UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC AND JAGUAR LAND ROVER LTD.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`BLITZSAFE TEXAS, LLC
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00544
`Patent No. 8,155,342
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF RICHARD STERN, PH.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Blitzsafe Texas, LLC – Exhibit 2001
`Jaguar Land Rover v. Blitzsafe, IPR2018-00544
`Page 1
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00544
`Patent No. 8,155,342
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 4
`
`Qualifications ................................................................................................... 5
`
`III. Materials Considered ....................................................................................... 9
`
`IV. Legal Principles ............................................................................................. 10
`
`V.
`
`Background .................................................................................................... 11
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Technical Background ......................................................................... 11
`
`The ’342 Patent ................................................................................... 17
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill ....................................................................... 18
`
`Claim Construction.............................................................................. 19
`
`The Cited References .......................................................................... 20
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Simonds ..................................................................................... 20
`
`Ekström ..................................................................................... 22
`
`3. MOST Specification ................................................................. 24
`
`VI. The Cited References Do Not Disclose or Render Obvious All of the
`Limitations of the Challenged Claims ........................................................... 25
`
`A.
`
`The Cited References Do Not Disclose or Render Obvious an
`Integration Subsystem Instructing a Portable Device to Play an
`Audio File in Response to a User Selecting the Audio File
`Using the Controls of a Car Audio/Video System .............................. 25
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Simonds Does Not Disclose a User Issuing a Command
`From a Car Audio/Video System to Play an Audio File
`From a Portable Device ............................................................ 29
`
`The MOST Specification Does Not Disclose any Missing
`“Implementation Details” to Enable a User Issuing a
`Command From a Car Audio/Video System to Play an
`Audio File From a Portable Device .......................................... 33
`
`Ekström Does Not Disclose any Missing
`“Implementation Details” to Enable a User Issuing a
`Command From a Car Audio/Video System to Play an
`Audio File From a Portable Device .......................................... 36
`
`Stern Declaration
`Ex. 2001 – Page 2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00544
`Patent No. 8,155,342
`
`B.
`
`The Cited References Do Not Disclose or Render Obvious an
`Integration Subsystem Receiving Audio Generated by a
`Portable Device for Playing on a Car Audio/Video System ............... 44
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Simonds Does Not Disclose a Portable Device
`Generating Audio for Playing on a Car Audio/Video
`System ....................................................................................... 47
`
`Ekström Does Not Disclose any Missing
`“Implementation Details” to Enable a Portable Device
`Generating Audio for Playing on a Car Audio/Video
`System ....................................................................................... 51
`
`The MOST Specification Does Not Disclose any Missing
`“Implementation Details” to Enable a Portable Device
`Generating Audio for Playing on a Car Audio/Video
`System ....................................................................................... 53
`
`VII. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 55
`
`
`
`
`
`Stern Declaration
`Ex. 2001 – Page 3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00544
`Patent No. 8,155,342
`
`I, Richard Stern, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by Blitzsafe Texas, LLC (“Patent Owner”) to
`
`provide my opinion regarding the validity of certain claims of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,155,342 (“the ’342 Patent,” Ex. 1001) in response to the January 29, 2018
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review filed by Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC
`
`and Jaguar Land Rover Ltd. (collectively, “Petitioners”) and the Declaration of Dr.
`
`John M. Strawn in support thereof (“Strawn Declaration,” Ex. 1003).
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated at my customary rate of $450 per hour. My
`
`compensation is not dependent upon the substance of the opinions I offer below,
`
`the outcome of this petition, or any issues involved in or related to the ’342 Patent.
`
`I have no financial interest in, or affiliation with, any of the real parties-in-interest
`
`or Patent Owner.
`
`3.
`
`In particular, I have been asked to review and provide my opinion
`
`regarding whether claims 49–57, 62–64, 66, 68, 70–71, 73–80, 83, 86–88, 94–95,
`
`97, 99–103, 109–11, 113, 115, and 120 of the ’342 Patent (collectively, the
`
`“Challenged Claims”) are obvious as asserted by Petitioners and Dr. Strawn in
`
`view of:
`
` U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0093155 A1 to Craig John
`
`Simonds, et al. (“Simonds,” Ex. 1005);
`
`Stern Declaration
`Ex. 2001 – Page 4
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00544
`Patent No. 8,155,342
`
` Peter Ekström, et al., Audio over Bluetooth and MOST (“Ekström,”
`
`Ex. 1006); and
`
` Media Oriented System Transport (MOST) Specification Rev. 2.2 (Nov.
`
`2002) (the “MOST Specification,” Ex. 1007) (collectively, the “Cited
`
`References”).
`
`4.
`
`As set forth in detail below, in my expert opinion, the Challenged
`
`Claims are not obvious as asserted by Petitioners and Dr. Strawn in view of
`
`Simonds, Ekström, and the MOST Specification.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`5.
`
`Ex. 2002 is a copy of my curriculum vitae that summarizes my
`
`education, work history and publications.
`
`6.
`
`I have over 40 years of experience in the fields relevant to multimedia
`
`device integration. In that time, I have studied and researched signal processing,
`
`audio, and acoustics, including the creation of a signal, the communication of data
`
`through the signal from one device to another, and the interpretation of that signal
`
`by a human listener. While my main areas of current professional activity are
`
`primarily in signal processing for robust speech recognition and auditory
`
`perception, I have additionally studied and performed research in a wide range of
`
`related fields of audition, acoustics, signal processing, and instrumentation.
`
`Stern Declaration
`Ex. 2001 – Page 5
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00544
`Patent No. 8,155,342
`
`7.
`
`I received an S.B. in Electrical Engineering from the Massachusetts
`
`Institute of Technology (MIT) in 1970; an M.S. in Electrical Engineering and
`
`Computer Sciences from the University of California, Berkeley in 1972; and a
`
`Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science from MIT in 1977.
`
`8. While I was a student, I worked as a Teaching and Research Assistant
`
`in the Department of Electrical Engineering at MIT, from 1973 to 1976. My
`
`teaching experience was in the area of signal processing under the direct
`
`supervision of Professors Alan Oppenheim and Alan Willsky, and in the area of
`
`acoustics under the direct supervision of Professor Amar Bose. My research at
`
`MIT had been in the area of auditory perception.
`
`9.
`
`I am a Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Carnegie
`
`Mellon University (CMU), where I have taught and carried out research since
`
`1977. While my primary appointment is with the Department of Electrical and
`
`Computer Engineering, I am also a Professor by Courtesy in the Language
`
`Technologies Institute and Computer Science Department. I have also been a
`
`Lecturer in CMU’s School of Music since 2008, and I was a Professor in CMU's
`
`Biomedical Engineering Department from 1977 to 1995. From 1995 to 2003, I was
`
`Associate Director of the CMU Information Networking Institute, where I was
`
`responsible for every aspect of its Master of Science in Information Networking,
`
`including admissions, curricular development and support, and student life. In
`
`Stern Declaration
`Ex. 2001 – Page 6
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00544
`Patent No. 8,155,342
`
`addition to my appointments at CMU, I was an invited Visiting Professor at
`
`Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Laboratories in Tokyo in 1985 and at the Nara
`
`Institute of Science and Technology in Japan in 2003. I was also an Adjunct
`
`Assistant Professor of Otolaryngology at the University of Pittsburgh School of
`
`Medicine from 1979 to 1981.
`
`10. As noted above, my main areas of professional activity are automatic
`
`speech recognition, auditory perception, signal processing, and acoustics. My work
`
`is well known and widely cited, as a search on the generic term “robust speech
`
`recognition” will reveal. In those fields, I have been author or co-author of more
`
`than 42 archival journal articles, 13 book chapters, and more than 39 invited
`
`conference presentations, many of which were keynote addresses at major
`
`meetings, and a large number of additional critically-reviewed conference
`
`presentations. I have been invited to present my work on speech recognition in
`
`China, Japan, Korea, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy,
`
`Portugal, Spain, the United Kingdom, Israel, India, Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, and
`
`Chile, as well as virtually every major corporate and academic center of research in
`
`speech recognition and related technologies in the United States. I have supervised
`
`23 Ph.D. theses, and more than 32 M.S. research projects. My former doctoral and
`
`masters research students include the present or former heads of speech research at
`
`Apple, Microsoft, Google, and major government intelligence agencies, the
`
`Stern Declaration
`Ex. 2001 – Page 7
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00544
`Patent No. 8,155,342
`
`founders of startup companies valued at hundreds of millions of dollars, and
`
`professors in major research universities.
`
`11.
`
`I am one of the few individuals who is an elected Fellow of the
`
`Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), the Acoustical Society of
`
`America (ASA), and the International Speech Communication Association (ISCA).
`
`I was the 2008–09 Distinguished Lecturer of ISCA, which sponsored tours of
`
`South America and India for the purpose of disseminating my research results. I
`
`was also a co-recipient of the Allen Newell Award for Research Excellence in
`
`1992, and I was the recipient of the CMU Electrical Engineering Department’s
`
`annual teaching award in 1979.
`
`12.
`
`I have served on numerous technical and standards committees for the
`
`IEEE, ISCA, and for the Human Language Technology Program of the U.S.
`
`Defense Department Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). I served as
`
`General Chair of the 2006 Interspeech International Conference on Spoken
`
`Language Processing in Pittsburgh in 2006. The Interspeech meeting, which
`
`attracted in excess of 1100 attendees, is considered to be the major world forum
`
`(along with the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal
`
`Processing) for the exchange and dissemination of new findings in speech
`
`processing by humans and machines. I also serve or have served as the Technical
`
`Program Committee Chair of the Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America in
`
`Stern Declaration
`Ex. 2001 – Page 8
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00544
`Patent No. 8,155,342
`
`Pittsburgh in 2002, Chair of the Nominating Committee for the IEEE James L.
`
`Flanagan Technical Field, and as a member of the ISCA International Advisory
`
`Board and Nomination Committee for Fellows of ISCA, the Secretary for the
`
`DARPA Speech Coordinating Committee, and I have led or served as a member of
`
`other professional, academic, and governmental committees too extensive to be
`
`enumerated here.
`
`13. As a Professor, I have taught 15 courses, many of which are at the
`
`graduate level, in the general areas of signal processing, communication theory,
`
`and acoustics. The courses that I teach at CMU encompass all aspects of signal
`
`processing including adaptive filtering, array processing, short-time Fourier
`
`analysis, and multi-rate signal processing.
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`14. The materials I considered include:
`
` the ’342 Patent and the original prosecution history for the ’342 Patent and
`
`the applications to which the ’342 Patent claims priority;
`
` Petitioners Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC and Jaguar Land Rover
`
`Ltd.’s Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,342,
`
`including the exhibits thereto, including the Declaration of Dr. John M.
`
`Strawn in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,155,342 filed as Exhibit 1003 thereto; and
`
`Stern Declaration
`Ex. 2001 – Page 9
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00544
`Patent No. 8,155,342
`
` the materials that I refer to and that I cite in this declaration.
`
`15.
`
`In addition, I have drawn on my experience and knowledge, as
`
`discussed above and described more fully in my CV, in the areas of audio and
`
`multimedia integration.
`
`IV. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`16.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is unpatentable as “obvious” if the
`
`subject matter of the claim as a whole would have been obvious to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) as of the time of the invention at issue.
`
`17.
`
`I understand that the use of POSA rubric is to prevent one from
`
`improperly, in the present day, using hindsight to decide whether a claim is
`
`obvious.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that the following factors must be evaluated to determine
`
`whether the claimed subject matter is obvious: (1) the scope and content of the
`
`prior art; (2) the difference or differences, if any, between the scope of the patent
`
`claim and the scope of the prior art; and (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time of the invention.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that, unlike anticipation, which allows consideration of
`
`only one item of prior art, obviousness may be shown by considering more than
`
`one item of prior art. I understand that, when considering a combination of prior art
`
`references as part of an obviousness analysis, it can be important to ascertain if the
`
`Stern Declaration
`Ex. 2001 – Page 10
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00544
`Patent No. 8,155,342
`
`references are from the same field of endeavor and also to ascertain whether there
`
`is any reason that would have prompted a POSA in the relevant art to combine the
`
`elements in the way the claim does. In other words, a claim generally cannot be
`
`rendered obvious by combining (1) art from across different fields, including
`
`outside the field of the claimed invention, (2) art that itself teaches away from
`
`combination with other art that would otherwise provide its missing limitations, or
`
`(3) art for which there is not at least an articulable, common sense reason to bridge
`
`the gap between its disclosure and the claim at issue.
`
`20. Moreover, I understand that so-called “objective indicia of non-
`
`obviousness,” also known as “secondary considerations,” are also to be considered
`
`when assessing obviousness. I understand that this objective evidence includes at
`
`least: (1) the commercial success of the invention; (2) the long felt but unresolved
`
`need to develop the invention; and (3) any praise of the invention in the market. I
`
`also understand that evidence of objective indicia of non-obviousness must be
`
`commensurate in scope with the claimed subject matter; i.e., that there must be a
`
`nexus or connection between the criteria and the claim itself.
`
`V. BACKGROUND
`
`A. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND
`
`21.
`
`I understand that this proceeding concerns the wireless connection of
`
`a portable electronic device (such as a mobile phone or MP3 player) with a second
`
`Stern Declaration
`Ex. 2001 – Page 11
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00544
`Patent No. 8,155,342
`
`device (in this case, the automobile) for the purposes of information and
`
`entertainment.
`
`22.
`
`I also understand that one of the issues in contention in this litigation
`
`concerns I understand that this proceeding concerns the wireless connection of a
`
`portable electronic device (such as a mobile phone or MP3 player) with a second
`
`device (in this case, the automobile) for the purposes of information and
`
`entertainment. I also understand that one of the issues in contention in this
`
`litigation concerns the method(s) by which audio (which is encoded or compressed
`
`into a format such as MP3) is transmitted from the portable electronic device to the
`
`automobile and converted into a format that is suitable for presentation to a human
`
`listener.
`
`23. Audio and video coding are technologies that enable widespread
`
`access to media that we have come to enjoy in the 21st century, including video
`
`downloaded from services such as Netflix and YouTube, and audio from devices
`
`such as the iPod, iPad, iPhone, and Android phones. Typically, the motivation for
`
`video and audio coding is the reduction of file size. For example, a one-minute
`
`segment of music in stereo sampled at 44,100 Hz with 16 bits per sample (as in an
`
`audio CD) represents about 84.7 million bits of information. A representation of
`
`that segment of music using reasonably high-quality MP3 encoding with typical
`
`coding parameters would require only 11.5 million bits of storage. Clearly, this is a
`
`Stern Declaration
`Ex. 2001 – Page 12
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00544
`Patent No. 8,155,342
`
`reduction of storage requirements by a factor of about 7.4 to 1, which
`
`concomitantly permits the storage of 7.4 times as much audio on a given device
`
`than would have been possible if the data had been stored in the original un-
`
`encoded form. (In practice the actual bit-rate reduction depends on the type of
`
`signal that is being coded as well as a number of user-selectable preferences.)
`
`24. MP3 coding is one of a class of protocols collectively referred to as
`
`perceptual audio coding, which exploits the observation that the auditory system
`
`masks certain components of sound in time and frequency. Bit-rate reduction is
`
`obtained by storing only a crude representation of those sound components that are
`
`masked by others. Other perceptual audio coding methods include Advanced
`
`Audio Coding (AAC) and Unified Speech and Audio Coding (USAC). In this
`
`report, I use the term “MP3” to refer to any type of perceptual audio coding used
`
`by the portable electronic device, regardless of whether the actual coding method
`
`used is MP3, AAC, USAC, or some other method.
`
`25.
`
`I note that conversion from the MP3 representation on a portable
`
`electronic device, such as those implicated in this case, takes place in two
`
`separable stages: (1) decoding the MP3 parameters, which converts them into a
`
`digital representation of the original audible waveform, and (2) digital-to-analog
`
`conversion (D/A conversion), which converts the digital representation of the
`
`audible waveform into a continuous-time or “analog” representation which can be
`
`Stern Declaration
`Ex. 2001 – Page 13
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00544
`Patent No. 8,155,342
`
`directly converted into sound by a traditional output device such as a loudspeaker
`
`or headphones.
`
`26.
`
`It is critically important to maintain a distinction between audio as
`
`represented by the audible waveform (or a digital representation of it) versus a
`
`representation of the audio by the coded MP3 parameters.
`
`27.
`
`In other words, “audio generated by the portable device” for the
`
`purpose of this proceeding specifically refers to the decoding of the MP3 on the
`
`portable device itself. Merely transmitting the MP3 file, either in whole or in part,
`
`would not satisfy that limitation because, as the Board found in IPR2018-00090,
`
`there is no “audio generated by the portable device” when the integration
`
`subsystem receives an audio file or must decode what it receives in order to render
`
`audio for playing at the car audio/video system. IPR2018-00090, Paper 15 at 11.
`
`28.
`
`In order to communicate with portable devices over a communications
`
`channel, it was possible to use Universal Serial Bus (USB) protocol or Bluetooth
`
`protocol. The actual communicated signal streams transmitted over these protocols,
`
`regardless of whether they represent an audible waveform or a sequence of MP3
`
`parameters, are segmented into a set of subsequences or “packets” often referred to
`
`as a “stream.” Both the USB and Bluetooth protocols specify means by which
`
`communication is established between the devices.
`
`Stern Declaration
`Ex. 2001 – Page 14
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00544
`Patent No. 8,155,342
`
`29.
`
`It was known that these standards permitted transfer of files, such as
`
`MP3 audio files as packets of audio, referred to more commonly as a “stream” or
`
`Play command
`Analog waveform
`
`Car audio/video
`subsystem
`
`Play command
`
`Analog communication 1
`Conversion 1
`
`“streaming.”
`
`Case 1: "Analog” transmission of waveform
`
`Parameters
`
`MP3
`Decoding
`
`D/A
`Conversion
`
`Portable device
`
`Case 2: Digital transmission of waveform
`
`Parameters
`
`MP3
`Decoding
`
`Digitally-encoded waveform
`Digital communication
`
`D/A
`
`Portable device
`
`Car audio/video subsystem
`
`Case 3: Digital transmission of coded MP3 parameters
`
`Play command
`
`Parameters
`
`Digital communication
`
`MP3
`Decoding
`
`D/A
`Conversion
`
`Car audio/video subsystem
`Portable device
`Comparison of Alternative Modes of Communication
`Between Portable Electronic Device and Automobile
`
`
`
`The figure above illustrates three different contrasting ways of converting the
`
`coded MP3 parameters which enable compact storage of the user’s music
`
`collection into an audible waveform that if presented to a human listener after
`
`Stern Declaration
`Ex. 2001 – Page 15
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00544
`Patent No. 8,155,342
`
`digital-to-analog (D/A) conversion would be intelligible and informative and/or
`
`entertaining.
`
`30. The first approach, labeled Case 1, describes a process by which both
`
`the MP3 decoding and D/A conversion takes place on the portable electronic
`
`device. In this case, the “communication” between the portable electronic device
`
`and the automobile is through an analog channel, which in fact is simply the
`
`conventional audio cable that connects the audio output of the portable electronic
`
`device to (typically) the auxiliary input of the entertainment system on the
`
`automobile.
`
`31. The second approach, labeled Case 2, describes a process by which
`
`the MP3 decoding takes place on the portable electronic device and a digitally-
`
`encoded version of the audible waveform is transmitted over a digital
`
`communications channel using either wired or wireless protocols. This decoding is
`
`performed in response to a “play” command received by the portable device. The
`
`automobile receives the digitally-encoded waveform and converts it to an analog
`
`waveform suitable for direct connection to the speaker or headphones.
`
`32. The third approach, labeled Case 3, describes a process by which the
`
`coded MP3 parameters are transmitted directly over the digital communications
`
`channel using either wired or wireless protocols to the automobile. This file
`
`transfer is performed in response to a “play” command received by the portable
`
`Stern Declaration
`Ex. 2001 – Page 16
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00544
`Patent No. 8,155,342
`
`device. In this case, both MP3 decoding and D/A conversion take place on the
`
`automobile itself.
`
`33.
`
`In each of the cases, play commands may be received by the portable
`
`device. The play command is agnostic as to the approach for transmission and as to
`
`where the audio is generated. In Cases 2 and 3 above, there will be some encoding
`
`and decoding of the transmission for protocol purposes, e.g., Bluetooth. The audio
`
`generated by the portable device in Case 2 may undergo additional encoding or
`
`decoding for transmission protocol purposes (e.g., Bluetooth) without affecting my
`
`analysis.
`
`B.
`
`THE ’342 PATENT
`
`34. The ’342 Patent relates to a multimedia device integration system that
`
`allows a plurality of portable electronic devices to be wirelessly integrated into an
`
`existing car stereo system, via an “integration subsystem,” while allowing
`
`information to be displayed on, and control to be provided from the car stereo. Id.
`
`at Abstract, 2:44–54, 33:43–46. The Challenged Claims are directed to an
`
`integration subsystem in communication with the car audio/video system, allowing
`
`data and control signals to be exchanged between the portable device and the car
`
`audio/video system. The integration subsystem processes and formats data so that
`
`instructions and information are processed by the portable device and vice versa,
`
`Stern Declaration
`Ex. 2001 – Page 17
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00544
`Patent No. 8,155,342
`
`and permits audio and video generated, i.e., decoded, by the portable device to be
`
`played on the car audio/video system. Id. at Figure 18, Figure 19, 33:43–35:62.
`
`C. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`
`35.
`
`I understand that I should perform my analysis from the viewpoint of
`
`a POSA. I understand that this hypothetical POSA is considered to have the normal
`
`skills of a person in a certain technical field. I understand that factors that may be
`
`considered in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art include: (1) the
`
`education level of the inventor; (2) the types of problems encountered in the art;
`
`(3) the prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations
`
`are made; (5) the sophistication of the technology; and (6) the education level of
`
`active workers in the field.
`
`36.
`
`I understand that Petitioners and Dr. Strawn have asserted that a
`
`POSA “[a]t the date of alleged invention … would have had at least a bachelor’s
`
`degree in electrical engineering, or equivalent degree and at least two years of
`
`experience in signal processing and/or electronic system design” and that “[m]ore
`
`education can supplement relevant experience and vice versa.” Petition at 12;
`
`Strawn Declaration at 12 (¶ 15).
`
`37.
`
`I do not disagree with Petitioners’ and Dr. Strawn’s proposed level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art.
`
`Stern Declaration
`Ex. 2001 – Page 18
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00544
`Patent No. 8,155,342
`
`38.
`
`I would have qualified as a POSA as of the relevant time frame under
`
`Petitioners’ and Dr. Strawn’s proposed level of skill. I have a sufficient level of
`
`knowledge, experience, and education to provide an expert opinion in the field of
`
`the ’342 Patent. My opinions in this declaration are based on the perspective of a
`
`POSA as of the relevant time frame as proposed by Petitioners and Dr. Strawn.
`
`D. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`39.
`
`I understand that the Board has applied the following constructions in
`
`prior IPR proceedings, and that I should apply these constructions for the purposes
`
`of rendering my opinions:
`
` INTEGRATION SUBSYSTEM: I understand that the Board construed the term
`
`“integration subsystem” as “a system which is subordinate to another
`
`system” and a “subsystem to perform at least: (1) connecting one or more
`
`portable devices or inputs to the car audio/video system via an interface,
`
`(2) processing and handling signals, audio, and/or video information,
`
`(3) allowing a user to control the one or more portable devices via the car
`
`audio/video system, and (4) displaying data from the one or more portable
`
`devices on the car audio/video system.”
`
` CAR AUDIO/VIDEO SYSTEM: I understand that the Board construed the term
`
`“car audio/video system” as “a car audio system, a car video system, or a car
`
`audio and video system.”
`
`Stern Declaration
`Ex. 2001 – Page 19
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00544
`Patent No. 8,155,342
`
` DEVICE PRESENCE SIGNAL: I understand that the Board construed the term
`
`“device presence signal” as “a signal indicating that a portable device is
`
`connected to the car audio/video system through the integration subsystem”
`
` AUDIO GENERATED BY THE PORTABLE DEVICE: I understand that the Board
`
`stated “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’
`
`for subsequent playing of the audio at the car audio/video system.”
`
`E.
`
`THE CITED REFERENCES
`
`1.
`
`SIMONDS
`
`40. Simonds discloses an “infotainment system” “for providing vehicle
`
`context information for onboard vehicle devices.” Simonds at 15 (claim 1). It
`
`describes a vehicle “electronic system [that] includes a main visual human machine
`
`interface (HMI) 12 in the form of a touch screen display 14 that allows passengers
`
`in the vehicle 10 to interface with one or more electronic devices, including
`
`services, that are made onboard the vehicle 10.” Id. at 3 (¶ 35). It further describes
`
`that “various electronic host devices [are] coupled to a vehicle consumer services
`
`interface (VCSI) host platform,” which is “shown coupled to the vehicle data bus
`
`20, a high speed media oriented system transport (MOST) bus 44, and one or more
`
`wireless links 46.” Id. at 3 (¶ 37). “The VSCI host platform 30 allows various
`
`Stern Declaration
`Ex. 2001 – Page 20
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00544
`Patent No. 8,155,342
`
`electronic host devices in the vehicle to interface with each other, to interface with
`
`off-board devices, and to interface with the HMIs.” Id. at 3 (¶ 38). A wired “high
`
`speed MOST bus 44” is used to “allow[] data communication between each of the
`
`electronic host devices [described as including “a radio tuner 34, an audio
`
`amplifier 36, a compact disc/digital versatile disc (CD/DVD) player 38, a
`
`navigation system 40, and a global positioning system (GPS) receiver 42”] coupled
`
`to the bus 44 and the VCSI host platform 30.” Id. at 3–4 (¶ 40).
`
`41.
`
`In addition to the onboard devices connected to the MOST bus,
`
`Simonds describes that “[t]he VCSI host platform 30 is further able to
`
`communicate with various wireless devices including a cell phone 48, a personal
`
`digital assistant (PDA) 50, and a media player (e.g., MP3 player) 52, via a wireless
`
`link 46 [described as .” Id. at 4 (¶ 41). While Simonds states that “[i]t should be
`
`appreciated that a user may interface with any of the wireless devices (e.g., cell
`
`phone) via any of the HMIs 12, 22, and 32 communicating via the VCSI host
`
`platform 30,” id., it does not further describe what it means by “interface with” or
`
`how this could be accomplished. In particular, Simonds does not describe any
`
`particular interactions that could occur with an MP3 player, does not describe
`
`information that could be wirelessly transmitted between the MP3 player and the
`
`vehicle, does not describe issuing any commands from the car to the MP3 player,
`
`Stern Declaration
`Ex. 2001 – Page 21
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00544
`Patent No. 8,155,342
`
`and does not describe the receipt of and playing of audio generated by the MP3
`
`player from audio files stored on that device.
`
`2.
`
`EKSTRÖM
`
`42. Ekström is a Swedish master’s thesis that investigates how audio from
`
`a wireless Bluetooth headset microphone can be transferred to a wired MOST
`
`network in a vehicle. Ekström at iii. But Ekström does not disclose many necessary
`
`implementation details. Because it only seeks to work with a simple Bluetooth
`
`headset (such as for taking a telephone call), it does not include any disclosure
`
`relating to a portable device that has audio files.
`
`43. Ekström describes connecting a Bluetooth headset, which “should
`
`have a control button, a microphone and a speaker,” id. at 34, to “a gateway
`
`dedicated for transferring audio from the Bluetooth headset to the MOST speaker
`
`node,” id. at 35. The connection is accomplished pursuant to a portion of the
`
`Bluetooth specification known as the “Bluetooth Headset Profile,” id. at 34, which
`
`is described by Ekström as “[o]ne of the most trivial [Bluetooth] profiles.” Id. at
`
`10. Ekström describes that “the gateway handles the actual Bluetooth profiles and
`
`interprets it to functions and methods understandable by the MOST network
`
`nodes.” Id. at 36. In particular, Ekström describes that “[t]here are two different
`
`kinds of data transferred between the system when sending audio from Bluetooth
`
`to MOST. The connection has to be established using cont