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 17-00677
`
`U.S. Patent 8,566,843
`
`DECLARATION OF JEFFREY A. MILLER
`
`Page 1 of 51
`
`BMW EXHIBIT 1024
`BMW v. STRAGENT
`IPR2017-01521
`
`

`

`IPR20 17-00677
`U.S. Patent 8,566,843
`I am an adult individual and make this Declaration based on personal
`
`1.
`
`knowledge.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained by Stragent LLC ("Patent Owner") to provide
`
`analysis regarding U.S. Pat. No. 8,566,843 (the "'843 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 51
`
`

`

`IPR20 17-00677
`U.S. Patent 8,566,843
`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 fall2009, the IEEE 15th Intelligent Transportation Systems
`
`Conference in fall2012, and the IEEE 77th Vehicular Technology Conference in
`
`fall2013. 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 s·ociety
`
`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 51
`
`

`

`IPR20 17-00677
`U.S. Patent 8,566,843
`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 51
`
`

`

`IPR20 17-00677
`U.S. Patent 8,566,843
`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 51
`
`

`

`IPR20 17-00677
`U.S. Patent 8,566,843
`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. § 103(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 '843 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 '843 Patent
`
`13.
`
`The '843 Patent is entitled "System, Method and Computer Program
`
`Product for Sharing Information in a Distributed Framework." The '843 Patent was
`
`filed on June 22, 2012, issued on October 22, 2013, and has not yet expired.
`
`6
`
`Page 6 of 51
`
`

`

`IPR20 17-00677
`U.S. Patent 8,566,843
`The Petitioner argues that claims 51-59 of the '843 Patent are
`
`14.
`
`anticipated on one ground, or invalid for obviousness on three other grounds. At
`
`least for the reasons discussed below, claims 51-59 of the '843 Patent are not
`
`anticipated or invalid for obviousness on any ground.
`
`15.
`
`Petitioner had presented a claim numbering key for the elements of
`
`Claims 51-59 of the '843 Patent. I will follow Petitioner's listing of the elements,
`
`which are as follows:
`
`51.0
`51.1
`51.2
`
`51.3
`
`51.4
`
`51.5
`
`51.6
`
`51.7
`
`51.8
`
`51.9
`
`An apparatus, comprising:
`a control unit configured for:
`identifying information associated with a message received utilizing a
`first network protocol associated with a first network;
`issuing a storage resource request in connection with a storage resource
`.. , and determining whether the storage resource is available;
`determining whether a threshold has been reached in association with the
`storage resource request;
`in the event the storage resource is not 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;
`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
`in the event the storage resource is available, storing the information
`utilizing the storage resource;
`wherein the apparatus is operable such that the information is capable of
`being shared in real-time utilizing a second network protocol associated
`with a second network, and the control unit includes:
`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,
`
`7
`
`Page 7 of 51
`
`

`

`IPR20 17-00677
`U.S. Patent 8,566,843
`
`the control unit being operable such that the first data units are processed
`after which processed first data units are provided,
`
`51.10
`
`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
`and a second interface 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.
`The apparatus as set forth in claim 51, wherein the apparatus is operable
`such that the processed first data units and the second data units have a
`same format.
`The apparatus as set forth in claim 51, wherein the apparatus is operable
`such that the processed first data units and the second data units are the
`same data units.
`The apparatus as set forth in claim 51, wherein the apparatus is operable
`such that the processing involves headers.
`The apparatus as set forth in claim 51, wherein the apparatus is operable
`such that the first network and the second network are heterogeneous
`networks.
`The apparatus as set forth in claim 51, wherein the apparatus is operable
`such that the second network protocol is different than the first network
`protocol.
`The apparatus as set forth in claim 51, wherein the apparatus is operable
`such that the second network protocol is different than the first network
`protocol such that rates thereof are different.
`The apparatus as set forth in claim 51, wherein the apparatus 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
`
`8
`
`52.0
`
`53.0
`
`54.0
`
`55.0
`
`56.0
`
`57.0
`
`58.0
`
`Page 8 of 51
`
`

`

`59.0
`
`IPR20 17 ~00677
`U.S. Patent 8,566,843
`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.
`The apparatus as set forth in claim 51, wherein the apparatus is operable
`such that the information is originally received in a first message format
`corresponding to the first network protocol and processed to create, in
`real-time, messages in at least two other message formats including a
`second message format corresponding to the second network protocol
`and a third message format corresponding to a third network protocol,
`where the first network protocol is different than either of the second and
`third network protocols.
`
`Constructions of Claim Terms
`
`16.
`
`I have been advised that certain of the above claim terms have already
`
`been construed by the Patent Trial And Appeal Board, and that I should accept the
`
`constn1ctions. Additionally, Patent Owner's counsel has asked me to construe the
`
`term "shared in real-time utilizing a second network protocol associated with a
`
`second network." The "ordered" construction and the requested construction are set
`
`forth below.
`
`9
`
`Page 9 of 51
`
`

`

`IPR20 17-00677
`U.S. Patent 8,566,843
`
`"
`l ,.,.,.
`A "R
`.
`ea -1zme
`
`17.
`
`I understand that "real-time" has already been defined 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 '843
`
`Patent.
`
`B. "threshold"
`
`18.
`
`I understand that "threshold" has already been defined as "value
`
`above which something is true or will take place and below which it is not or will
`
`not." I agree that this is the definition provided by the '843 Patent.
`
`C. "heterogeneous networks"
`
`19.
`
`I understand that "heterogeneous networks" has already been defined
`
`as "networks having at least one aspect that is different." I agree that this is the
`
`definition provided by the '843 Patent.
`
`D. "shared in real-time utilizing a second network protocol
`associated with a second network"
`
`20.
`
`The term "shared in real-time utilizing a second network protocol
`
`associated with a second network" has three aspects to it. First, the term "share"
`
`should generally be given its ordinary meaning. The typical dictionary meaning of
`
`"shared" is "to partake of, use, experience, occupy, or enjoy with others; to have in
`
`common." See Merriam-Webster Dictionary, lOth Edition (2002), Ex. 2003. In the
`
`context of the claims of the '843 Patent, the term has three aspects that are
`
`10
`
`Page 10 of 51
`
`

`

`IPR20 17-00677
`U.S. Patent 8,566,843
`pertinent. First, the plain language of claim 51 requires that the apparatus must be
`
`configured for processed first data units 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 the second network.
`
`Second, the apparatus must be configured so that the first data units 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. Therefore, the term "shared in real-
`
`time utilizing a second network protocol associated with a second network" 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."
`
`21.
`
`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" ('843 Patent Col. 1 11. 30-33).
`
`b. "ECUs (102) typically share information with devices that are
`
`connected on the same physical multiplexing system. This method of
`
`11
`
`Page 11 of 51
`
`

`

`IPR20 17-00677
`U.S. Patent 8,566,843
`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" ('843 Patent Col. 3
`
`11. 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" (' 843 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"
`
`('843 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
`
`12
`
`Page 12 of 51
`
`

`

`IPR20 17-00677
`U.S. Patent 8,566,843
`(local information sharing), from event-triggered communications
`
`with applications in other modules, and from time-triggered
`
`communications with applications in other tnodules" ('843 Patent Col.
`
`10 line 67- Col11line 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 to only adjacent nodes and the next gateway, this still
`
`allows cross-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" (' 843 Patent Col. 11,
`
`11. 20-58).
`
`The Prior Art Does Not Disclose The
`'843 Patent Claimed Inventions
`
`22.
`
`The references cited by Petitioner in support of its obviousness
`
`13
`
`Page 13 of 51
`
`

`

`contentions are as follows:
`
`IPR20 17-00677
`U.S. Patent 8,566,843
`
`a. Exhibit 1004- U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0073243
`
`to Staiger ("Staiger").
`
`b. Exhibit 1007- OSEKIVDX 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 1015 -U.S. Patent No. 6,484,082 to Millsap ("Millsap").
`
`23.
`
`I understand that the Patent Trial And Appeal Board has identified the
`
`first issue as whether claims 51-59 are unpatentable for obviousness over Staiger
`
`and Millsap ("Ground 1 ").
`
`24.
`
`I also understand that the Patent Trial And Appeal Board has
`
`identified the issue as to whether claims 51-59 are unpatentable for obviousness
`
`over OSEK Binding, OSEK COM, OSEK FTCom, and OSEK NM("Ground 2").
`
`14
`
`Page 14 of 51
`
`

`

`IPR20 17-00677
`U.S. Patent 8,566,843
`I also understand that the Patent Trial And Appeal Board has
`
`25.
`
`identified the issue as to whether claims 51-59 are unpatentable for obviousness
`
`over OSEK Binding, OSEK COM, OSEK FTCom, OSEK NM, and Millsap
`
`("Ground 3 ").
`
`26.
`
`I note parenthetically that the Staiger and the OSEK documents are
`
`listed as prior art on the face of the '843 Patent. I, however, do not comment on any
`
`implication from such citation. Millsap is not cited in the '843 Patent.
`
`27.
`
`I consider Grounds 1, 2 and 3 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 point, and, specifically, the claim element 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.
`
`28.
`
`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
`
`ECU s operating under different protocols and on different networks, by the
`
`15
`
`Page 15 of 51
`
`

`

`IPR20 17-00677
`U.S. Patent 8,.566,843
`architecture of standardized interfaces that share information produced by different
`
`protocols on different networks.
`
`29.
`
`Staiger does not disclose such an architecture. Rather, Staiger
`
`provides only communication between remote units over one or more data
`
`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 concept that the central device can receive
`
`16
`
`Page 16 of 51
`
`

`

`IPR20 17-00677
`U.S. Patent 8,566,843
`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 51 is directed specifically to providing a solution that
`
`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
`
`30.
`
`Claims 51-59 are not unpatentable over the combination of Staiger
`
`and Millsap ("Ground 1 ").
`
`31.
`
`Petitioner relies on Staiger as the primary reference, and then relies on
`
`Millsap to disclose automobile gateway ECU s connected to multiple networks for
`
`allegedly passing messages to disparate networks.
`
`32.
`
`As demonstrated below, the combination of Staiger and Millsap does
`
`not disclose all the limitations of Claim 51 and its dependent claims.
`
`Claim 51
`
`Element 51.8: wherein the apparatus is operable such that the information
`
`is capable of being shared in real-time utilizing a second network protocol
`
`associated with a second network ...
`
`Petitioner alleges that limitation 51.8 is disclosed by Staiger. Petition at pp.
`
`34-35. In fact, Staiger does not disclose limitation 51.8.
`
`17
`
`Page 17 of 51
`
`

`

`IPR20 17-00677
`U.S. Patent 8,566,843
`Petitioner has not pointed to anything in Staiger that corresponds to
`
`33.
`
`the claim term. Petitioner first annotates Staiger Figure 1, as follows:
`
`I ill
`'---{~]q~q
`
`I
`
`UQ
`
`ill
`
`I
`
`j
`
`~ t--i Message is
`
`output and
`shared
`
`l
`
`1.08
`
`101
`
`FIG. 1
`
`Petitioner then argues that:
`
`Staiger shares messages with a plurality of different destinations (e.g.,
`CAN busses, Fire Wire busses, MOST busses, CPUs), and teaches that
`each message may be transmitted to more than one destination. Jd.,
`1135, 36. Moreover, Staiger's "PP execution unit 230 will finalize the
`message and push the 'resulting' message into an output pipeline ...
`[where a] bus adapter ... will clear the corresponding output pipe."
`ld., ,-r48. FIG. 1 (annotated below) shows the "presentation process,"
`which is performed on a PP execution unit 110, outputting message
`112.
`
`Staiger also discloses receiving 1nessages from "one of the CPU s 207
`and 208" and broadcasting the message "to several CAN busses 202
`to 205 identically." Jd., 151. CPUs 207 and 208 are connected to bus
`systems such as Fire Wire or MOST (i.e., a "first network protocol"),
`which are different than CAN busses 202-205 (i.e., a "second network
`protocol"). Jd., 136.
`
`Petition at pp. 34-35.
`
`34.
`
`Staiger was summarized above. Staiger's Figure 1 and specification
`
`paragraphs 35, 36,48 and 51, to which Petitioner cites, do not correspond to
`
`18
`
`Page 18 of 51
`
`

`

`IPR20 17-00677
`U.S. Patent 8,566,843
`limitation 51.8. The plain language of limitation 51.8 requires that "the
`
`information" be shared. The words "the information" clearly refer to the
`
`"information associated with a message received utilizing a first network protocol
`
`associated with a first network," referenced in limitation 51.2. Thus, limitation 51.8
`
`requires that the information associated with a first network protocol associated
`
`with a first network be shared "utilizing a second network protocol associated with
`
`a second network." Staiger does not disclose, and does not enable the skilled
`
`artisan to execute, this element.
`
`35.
`
`Rather, Staiger's Cj[35 merely identifies a "presentation process," after
`
`which the execution unit outputs a processed message. Staiger, however, does not
`
`disclose that the message is processed so that the information can be shared with a
`
`second network utilizing a second network protocol associated with the second
`
`network.
`
`36.
`
`Staiger's Cj[36 discloses that the central unit is designed to connect
`
`multiple CAN busses and additional bus systems. Again, Staiger merely discloses
`
`that messages from the various busses are received, processed and distributed, but
`
`does not disclose that the message are processed so that the information can be
`
`shared with a second network utilizing a second network protocol associated with
`
`the second network.
`
`19
`
`Page 19 of 51
`
`

`

`IPR20 17-00677
`U.S. Patent 8,566,843
`Staiger's ~48 discloses that the central unit will fmalize the message
`
`37.
`
`and push the resulting message into an output pipeline, during which the messages
`
`can be prioritized. Again, this disclosure shows merely that messages are processed
`
`and distributed using the same protocol by which the messages were received. This
`
`paragraph of Staiger does not disclose that the message is processed so that the
`
`information can be shared with a second network utilizing a second network
`
`protocol associated with the second network.
`
`3 8.
`
`Par. 51 of the Patent refers to multiplexing, and states:
`
`[0051] The switchboard 201 is a multiplexing scheme controlled
`either by one of the CPU s 207 and 208 or the intercommunication
`preprocessor 200. This allows the CPUs 207 and 208 to use the
`functionality of the intercommunication preprocessor 200. For
`example, a message generated by one of the CPU s 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}, will require only a fraction of processing time in comparison 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.
`
`39.
`
`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
`
`20
`
`Page 20 of 51
`
`

`

`IPR20 17-00677
`U.S. Patent 8,566,843
`example, Microsoft Computer Dictionary, 3d Edition (1997), Exhibit 2004; see also
`
`Webster's New World Computer Dictionary, lOth Edition (2003), Exhibit 2005.
`
`40.
`
`The description in Staiger ']{51 is a type of multiplexing- where the
`
`switchboard (201) is a multiplexer for selecting multiple outputs from a single
`
`input. Nothing in Staiger ']{51 relates to limitation 51.8. Again, Staiger does not
`
`disclose in this paragraph that the message is processed so that the information can
`
`be shared with a second network utilizing a second network protocol associated
`
`with the second network.
`
`Claims 52-55
`
`41.
`
`Claims 52-55 are dependent from claim 51, and require in addition of
`
`various other elements. Petitioner has not demonstrated that Staiger meets each
`
`limitation of claim 51, and, thus, claims 52-55 are not rendered unpatentable.
`
`Claim 56
`
`42.
`
`Claim 56 is dependent on claim 51, and further requires that ''the
`
`apparatus is operable such that the second network protocol is different than the
`
`first network protocol." Limitations 51.2 and 51.8 had already required that "the
`
`apparatus is operable such that the information [associated with a message received
`
`utilizing a first network protocol associated with a first network] is capable of being
`
`shared in real-time utilizing a second network protocol associated with a second
`
`network." Therefore, claim 56 requires that in substance that "the apparatus is
`
`21
`
`Page 21 of 51
`
`

`

`IPR20 17-00677
`U.S. Patent 8,566,843
`operable such that the information associated with a message received utilizing a
`
`first network protocol associated with a first network is capable of being shared in
`
`real-time utilizing a second network protocol associated with a second network,
`
`where the second network protocol is different than the first network protocol."
`
`43.
`
`Petitioner's sole discussion as to claim 56 is that:
`
`Staiger teaches that "the second network protocol is different than the
`first network protocol." See disclosures for claim limitations 51.10
`and 55, above (sections VII.A.1.k and VII.A.2.d).
`
`Petition at p. 46.
`
`44.
`
`The prior discussions cited by Petitioner, however, fail to address
`
`claim 56, and, particularly, fail to demonstrate how or where Staiger teaches the
`
`concept of information utilizing a first network protocol being shared utilizing a
`
`second network protocol, where the second network protocol is different than the
`
`first network protocol.
`
`45.
`
`Thus, with respect to claim limitation 51.10, Petitioner argued that
`
`Staiger and/or Millsap teach a central unit connected to busses having different
`
`network protocols. Petition at pp. 42-44. Petitioner concluded at the end of its
`
`discussion as to limitation 51.10 that "the combination of Staiger and Millsap
`
`discloses a first and second network interface, where each interface is made up of
`
`first and second components. Furthermore, as explained, each network may be a
`
`CAN." Petition atp. 44. Even if Petitioner's conclusion is correct an¢! that analysis
`
`22
`
`Page 22 of 51
`
`

`

`IPR20 17-00677
`U.S. Patent 8,566,843
`is applied to dependent claim 56, there is still nothing in Staiger or in Petitioner's
`
`discussion that even addresses, much less demonstrates, that either Staiger or
`
`Millsap the concept of information utilizing a first network protocol being shared
`
`utilizing a second network protocol, where the second network protocol is different
`
`than the first n