`
`
`Paper 7
`Filed: May 15, 2018
`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
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00544
`Patent No. 8,155,342
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Background ...................................................................................................... 1
`A.
`The ’342 Patent ..................................................................................... 1
`B.
`Effective Filing Date ............................................................................. 2
`C.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ......................................................... 3
`D.
`Claim Construction................................................................................ 3
`E.
`Prior Unsuccessful Challenges .............................................................. 4
`F.
`Asserted Prior Art .................................................................................. 8
`1.
`Simonds ....................................................................................... 9
`2.
`Ekstrom ..................................................................................... 11
`3. MOST Specification ................................................................. 14
`The Challenged Claims are Not Obvious in View of the Cited
`References ...................................................................................................... 16
`A.
`The Obviousness Standard .................................................................. 17
`B.
`The Cited References Do Not Teach or Disclose an Integration
`Subsystem Instructing a Portable Device to Play an Audio File
`in Response to a User Selecting the Audio File Using Controls
`of a Car Audio/Video System ............................................................. 18
`1.
`Simonds Does Not Teach or Disclose a User Issuing a
`Command from a Car Audio/Video System to Play an
`Audio File From a Portable Device .......................................... 20
`The MOST Specification Does Not Teach or 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 ............................. 22
`Ekstrom Does Not Teach or 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 .......................................... 25
`The Cited References Do Not Teach or Disclose an Integration
`System Receiving Audio Generated by a Portable Device for
`Playing on a Car Audio/Video System ............................................... 31
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`C.
`
`i
`
`

`

`2.
`
`3.
`
`C.
`
`Case IPR2018-00544
`Patent No. 8,155,342
`1.
`Simonds Does Not Teach or Disclose Generating Audio
`on a Portable Device for Playing on a Car Audio/Video
`System ....................................................................................... 33
`Ekstrom Does Not Teach or Disclose Any Missing
`“Implementation Details” for Generating Audio on a
`Portable Device for Playing on a Car Audio/Video
`System ....................................................................................... 39
`The MOST Specification Does Not Teach or Disclose
`Any Missing “Implementation Details” for Generating
`Audio on a Portable Device for Playing on a Car
`Audio/Video System ................................................................. 40
`III. Ekstrom Is Not a Prior Art Printed Publication ............................................. 43
`A.
`The Printed Publication Standard ........................................................ 45
`B.
`Petitioners Have Not Established that Ekstrom Was Publicly
`Available on the Linkoping University Website ................................. 47
`1.
`Strawn is Not Qualified to Opine on the Functionality of
`Webpages and Web Search Engines in the 2003–2005
`Time Frame ............................................................................... 48
`The Evidence Does Not Establish that Ekstrom Was
`Publicly Available on the Linkoping University Website ........ 49
`i.
`The Evidence Does Not Establish that a POSA
`Could Have Found Ekstrom on the Linkoping
`University Website Through Search Engines................. 50
`The Evidence Does Not Establish that a POSA
`Could Have Found Ekstrom on the Linkoping
`University Website Through Keyword Searching
`on the Website Itself ....................................................... 53
`Petitioners Have Not Established that Ekstrom Was Publicly
`Available Through DiVA .................................................................... 55
`1.
`Petitioners’ “Evidence” is Inadmissible ................................... 55
`2.
`The Evidence Does Not Establish that Ekstrom Was
`Publicly Available on DiVA ..................................................... 58
`Petitioners Have Not Established that Ekstrom Was Publicly
`Available Through the Linkoping University Library Catalog .......... 61
`
`D.
`
`2.
`
`ii.
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00544
`Patent No. 8,155,342
`IV. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 62
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00544
`Patent No. 8,155,342
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`Apple Inc. v. Saint Lawrence Commc’ns LLC,
`IPR2017-01075, Paper 8 (PTAB Sept. 21, 2017) ............................................... 46
`Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc.,
`815 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................... 44, 45
`Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc.,
`445 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .......................................................................... 45
`C.B. Distribs., Inc. v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V.,
`IPR2013-00387, Paper 43 (PTAB Dec. 24, 2014) ............................................. 18
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ................................................................................................ 17
`Groupon, Inc. v. Blue Calypso LLC,
`CBM2013-00044, Paper 47 (PTAB Dec. 17, 2014)........................................... 46
`In re Hall,
`781 F.2d 897 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ............................................................................ 45
`In re Hedges,
`783 F.2d 1038 (Fed. Cir. 1986) .......................................................................... 17
`Intel Corp. v. Alacritech, Inc.,
`PR2017-01395, Paper 8 (PTAB Nov. 22, 2017) .......................................... 46, 49
`Int’l Bus. Mach. Corp. v. Envisionit, LLC (“IBM”),
`IPR2017-01248, Paper 7 (PTAB Oct. 16, 2017) .......................................... 46, 50
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 997 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ...................................................................... 17, 34
`Rohm & Hass Co. v. Brotech Corp.,
`127 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .......................................................................... 34
`SRI Inter’l, Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys., Inc.,
`511 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 45
`Tempur Sealy Inter’l Inc. v. Select Comfort Corp.,
`IPR2014-01419, Paper 7 (PTAB Feb. 17, 2015) ............................................... 25
`Voter Verified, Inc. v. Premier Election Sols., Inc.,
`698 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 45
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00544
`Patent No. 8,155,342
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 312 ........................................................................................................ 25
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6 ....................................................................................................... 25
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22 ..................................................................................................... 25
`37 C.F.R. § 42.51 ..................................................................................................... 56
`37 C.F.R. § 42.63 ............................................................................................... 52, 55
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65 ..................................................................................................... 34
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ..................................................................................................... 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ................................................................................................... 20
`Fed. R. Evid. 602 ..................................................................................................... 57
`Fed. R. Evid. 702 ..................................................................................................... 48
`Fed. R. Evid. 801 ............................................................................................... 56, 57
`Fed. R. Evid. 802 ............................................................................................... 56, 57
`Fed. R. Evid. 901 ..................................................................................................... 57
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00544
`Patent No. 8,155,342
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`2002
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION
`2001
`Declaration of Richard Stern, Ph.D. in Support of Patent Owner’s
`Preliminary Response
`Curriculum Vita of Richard Stern, Ph.D.
`Internet Archive, Wayback Machine summary of archives of
`www.diva-portal.org
`Internet Archive, Wayback Machine archive of www.diva-portal.org
`(June 4, 2004)
`Internet Archive, Wayback Machine archive of www.diva-portal.org
`(Mar. 5, 2005)
`Internet Archive, Frequently Asked Questions,
`https://archive.org/about/faqs.php
`Email to Internet Archive Requesting Affidavit Authenticating
`Archived Webpages
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00544
`Patent No. 8,155,342
`Institution should be denied because, as shown herein and by Patent
`
`Owner’s expert, Dr. Richard Stern,1 Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the
`
`references teach or disclose each of the limitations of the challenged claims and
`
`because they have failed demonstrate to that each of the references relied on was a
`
`publicly available printed publication prior to the critical date of the ’342 Patent.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`A. THE ’342 PATENT
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,342 (“the ’342 Patent,” Ex. 1001) describes and
`
`claims inventions relating to integrating a wireless portable device into a car stereo
`
`system. ’342 Patent at 8:38–46.2 Among its accomplishments, the ’342 Patent
`
`enables “[c]ontrol of the [portable] device … using the car stereo or car video
`
`system, and information from the after-market device, such as channel, artist,
`
`track, time, song, and other information, [can be] retrieved f[ro]m the [portable]
`
`device, processed, and forwarded to the car stereo or car video system for display
`
`thereon.” Id. at 8:46–51. Such systems were not possible prior to the invention of
`
`1 Dr. Stern is well qualified as an expert in the field of multimedia device
`integration. See Ex. 2001 (“Stern Declaration”) at ¶¶ 5–13; Ex. 2002 (CV). His
`opinions relating to the ’342 Patent have been credited by the Board. See IPR2018-
`00090, Paper 15 at 19–20.
`
`2 Unless otherwise noted, citations are provided with reference to the internal page
`number of exhibits.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00544
`Patent No. 8,155,342
`the ’342 Patent because “signals generated by [wireless portable devices and car
`
`stereo systems] [we]re in proprietary formats” and it was therefore “necessary to
`
`convert signals between such system.” Id. at 1:54–63. In order to overcome these
`
`challenges, the ’342 Patent discloses and claims an “integration subsystem” or
`
`module that can be positioned within the car audio/video system to receive data
`
`from the portable device (such as track information, song information, artist
`
`information, etc.) and process it into a format compatible with the car system. Id. at
`
`5:23–30. This integration subsystem allows both data and commands to be
`
`exchanged between the portable device and the car audio/video system so that the
`
`user can access information relating to the audio and/or video files on the portable
`
`device from the car stereo and use the car stereo controls to issue commands to the
`
`portable device to play audio generated by the portable device. Id. at 33:43–35:62,
`
`Figure 19. See also Stern Declaration at ¶ 34.
`
`B.
`
`EFFECTIVE FILING DATE
`
`Petitioners submit that the challenged claims are entitled to an effective
`
`filing date no earlier than March 3, 2005. Petition at 9. Patent Owner states that, for
`
`the purposes of this proceeding, a determination of the effective filing date is
`
`unnecessary and thus does not respond to this characterization of the effective
`
`filing date. Patent Owner reserves the right to establish an earlier effective filing
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00544
`Patent No. 8,155,342
`date in any district court proceeding or in any other proceeding where such a date
`
`may be necessary.
`
`C. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`Petitioners state that the person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) 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. Petition at 12. Petitioners further state that more education can supplement
`
`relevant experience and vice versa. Id. Patent Owner agrees for the purposes of this
`
`proceeding that this level of skill is appropriate. See also Stern Declaration at
`
`¶¶ 35–38.
`
`D. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Because the ’342 Patent is not expired, the broadest reasonable construction
`
`of each claim term is applied. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Petitioners propose
`
`constructions for three claim phrases consistent with the constructions adopted
`
`with the Board in IPR2016-00418: (1) “integration subsystem;” (2) “car
`
`audio/video system;” and (3) “device presence signal.” Patent Owner agrees with
`
`these constructions for the purposes of this proceeding.
`
`Additionally, in its April 20, 2018 decision denying institution in IPR2018-
`
`00090, the Board addressed the construction of the term “audio generated by the
`
`portable device … for [playing or subsequently playing of the audio] on the car
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00544
`Patent No. 8,155,342
`audio/video system.” Paper 15 (“00090-Decision”) at 8–11 (alterations in original).
`
`Specifically, the Board stated 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’ for [subsequent] playing [of the audio] at the car audio/video system.’” Id.
`
`at 11 (alterations in original).
`
`E.
`
`PRIOR UNSUCCESSFUL CHALLENGES
`
`This is the twelfth petition for inter partes review of the ’342 Patent. The
`
`previous petitions all resulted in zero claims cancelled or amended. A brief
`
`summary of the previous IPRs is below:3
`
`IPR
`
`PETITIONER(S)
`
`OUTCOME
`
`IPR2016-00118
`
`Unified Patents Inc.
`
`Institution denied (Apr. 27, 2016)
`
`
`3 Two additional petitions have subsequently been filed: IPR2018-00926 and
`IPR2018-00927 were filed by BMW of North America, LLC, et al. on April 24,
`2018 and April 25, 2018, respectively.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00544
`Patent No. 8,155,342
`IPR
`
`PETITIONER(S)
`
`OUTCOME
`
`IPR2016-00418
`
`Toyota Motor Corp. Terminated due to settlement after oral
`argument (Mar. 10, 2017)
`
` IPR2016-01533 American Honda
`Motor Co., Inc.
`
`IPR2016-01557 Hyundai Motor
`Company Ltd., et al.
`
`IPR2016-01560 Nissan North
`America, Inc., et al.
`
`Joined with IPR2016-00418
`
`Terminated due to settlement after oral
`argument (Mar. 10, 2017)
`
`IPR2018-00090 Subaru of America,
`Inc., et al.
`
`“substantially identical to”
`IPR2016-00418
`
`Institution denied (Apr. 20, 2018)
`
`IPR2016-00419
`
`Toyota Motor Corp.
`
`Institution denied (July 19, 2016)
`
`IPR2016-01445
`
`IPR2016-01449
`
`IPR2016-01473
`
`IPR2016-01476
`
`Rehearing denied (Aug. 31, 2016)
`
`Volkswagen Group
`of America, Inc.
`
`Terminated due to settlement before
`institution (Jan. 31, 2017)
`
`American Honda
`Motor Co., Ltd.
`
`Hyundai Motor
`Company Ltd., et al.
`
`Institution denied (Jan. 24, 2017)
`
`Institution denied (Jan. 24, 2017)
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00544
`Patent No. 8,155,342
`Each of the prior petitions failed, at least in part, because the petitioners had
`
`failed to show that the references that they relied on disclosed the “audio generated
`
`by the portable device” limitations of the challenged claims.
`
`In IPR2016-00118, the Board found that in one of the primary references,
`
`Ohmura, “audio is generated on the car audio/video system by playing a
`
`transferred music file and not generated on the portable device by playing a music
`
`file on the portable device as is required by the claims.” Paper 19 at 20. The
`
`petitioner conceded that its other primary reference, Owens, disclosed “all aspects
`
`of the challenged claims … except for the wireless Bluetooth connection” and
`
`alleged “it would have been obvious to substitute the Bluetooth interface of Ahn
`
`for the wired bus of Owens.” Id. at 27. But, the Board found that the petitioner had
`
`not shown that Owens and Ahn could be combined with a reasonable expectation
`
`of success such that “Owen’s ‘head unit’ [could] instruct Ahn’s mobile device or
`
`any other portable device to play the audio file and transmit/receive ‘audio
`
`generated by the portable device’ as the result of playing the audio file in the
`
`manner suggested by the claim.” Id. at 31.
`
`In IPR2018-00090, the Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate
`
`that the primary reference, Clayton, teaches or suggests that the “‘integration
`
`subsystem’ ‘receives audio generated by the portable device over said wireless
`
`communication link for playing on the car audio/video system,’ as recited in claims
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00544
`Patent No. 8,155,342
`49 and 73, and similarly addressed in claims 97 and 120.” 00090-Decision at 25.
`
`The Board found that Clayton teaches that audio content is transferred from a
`
`portable device and then further decoded into a format understood by the car
`
`audio/video system for playback. Id. at 20. The transfer of an audio file does not
`
`meet the limitation that the integration subsystem receives “audio generated by the
`
`portable device that is also for playing at the car audio/video system.” Id. at 18.
`
`In IPR2016-00419, the Board found that the primary reference, Ohmura, did
`
`not disclose the “audio generated by the portable device” limitation because
`
`“Ohmura’s audio is generated at car audio/video system 100 by playing a
`
`transferred music file and is not generated on portable device 200a or 200b by
`
`playing a music file on portable device 200a or 200b.” Paper 13 at 28.
`
`In IPR2016-01473, the Board found that one of the primary references,
`
`Marlowe, “[did] not disclose a wireless communication link.” Paper 9 at 15.
`
`Similarly, the petitioners conceded that another primary reference, Simon, did not
`
`disclose audio signals being transmitted over a wireless communication link. Id. at
`
`22. The Board found the petitioner’s attempts to rely on additional references to
`
`overcome these shortcomings insufficient. For example, the petitioner asserted that
`
`Marlowe could be combined with Plagge, which did include a wireless link. Id. at
`
`15. But, Plagge was insufficient because in it “the audio from the portable device
`
`[wa]s transmitted through a wire connection, despite the disclosure of a wireless
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00544
`Patent No. 8,155,342
`interface.” Id. Similarly, the petitioner asserted that Marlowe and Simon could be
`
`combined with Bhogal, but this was insufficient because Bhogal only contained
`
`“disclosure of accessing or retrieving digital audio files,” which the Board found
`
`did not “constitute[] receiving audio generated by the portable device over said
`
`wireless communication link.” Id. at 18; see also id. at 22.
`
`Finally, in IPR2016-01476, the Board found that the primary reference,
`
`Shibasaki, did not disclose the “audio generated by the portable device” limitation
`
`because it “expressly discloses that what MP3 player 20-2 ‘transmits’ over the
`
`Bluetooth system and what car audio apparatus 10 ‘receive[s]’ is the ‘music file.’”
`
`Paper 12 at 19–20.
`
`F. ASSERTED PRIOR ART
`
`Petitioners assert that 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 (collectively, “the Challenged
`
`Claims”) are obvious in view of:
`
`• U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0093155 A1 to Craig John
`
`Simonds, et al. (“Simonds,” Ex. 1005);
`
`• Peter Ekstrom, et al., Audio over Bluetooth and MOST (“Ekstrom,”
`
`Ex. 1006); and
`
`• Media Oriented System Transport (MOST) Specification Rev. 2.2 (Nov.
`
`2002) (the “MOST Specification,” Ex. 1007)
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00544
`Patent No. 8,155,342
`(collectively, “the Cited References”). Petition at 5. But, as discussed below, the
`
`Cited References fail to address the repeated deficiencies of the prior petitions.
`
`1.
`
`SIMONDS
`
`Petitioners’ primary reference is Simonds. Petitioners assert that “Simonds
`
`teaches all the limitations of the challenged independent claims,” but admit that “it
`
`does not include certain implementation details,” which they assert can be found in
`
`the other two references. See Petition at 23.
`
`Simonds discloses an “infotainment system” “for providing vehicle context
`
`information for onboard vehicle devices.” Simonds at 15. 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 ¶ 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 ¶ 37. “The VSCI host platform 30 allows various 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 ¶ 38. A wired “high speed MOST bus 44” is used
`
`to “allow[] data communication between each of the electronic host devices
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00544
`Patent No. 8,155,342
`[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 ¶ 40. See also Stern Declaration at ¶ 40.
`
`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 “including, but not limited to, Bluetooth and 802.11b].” Simonds at
`
`¶ 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, and does not describe the receipt of and
`
`playing of audio generated by the MP3 player from audio files stored on that
`
`device. See Stern Declaration at ¶ 41.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00544
`Patent No. 8,155,342
`The only evidence identified by Petitioners’ expert, Dr. John Strawn, that
`
`Simonds teaches controlling a portable device using the controls of the car
`
`audio/video system is Figure 1 of Simonds, which shows a visual human machine
`
`interface that includes a “dial” input button for use with a cell phone. Petition at
`
`15–16; Ex. 1003 (“Strawn Declaration”) at ¶ 48. Neither Petitioners nor Strawn
`
`point to any evidence that Simonds teaches or suggests that the VCSI issues a
`
`command to a portable device to play an audio file.
`
`Strawn also opines, without support, that “[a] POSA would understand that a
`
`portable device such as the MP3 player 52 would play the audio file, that is,
`
`convert the audio file from MP3 compression format to audio.” See Strawn
`
`Declaration at ¶ 162. Strawn offers this conclusion based solely on disclosures in
`
`Simonds that the VCSI of Simonds permits devices to interface with one another,
`
`and that the VCSI can communicate with wireless devices such as an MP3 player.
`
`See id. Strawn identifies no evidence that suggests that even if the VCSI were
`
`capable of transmitting a play command to an MP3 player, the MP3 player would
`
`generate audio rather than transmit the audio file to the VCSI for subsequent
`
`conversion into audio.
`
`2.
`
`EKSTROM
`
`Perhaps recognizing the prior, repeated failures to show the transfer of audio
`
`generated by a portable device for playing on a car audio/video system, Petitioners
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00544
`Patent No. 8,155,342
`rely on Ekstrom, 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. Ekstrom at iii. But Ekstrom fails to disclose many necessary
`
`implementation details and, because it only seeks to work with a simple Bluetooth
`
`headset (such as for taking a telephone call), does not include any teachings
`
`relating to a portable device that has audio files. See Stern Declaration at ¶ 42.
`
`Petitioners do not contend that Ekstrom discloses a portable device that contains
`
`audio files, receives a play command, and generates audio from those audio files
`
`for transmission to and for playing on a car audio/video system.
`
`Ekstrom describes connecting a Bluetooth headset, which “should have a
`
`control button, a microphone and a speaker,” Ekstrom 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 Ekstrom as “[o]ne of the most trivial [Bluetooth] profiles,” id. at
`
`10. Ekstrom 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, Ekstrom describes that “[t]here are two different
`
`kinds of data transferred between the systems when sending audio from Bluetooth
`
`to MOST. The connection has to be established using control data. When this is
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00544
`Patent No. 8,155,342
`done the stream of synchronous audio is transferred. The data in both cases has to
`
`be modified to fit the other system.” Id. (emphasis added). See also Stern
`
`Declaration at ¶ 43.
`
`While Ekstrom describes that “[t]he handling of data transformation is
`
`described separately for control data and synchronous audio,” Ekstrom at 36, “[t]he
`
`key issue in th[e] report is [actually] the sample rate conversion between the two
`
`systems [sic] samples frequencies,” id. at iii. Thus, Ekstrom does not actually
`
`describe how particular control data, which for the purposes of the Bluetooth
`
`Headset Profile is limited to a small set of commands, see id. at 33, could be
`
`converted to MOST, see id. at 37–41. See Stern Declaration at ¶ 44. Indeed, it
`
`appears that the design and implementation of the conversion of commands was
`
`left as potential future work.” See Ekstrom at 52 (“A future work of the results in
`
`this Master Thesis would be to implement a complete gateway. This could be done
`
`by using Ericsson Bluetooth Development Kit (EBDK) and the MOST General
`
`Node (MGN). … The MGN also has a microprocessor that can handle special
`
`application requirements such as interpreting Control commands form Bluetooth to
`
`MOST and vice versa.”). Ekstrom only “theoretically describes how Bluetooth
`
`could be integrated with MOST via a gateway,” id. at iii, and does not contain any
`
`“implementation description of the achieved solutions to this task,” id. at 1. See
`
`also Stern Declaration at ¶ 44.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00544
`Patent No. 8,155,342
`Additionally, although Petitioners assert that Ekstrom is a prior art printed
`
`publication, see Petition at 17–18, they do not provide any admissible evidence in
`
`support of that assertion. Instead, Petitioners rely on their purported experts,
`
`Strawn and Hsieh-Yee, for opinions regarding the public availability of Ekstrom.
`
`See id. at 18. But, as explained below in more detail, Strawn is not qualified to give
`
`such an opinion, and his and Hsieh-Yee’s opinions, which themselves rely on
`
`inadmissible evidence, cannot overcome Petitioners’ failure to provide actual,
`
`admissible evidence to prove that Ekstrom qualifies as prior art.
`
`3. MOST SPECIFICATION
`
`MOST (Media Oriented Systems Transport) is a “network technology based
`
`on synchronous data communication” that “was originally developed for
`
`multimedia applications in the automotive environment.” See Ex. 1008 (“MOST
`
`Specification Framework”) at 7, 9. The MOST Specification is one of the
`
`documents that provide “information defining the MOST standard.” Id. at 8;
`
`MOST Specification at 15. A MOST network connects devices within a vehicle
`
`using “Plastic Optical Fiber (POF).” MOST Specification Framework at 9. See
`
`also Stern Declaration at ¶ 46.
`
`In order to operate on a MOST Network, a “Most Device” must meet certain
`
`requirements of the MOST standard, including that they “[s]hall provide a standard
`
`interface in terms of their: [r]esponse to network management functions such as
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00544
`Patent No. 8,155,342
`configuration, reset, channel allocation and fail safe operation[;] [c]ommunications
`
`mechanism[; and] [p]hysical interface.” Most Specification Framework at 14. For
`
`example, every MOST device must implement a “NetBlock” function block, id. at
`
`15; MOST Framework at 19, and include an “optical interface,” Most Specification
`
`Framework at 16; MOST Specification at 191. See also Stern Declaration at ¶ 47.
`
`Petitioners do not present any evidence that the MOST Specification teaches
`
`or suggests integrating a wireless portable device with a MOST network. Strawn
`
`states that the MOST Specification discloses that control commands issued from a
`
`MOST controller can be sent to a MOST CD changer on a MOST network to cause
`
`the CD changer to play an audio file. See Strawn Declaration at ¶ 167. Strawn
`
`further contends that “[t]he MOST Specification discloses that the integration
`
`subsystem instructs the portable device to play an audio file because the MOST
`
`Specification discloses a ‘start play function and gives a specific play (‘On’)
`
`example.’” See id. at ¶ 165 (emphasis added). He concludes that “[a] POSA would
`
`understand that a portable device such as Simonds MP3 player 52 would respond
`
`to MOST commands such as play and stop discussed above for the CD player and
`
`as disclosed in the MOST Specification.” See id. at ¶ 166.
`
`But Strawn’s opinion is entirely bereft of factual underpinnings. Strawn does
`
`not present any evidence that the MOST Specification discloses integrating a
`
`wireless device with a MOST Network using an “integration subsystem” or
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00544
`Patent No. 8,155,342
`otherwise. In fact, Strawn provides no citation to the alleged disclosure of an
`
`“integration subsystem” in the MOST Specification. See id. at ¶ 165. The evidence
`
`cited by Strawn is limited to commands and information exchanged between
`
`MOST devices on a MOST network. See id. at ¶¶ 165–67. As such, Strawn does
`
`not and cannot show where the MOST Specification teaches or sugges