staiger that discloses a method where first information stored in a first format in the
`
`storage resource is shared by a message protocol that is different than the first
`
`protocol.
`
`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 first interface-r'idated first layer messages being processed after
`
`which first interface-related second layer messages are provided ... ;
`
`43.
`
`Staiger does not meet limitation 1.9.
`
`44.
`
`Petitioner's argument is based on the annotated version of Staiger
`
`Figure 2:
`
`21
`
`Page 21 of 48
`
`
`
`IPR20 17-0067 6
`U.S. Patent 8,209,705
`
`246
`
`230
`
`Second
`201
`Layer Part ~~~-+-1----+-1--++-----+-+----.
`
`First
`Interface . /
`2J2
`Portion
`/
`
`First layer
`Part
`
`/
`
`First Network
`
`210
`
`2ll
`
`FIG. 2
`
`45.
`
`Petitioner then argues that Staiger's CAN bus adapters 214-217
`
`constitute a "first interface portion for interfacing with the first network." Pet. at
`
`36. It is correct that CAN bus adapters 214-217 can be considered "a first interface
`
`portion for interfacing with the first network, the first interface portion including a
`
`first interface-related first layer part for receiving flrst interface-related first layer
`
`messages."
`
`46.
`
`However, limitation 1.9 also still requires "a first interface-related
`
`second layer part, the first interface-related first layer messages being processed
`
`22
`
`Page 22 of 48
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00676
`U.S. Patent 8,209,705
`after which first interface-related second layer messages are provided." Petitioners
`
`then argue that this limitation is met, because
`
`[b]us adapters 214-217 also interface to multiplexer 222, which forms
`
`pmi of switchboard 201 (i.e., "first interface-related second layer
`
`part"). Id., Cj[Cj[38, 50. Switchboard 201, including multiplexer 222,
`
`provides connections to control engine 224 of the IPP for the
`
`messages. Id., Cj[39. That is, the bus messages from the physical layer
`
`network (i.e., "first interface-related first layer messages") are
`
`received and sent through multiplexer 222 to control engine 224 of the
`
`IPP (i.e., "processed after which first interface-related second layer
`
`messages are provided"). Id., ~38; Ex. 1003, ~114.
`
`Pet. at 37.
`
`4 7.
`
`Accepting Petitioner's argument, Petitioner still has not pointed to
`
`anything that shows a "second layer part," where the first layer messages are
`
`"processed" to provide "second layer messages." Staiger does process information,
`
`but it is only to convey the information by way of the multiplexer. Staiger does not
`
`process the information to provide "second layer messages."
`
`48. Moreover, the "second layer messages are, of course, the messages
`
`that have to comport with limitation 1.7- i.e., messages providing "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
`
`23
`
`Page 23 of 48
`
`
`
`IPR20 17-0067 6
`U
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
