throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 15
`Entered: April 20, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC., MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC.,
`VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC
`CORPORATION, MITSUBISHI MOTORS CORPORATION, DAIMLER
`AG, and BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BLITZSAFE TEXAS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00090
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, and
`MIRIAM L. QUINN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`QUINN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00090
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Petitioner, as captioned above, filed a Petition requesting an inter
`partes review of claims 49–57, 62–64, 66, 68, 70, 71, 73–80, 94, 95, 97, 99–
`103, 106, 109–111, 113, 115, and 120 (“the challenged claims”) of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,342 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’342 patent”). Paper 1
`(“Pet.”). Patent Owner filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 14 (“Prelim.
`Resp.”).
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 314, inter partes review may not be instituted
`unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and any
`response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner
`would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the
`petition.” Having considered the Petition and the Preliminary Response, and
`for the reasons stated below, we do not institute inter partes review of any
`challenged claims of the ’342 patent.
`
`Related Matters
`A.
`Petitioner asserts that the’342 patent is the subject matter of district
`court ligitation pending in the Eastern District of Texas: Blitzsafe Texas,
`LLC v. Bayerische Motoren Werke AG et al., 2:17-cv-00418, E.D. Tex., May
`11, 2017; Blitzsafe Texas, LLC v. Tata Motors Ltd. et al., 2:17-cv-00424,
`E.D. Tex., May 12, 2017; Blitzsafe Texas LLC v. Mitsubishi Electric
`Corporation et al., 2:17-cv- 00430, E.D. Tex., May 15, 2017; Blitzsafe
`Texas, LLC v. Mazda Motor Corporation et al., 2:17-cv-00423, E.D. Tex.,
`May 12, 2017; Blitzsafe Texas, LLC v. Daimler AG et al., 2:17-cv-00422,
`E.D. Tex., May 12, 2017; Blitzsafe Texas, LLC v. Subaru Corporation et al.,
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00090
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`2:17-cv-00421, E.D. Tex., May 12, 2017; Blitzsafe Texas, LLC v. Zhejiang
`Geely Holding Group Co., Ltd. et al., 2:17-cv-00420 , E.D. Tex., May 12,
`2017; Blitzsafe Texas, LLC v. Robert Bosch LLC et al., 2:17-cv-00105, E.D.
`Tex., February 3, 2017. Pet. 2−3.
`According to Petitioner, the ’342 patent has been involved in multiple
`AIA proceedings: IPR2016-00118 (not instituted); IPR2016-00418 joined
`with IPR2016-01533, IPR2016-01557, IPR2016-01560 (settled and
`terminated after oral hearing and before final written decision). IPR2016-
`00419 (not instituted), IPR2016-01445 (settled and terminated prior to
`institution decision), IPR2016-01449 (settled and terminated prior to
`institution decision), IPR2016-01473 (not instituted), IPR2016-01476 (not
`instituted). Pet. 4.
`
`The ’342 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`B.
`The ’342 patent is entitled “Multimedia Device Integration System.”
`Ex. 1001, [54]. The ’342 patent describes that a “particular problem with
`integrating after-market audio and video systems with existing car stereo and
`video systems is that signals generated by both systems are in proprietary
`formats, and are not capable of being processed by the after-market system.”
`Id. at 1:54−58. “Thus, in order to integrate after-market systems with
`existing car stereo and video systems, it is necessary to convert signals
`between such systems.” Id. at 1:60−63.
`Certain embodiments of the ’342 patent provide a multimedia device
`integration system that allows “for the wireless integration of a portable
`audio and/or video device with a car audio and/or video system.” Id. at
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00090
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`5:7−10. “The portable device could comprise a CD changer, CD player,
`satellite receiver (e.g., XM or Sirius), digital media device (e.g., MP3, MP4,
`WMV, or Apple iPod device), video device (e.g., DVD player), or a cellular
`telephone.” Id. at 5:9−13. In particular, an integration module, which could
`be positioned within the car system, receives data from the portable device
`(including track information, song information, artist information, time
`information, and other related information) and processes the data into a
`format compatible with the car system. Id. at 5:23−30. One embodiment
`illustrated in Figure 19, reproduced below, for example, shows an
`integration subsystem. Id. at 8:3−8.
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00090
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`
`As shown in Figure 19, integration subsystem 1032 positioned within
`car audio/video system 1010 allows information (data and control signals) to
`be exchanged between portable device 1024 and car audio/video
`system 1010, and processes and formats data accordingly so that instructions
`and data from car audio/video system 1010 are processed by portable device
`1024, and vice versa. See id. at 33:43–35:62, Fig. 19. Wireless interface
`1016 in the car system and wireless interface 1026 in the portable device
`form wireless link 1022. Id. at 34:15–18; see id. at 35:21–23.
`
`Illustrative Claim
`C.
`Of the challenged claims, claims 49, 73, 97, and 120 are independent.
`Claim 49, reproduced below, is illustrative, where italicized text denotes
`limitations discussed further below.
`49. A multimedia device integration system, comprising:
`an integration subsystem in communication with a car
`audio/video system; and
`a first wireless interface in communication with said
`integration subsystem, said first wireless interface establishing a
`wireless communication link with a second wireless interface in
`communication with a portable device external to the car
`audio/video system,
`wherein said integration subsystem obtains, using said
`wireless communication link, information about an audio file
`stored on the portable device, transmits the information to the car
`audio/video system for subsequent display of the information on
`a display of the car audio/video system, instructs the portable
`device to play the audio file in response to a user selecting the
`audio file using controls of the car audio/video system, and
`receives audio generated by the portable device over said
`wireless communication link for playing on the car audio/video
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00090
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`
`system.
`Ex. 1001, 42:29–47 (emphasis added).
`
`Asserted Prior Art and Grounds of Unpatentability
`D.
`The Petition identifies the following references in connection with
`Petitioner’s challenge of unpatentability (Pet. 6−7):
`1) Clayton: U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2006/0181963 A1, filed on
`December 8, 2005, published on August 17, 2006, and introduced in
`the record as Exhibit 1002;
`2) Clayton Provisional: U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/651,963,
`filed on February 11, 2005 and introduced in the record as Exhibit
`1003;
`3) Berry: U.S. Patent No. 6,559,773 B1, published on May 6, 2003, and
`introduced in the record as Exhibit 1004;
`4) Marlowe: U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2003/0215102 A1, filed on
`December 11, 2002, published on November 20, 2003, and introduced
`in the record as Exhibit 1005; and
`5) Gioscia: U.S. Patent No. 6,421,305 B1, filed on November 13, 1998,
`and introduced in the record as Exhibit 1006.
`Petitioner asserts three grounds of unpatentability (Pet. 8):
`
`Challenged Claim(s)
`49−55, 57, 62−64, 71, 73-80, 95,
`97, 99−103, 109−111, and 120
`49−57, 62−64, 66, 70, 71, 73−80,
`94, 95, 97, 99−103, 106, 109−111,
`113, and 120
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`§ 103(a) Clayton and Berry
`
`§ 103(a) Clayton, Berry, and
`Marlowe
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00090
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`
`Challenged Claim(s)
`
`68 and 115
`
`References
`Basis
`§ 103(a) Clayton, Berry,
`Marlowe, and Gioscia
`
`With regard to introduced testimony, Petitioner relies on the
`Declaration of Dr. Thomas Matheson. Ex. 1016 (“Matheson Declaration”).
`And Patent Owner relies on the Declaration of Richard Stern, Ph.D. Exhibit
`2001.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Petitioner’s Burden
`“In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the
`onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is
`unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed.
`Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review
`petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the
`grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden of persuasion never
`shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics,
`Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the burden of proof in
`inter partes review). Furthermore, Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of
`proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements.” In re
`Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`B. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00090
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). We presume a claim
`term carries its plain meaning, which is the meaning customarily used by
`those of skill in the relevant art at the time of the invention. Trivascular,
`Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1062 (Fed. Cir. 2016). We note that only
`those claim terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to
`the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v.
`Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir.
`1999).
`Petitioner states that the Board has construed previously several claim
`terms: (1) “integration subsystem,” (2) “multimedia device integration
`system,” (3) “car audio/video system,” (4) “device presence signal,”
`(5) “generated . . . for playing on the car audio/video system.” Pet. 11–12.
`Except for indicating the previous inter partes review from which the
`constructions are derived, Petitioner does not proffer any further discussion
`as to the proper scope of these terms. Id.
`Patent Owner argues that the Petition proffers inconsistent claim
`construction positions. Prelim. Resp. 14−16. Further, Patent Owner argues
`that the proposed constructions are not supported by explanation or
`reasoning supported by the record. Id. at 14. Most notably, Patent Owner
`argues that in another inter partes review, the Board “has found that the
`claims require at least some decoding to be done on the portable device.” Id.
`at 25 (citing Toyota Motor Corp. v. Blitzsafe Texas, LLC, Case IPR2016-
`00419, Decision Denying Request for Rehearing, slip op. at 5 (PTAB Aug.
`31, 2016) (Paper 15)). Because it is relevant to our determination, we
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00090
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`analyze the term “audio generated by the portable device . . . for [playing or
`subsequently playing of the audio] on the car audio/video system,” as recited
`in claims 49, 73, 97, and 120.
`Independent claims 49 and 73 of the ’342 patent recite that the
`“integration subsystem” “instructs the portable device to play the audio file”
`and “receives audio generated by the portable device over said wireless
`communication link for playing on the car audio/video system.” Ex. 1001,
`42:37–47, 44:21−23 (emphasis added). Claim 97 recites that the
`“integration subsystem channels audio generated by the portable device to
`the car audio/video system using the wireless communication link for
`subsequent playing of the audio on the car audio/video system, the audio
`corresponding to an audio file played by the portable device.” Id. at
`45:52−56 (emphases added). Similarly, independent claim 120 recites that
`the “integration subsystem instructs the portable device to play an audio file”
`and “channels audio generated by the portable device to the car audio/video
`system using the wireless communication link for subsequent playing of the
`audio on the car audio/video system, the audio corresponding to the audio
`file played by the portable device.” Id. at 47:3–12 (emphases added). Thus,
`each claim requires that “audio generated by the portable device” be
`transmitted over a wireless communication link for playing on the car
`audio/video system. Each claim expressly distinguishes the recited “audio
`file” played by the portable device from the recited “audio” that is generated
`by the portable device and transmitted over the wireless communication link
`for playing on the car audio/video system. Stated more generally, the recited
`“audio” is distinct from the recited “audio file.”
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00090
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`
`The Specification of the ’342 patent describes this claim feature,
`stating that “the audio channels of the MP3 player are connected (channeled)
`to the car stereo system, allowing audio from the MP3 player to be played
`through the car stereo.” Ex. 1001, 17:55−57; Fig. 4B (step 142, “connect
`Audio Channels of MP3 Player to Radio”). With respect to how the
`’342 patent describes “channeling,” we find relevant the description of the
`circuit configuration for integrating an after-market device to the car stereo,
`illustrated in Figure 3a, where “audio signals provided” at particular ports of
`the after-market device, such as a CD changer, are “selectively channeled to
`the car radio” at another particular port. See id. at 13:20−24 (discussing
`Figure 3a); see also 14:21−26 (discussing Figure 3b). This description is
`consistent throughout the Specification, where channeling of the audio,
`regardless of whether the source is an MP3 player, CD changer, or satellite
`receiver, involves at most multiplexing analog channels, and at a minimum,
`directly passing through the audio to the appropriate port of the car stereo.
`See Figs. 3a−3d; 4A−4C; see also 15:16−29 (describing analog multiplexers
`coupled to the provided ports of Figure 3c), 16:1−5 (describing channeling
`audio signals from satellite receiver to the car radio).
`Thus, in addition to the claimed difference between an “audio file”
`and “audio,” the Specification supports the interpretation of the claimed
`“integration subsystem” as receiving audio that is already in a form that the
`car stereo can play. That is, regardless of the form or content, the “audio”
`generated by the portable device and received by the integration subsystem
`must be the “audio” that is played by the car stereo.
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00090
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner points out that the claim is not met when “decoding”
`occurs at the integration subsystem. Prelim. Resp. 24 (arguing that Clayton
`does not meet the claims because the audio file is decoded by the wireless
`interface of the car audio/video system into a format understood by the car
`audio/video system for output through the car speakers). We must be careful
`here of evaluating the scope of the claims vis-à-vis “decoding” generally,
`outside the context of the claim language, because the claims neither
`encompass nor exclude signal processing of any particular type, either at the
`portable device or at the integration subsystem. For instance, the claims do
`not address how the “audio” is generated from the “audio file” at the
`portable device. Nor do the claims specify a particular manner of processing
`and handling the audio by the integration subsystem.1 Finally, whether the
`portable device requires “decoding” of the “audio file” in order to “play” the
`“audio file,” is a fact issue that depends on the technology involved in the
`portable device, not on any express claim requirement. Nevertheless, it
`suffices, for purposes of this Decision, to resolve the scope of the claim in
`the sense that if the integration subsystem either receives an “audio file” or
`must decode what it receives in order to render “audio” for playing at the car
`audio/video system, then there is no “audio generated by the portable
`device” and “for [subsequent] playing [of the audio] at the car audio/video
`system,” under the plain meaning of the claims.
`
`
`1 We note that the Specification defines “integration” as including
`“processing and handling signals, audio, and/or video information.” Ex.
`1001, 8:67−9:1.
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00090
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`
`C. Legal Standard for 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`Obviousness is determined on the basis of underlying factual
`inquiries, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) differences
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary
`skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, secondary considerations of
`nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). A
`patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences
`between the claimed subject matter 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.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007).
`However, a conclusion of obviousness “cannot be sustained with mere
`conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
`with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
`obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Further, in
`determining obviousness, the references must be considered as a whole.
`Thus, picking and choosing from a reference only the favorable parts and
`ignoring the rest is prohibited. In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1041 (Fed. Cir.
`1986). The court in Hedges elaborates:
`It is impermissible within the framework of section 103 to pick
`and choose from any one reference only so much of it as will
`support a given position, to the exclusion of other parts necessary
`to the full appreciation of what such reference fairly suggests to
`one of ordinary skill in the art.
`Id. (internal quotes and citation omitted).
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00090
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`
`For this Decision, we determine that no express finding on the level of
`ordinary skill in the art is necessary, and that the level of ordinary skill in the
`art is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau,
`261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579
`(Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).
`
`D. Alleged Obviousness of Claims 49–55, 57, 62–64, 71, 73–80, 95, 97,
`99–103, 109–111, and 120 based on Clayton and Berry
`Petitioner contends that claims 49–55, 57, 62–64, 71, 73–80, 95, 97,
`99–103, 109–111, and 120 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
`obvious over the combination of Clayton and Berry. Pet. 24–50.
`At the outset, we note the ’342 patent (Ex. 1001) was filed on June 27,
`2006.2 Petitioner alleges that the challenged claims of the ‘342 patent are
`not entitled to a priority date earlier than its filing date of June 27, 2006.
`Pet. 13. Thus, Petitioner asserts Clayton (Ex. 1002), which was filed on
`December 8, 2005 (published on August 17, 2006), as prior art under pre-
`AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Pet. 6−7. Petitioner, however, relies also on the
`Clayton Provisional “to establish that Clayton as applied herein is entitled to
`an earliest effective filing date of February 11, 2005” because Clayton
`claims priority to the Clayton Provisional. Id. at 7. Petitioner’s assertion of
`
`
`2 The ’342 patent issued from application 11/475,847, which is a
`continuation-in-part (CIP) of application 11/071,667 (Ex. 1009), filed March
`3, 2005 (abandoned); which was a CIP of application 10/732,909 (Ex. 1010)
`filed December 10, 2003 (abandoned); which was a CIP of application
`10/316,961 (Ex. 1011) filed December 11, 2002, now U.S. Patent 7,489,786.
`See Ex. 1001.
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00090
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`Clayton’s priority with the Clayton Provisional is insufficient. Petitioner has
`the burden of establishing that the asserted reference is prior art as of any
`particular priority date. See Dynamic Drinkware LLC v. Nat’l Graphics,
`Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (finding insufficient for Petitioner
`to map the challenged claims to the the disclosure of the provisional
`application because “[a] reference patent is only entitled to claim the benefit
`of the filing date of its provisional application if the disclosure of the
`provisional application provides support for the claims in the reference
`patent in compliance with § 112, ¶ 1”) (citing In re Wertheim, 646 F.2d 527,
`537 (CCPA 1981) (emphasis added). The Petition does not include the
`required mapping of a claim in Clayton with supporting disclosure in the
`Clayton Provisional. Accordingly, we do not rely on Petitioner’s assertion
`of priority for Clayton. Clayton is prior art based on its actual filing date of
`Decfember 8, 2005.
`
`(1) Clayton (Exhibit 1002)
`Clayton is entitled “Wireless Adaptor for Content Transfer.”
`Ex. 1002, [54]. It describes “embodiments that wirelessly provide content
`from a content source to a content player.” Id. Abstract. Clayton discloses
`“a wireless adaptor that includes a wireless interface operable to receive the
`content from the content source and a wired interface for a wired connection
`with the content player to route the content, as received by the wireless
`interface, for playback by the content player.” Id.
`Clayton’s Figure 3 is reproduced below.
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00090
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 3 of Clayton, portable device 142, such as a
`cellular telephone, sends content to a content player such as the car audio
`system 143. Id. ¶ 52. Wireless adaptor 173 may be used to enable
`communications between the cellular telephone 142 and car audio system
`143 for receiving content and for controlling playback of the content. Id.
`Clayton’s Figure 4, which shows the detail of wireless adapter 173, is
`reproduced below.
`
`15
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00090
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 4 of Clayton, wireless adapter 173 includes,
`among other components, decoder 440 having content decoder 446 to
`decode content 181 received from portable device 142 and metadata decoder
`442 to decode any metadata for content (e.g., song titles, artist names,
`playlists) and for displaying on car audio/video system 143. Id. ¶¶ 56–63,
`Fig. 4. Application profiles stack 420 includes Bluetooth profiles to regulate
`the transmission of content from cellular telephone 142 to the car audio
`system 143 and the transmission of command/control signals between those
`two devices. Id. ¶ 62. One of those Bluetooth profiles includes the
`Advanced Audio Distribution Profile or A2DP. Id.
`According to Clayton,
`When the wireless adaptor 173 is in operation, the A2DP therein
`enables the wireless adaptor 173 to transfer the content stored in
`the cellular telephone 142 to the car audio system 143 as
`streaming audio for stereo audio playback through the later. As
`described earlier, the stored content is located in respective
`channels in the cellular telephone 142. The network manager
`430 further controls the content decoder 446 to decode the
`streaming audio into a format understood by the car audio
`system 143 for output to the I/O interface 450, to which the car
`audio system 143 is conntected through its own I/O interface.
`Ex. 1002 ¶ 63 (emphases added).
`Clayton describes further the decoding function of content decoder
`446 in the context of other embodiments: As with the transfer of content
`from the cellular telephone 142, the content and content metadata from the
`USB storage key are decoded by the decoder 440 for playback and
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00090
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`displayed, respectively, by the car audio system 143. Id. ¶ 70 (emphasis
`added).
`
`(2) Analysis of Obviousness
`Independent claims 49 and 73 each recites an “integration subsystem”
`
`that:
`
`instructs the portable device to play the audio file in response to
`a user selecting the audio file using controls of the car
`audio/video system, and receives audio generated by the
`portable device over said wireless communication link to the car
`audio/video system for playing on the car audio/video system.
`Ex. 1001, 42:29–47, 44:4–23 (emphases added). Similarly, independent
`claims 97 and 120 recite the “integration subsystem” “channel[ing] audio
`generated by the portable device to the car audio/video system using the
`wireless communication link for subsequent playing on the car audio/video
`system.” Ex. 1001, 45:52–56, 47:7–12 (emphases added).
`For these “audio” limitations, the Petition proffers one paragraph as
`follows:
`
`The first wireless interface (RF radio) communicates
`wirelessly with a second wireless interface 148/150 in the
`portable device to receive display metadata (information)
`about an audio file stored in and/or received by the portable
`device, transmit control commands to the portable device to
`instruct playback of an audio file, and receive audio
`generated by the portable device. See Ex. 1002 at ¶¶ [0033],
`[0042], [0048], [0056], and [0063] and FIG. 3; see, e.g., Ex.
`1003 at pp. 3, 10, 13, 154, 169, 339, 488, 561, 609, and 656;
`see also Ex. 1016 at ¶94.
`
`Pet. 20 (emphasis added). The Petition includes a claim chart, a portion of
`which is reproduced below, that clarifies Petitioner’s reliance on paragraph
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00090
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`63 of Clayton as disclosing the “audio generated by the portable device”
`(Pet. 29):
`
`
`
`The claim chart reproduced above maps limitation (g)—“receives audio
`generated by the portable device”—to underlined portion of paragraph 63 of
`Clayton.
`Thus, as demonstrated by the foregoing, Petitioner takes the position that the
`“streaming audio” that the wireless adaptor receives equates to the “audio
`generated by the portable device” limitation recited in the independent
`claims.
`We find this contention unpersuasive in light of Patent Owner’s
`arguments and evidence. The information presented by Petitioner does not
`show sufficiently that “streaming audio” is audio generated by the portable
`device that is also for playing at the the car audio/video system, consistent
`with the claim language and our claim construction analysis (supra Section
`II.B). To the contrary, the Petition does not offer any explanation of
`Clayton’s disclosure in this regard, and instead merely repeats the claim
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00090
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`language and provides string citations to Clayton. Pet. 20. The claim chart
`reproduced supra identifies the portion in Clayton that refers to “streaming
`audio for stereo playback through the [car audio system 143].” This, on its
`face, appears to track the claim, but on closer consideration, does not
`demonstrate adequately that Clayton’s “streaming audio” is the claimed
`“audio generated by the portable device.”
`For instance, the same paragraph that Petitioner relies upon as
`disclosing the “streaming audio” states that the content decoder decodes the
`streaming audio into a format understood by the car audio system for output
`to the I/O interface. See Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 63). Patent Owner
`focuses on the description of “streaming audio” as being further decoded
`into a format understood by the car audio system. In particular, Patent
`Owner reasons that the wireless adaptor, not the portable device, generates
`the audio with the content decoder. Prelim. Resp. 26, 28 (explaining
`paragraph 63 of Clayton as confirming that the portable device sends an
`audio file that is later decoded into generated audio by the wireless adapter).
`Patent Owner also relies on testimony from Dr. Stern, who describes
`Clayton’s use of the word “streaming” as referring to the manner in which
`data is communicated between devices using a Bluetooth protocol. Ex. 2001
`¶¶ 32−33. In other words, Dr. Stern explains that “streaming” refers to
`transferring of an audio file into a series (a set of subsequences) of packets.
`Id. Based on this understanding, Dr. Stern opines that Clayton describes
`encoding and decoding of the transmission using the Bluetooth protocol, but
`that in Clayton, in contrast to the claim requirement, the transmitted data
`undergoes additional MP3 decoding and D/A conversion at the automobile
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00090
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`(not the portable device). Id. ¶¶ 38−39, 56, 65 (opining that Clayton’s
`“streaming audio” refers to data packets in a data stream).
`Dr. Stern’s testimony is factually supported by Clayton, as Clayton
`describes that the A2DP protocol enables transfer of the content as
`streaming audio, which content is further decoded at the content decoder to
`obtain a format understood by the car audio system. Ex. 1002 ¶ 63.
`Similarly, other embodiments in Clayton describe content decoding in the
`same vein: the content streamed to the wireless adaptor is further decoded
`for playback. Id. ¶ 70 (“the content and content metadata from the USB
`storage key are decoded by the decoder 440 for playback and displayed,
`respectively, by the car audio system 143”); ¶ 57 (“Once the content and any
`associated metadata are decoded, they are forwarded to the car audio system
`143 via an input/output (I/O) interface 450”). Clayton does not describe the
`content decoder as optional, as it does for the metadata decoder. Id. ¶ 56.
`Thus, in light of Clayton’s disclosures as a whole and Patent Owner’s
`argument and evidence, we are persuaded that Clayton teaches that the
`wireless adaptor receives content using the streaming format of a Bluetooth
`protocol, and further decodes the received content so that the audio may be
`in a format that the car audio system can play.
`The Petition fails to explain and persuasively support Petitioner’s
`contention that Clayton’s “streaming audio” is the recited “audio” for
`playing by the car audio system. In contrast, Patent Owner (supported by
`expert testimony) has argued persuasively that each of the paragraphs cited
`in the Petition is in accord with its explanation of Clayton, and, that, in fact,
`together these paragraphs confirm that Clayton’s “streaming audio” is not
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00090
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`audio generated by the portable device for playing on the car audio/video
`system as claimed. Prelim. Resp. 28−30 (addressing Figure 4 and
`paragraphs 33, 42, 48, and 56, as well as uncited paragraphs 49, 52, and 55).
`In sum, because Clayton decodes the received stream at the wireless adaptor
`(recited “integration subsystem”), Clayton does not receive “audio” that is
`for playing at the car audio system, consistent with our claim construction
`analysis, supra in Section II.B.
`Patent Owner further argues that paragraph 55 of Clayton does not
`support the contention that decoded content is received at the wireless
`adaptor. The inclusion of the clause “encoded or unencoded” does not mean
`that the received content would be the required “audio.” Id. at 30−31. A
`relevant portion of paragraph 55 states that the cellular telephone is
`“suitably-enabled to wirelessly transmit content and command/control
`signals, encoded or unencoded, via the aforementioned wireless proximity
`network to the wireless adaptor 173.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 55. Another relevant
`portion of this paragraph confirms that “any needed signal conversion or
`decoding” of the content is provided at the wireless adaptor. Id.
`Paragraph 55, at best, is inconclusive as to whether Clayton’s
`“streaming audio” is audio generated by the portable device as claimed. For
`instance, we note that this paragraph may refer to encoded or unencoded
`command/control signals, as Patent Owner argues (Prelim. Resp. 30) or may
`refer to additional encoding that occurs within the Bluetooth protocol. See,
`e.g, Ex. 1002, 3353 (describing standard Sub-band perceptual codec (SBC)
`
`3 Page citations refer to the pagination added in the footer of the Exhibit by
`21
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00090
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`as part of the A2DP protocol). Nevertheless, the content of paragraph 55 is
`unavailing to Petitioner as the Petition does not rely on paragraph 55 for the
`“audio generated” limitation, and our role in our revie

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket