`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 8
`Entered: August 10, 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.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BLITZSAFE TEXAS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00544
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JAMES T. MOORE, 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00544
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner, as captioned above, filed a Petition requesting an inter
`
`partes review of claims 49–57, 62–64, 66, 68, 70, 71, 73–80, 83, 8688, 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 3
`
`(“Pet.”). Patent Owner filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 7 (“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.
`
`A.
`
`Related Matters
`
`Petitioner asserts that the’342 patent is the subject matter of district
`
`court ligitation pending in the Eastern District of Texas, including Blitzsafe
`
`Texas, LLC v. Jaguar Land Rover Ltd., 2:17-cv-00424. Pet. 2. We observe
`
`that the litigation is still pending.
`
`The ’342 patent has been challenged in many AIA proceedings:
`
`IPR2016-00118, IPR2016-00418, IPR2016-00419, IPR2016-01445,
`
`IPR2016-01449, IPR2016-01473, IPR2016-01476, IPR2016-01533,
`
`IPR2016-01557, IPR2016-01560, IPR2018-00090. Pet. 34; Paper 6.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00544
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`
`B.
`
`The ’342 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`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 1:5458. “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 1:6063.
`
`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
`
`5:710. “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 5:913. 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 5:2330. One embodiment
`
`illustrated in Figure 19, reproduced below, for example, shows an
`
`integration subsystem. Id. at 8:38.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00544
`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.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00544
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`
`C.
`
`Illustrative Claim
`
`Of the challenged claims, claims 49, 73, 97, and 120 are independent.
`
`Claims 50–57, 62–64, 66, 68, 70, and 71 depend directly or indirectly from
`
`claim 49. Claims 7480, 83, 8688, 94, and 95 depend directly or indirectly
`
`from claim 73. Claims 98103, 106, 109111, 113, and 115 depend directly
`
`or indirectly from claim 97.
`
`Claim 49, reproduced below, is illustrative.
`
`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
`system.
`
`Ex. 1001, 42:29–47.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00544
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`
`D.
`
`Asserted Prior Art and Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`The Petition identifies the following references in connection with
`
`Petitioner’s challenge of unpatentability (Pet. 67):
`
`1) Simonds: U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2004/0093155 A1, published on
`
`May 13, 2004, and filed as Exhibit 1005;
`
`2) Ekstrom: Document entitled Audio Over Bluetooth and MOST, filed
`
`as Exhibit 1006;
`
`3) MOST Specification: Document entitled Media Oriented Systems
`
`Transport (MOST) Specification Version 2.2-00, filed in the record as
`
`Exhibit 1007;
`
`Petitioner asserts one ground of unpatentability (Pet. 5):
`
`Challenged Claim(s)
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`4957, 6264, 66, 68, 70, 71, 73-
`80, 83, 8688, 94, 95, 97, 99103,
`106, 109111, 113, 115, and 120
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Simonds, Ekstrom, and
`MOST Specification
`
`With regard to introduced testimony, Petitioner relies on the
`
`Declaration of John M. Strawn, Ph.D. Ex. 1003. Patent Owner relies on the
`
`Declaration of Richard Stern, Ph.D. Ex. 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
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00544
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`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).
`
`Further, the Federal Circuit warns that “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) (emphasis added).
`
`B.
`
`Summary of Asserted References
`
`(1) Simonds (Exhibit 1005)
`
`Simonds is directed to a system for providing information on a
`
`vehicle, and, more specifically, to integrated electronics systems that provide
`
`enhanced vehicle information services onboard a vehicle. Ex. 1005 ¶ 2.
`
`Figure 2 of Simonds is reproduced below.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00544
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2 illustrates an example of various electronic host devices
`
`included with an infotaiment system providing entertainment and telematics
`
`services onboard a vehicle. Id. ¶ 37. Vehicle Consumer Services Interface
`
`(“VCSI”) 30 is a host platform that interfaces with the various electronic
`
`host devices within the vehicle. Id. VCSI 30 couples to vehicle data bus 20,
`
`high speed media oriented system transport (“MOST”) bus 44, and wireless
`
`link 46. Id. VCSI host platform 30 serves as the “bridge between different
`
`protocols to provide a standardized interface that makes the task of creating
`
`in-vehicle applications easy, and further serves to synchronize non-
`
`automotive technology devices to that of the vehicle 10.” Id. ¶ 38.
`
`With regard to MOST bus 44, it is a wire bus connected in
`
`communication with electronic devices, including main visual Human
`
`Machine Interface (“HMI”) 12. Id. ¶ 40. Other electronic devices connected
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00544
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`to MOST bus 44 include radio tuner 34, audio amplifier 36, compact
`
`disc/digital versatile disc (“CD/DVD”) player 38, navigation system 40, and
`
`a global positioning system (“GPS”) receiver 42. Id. The high-speed
`
`MOST bus allows data communications between each of the electronic host
`
`devices coupled to MOST bus 44 and VCSI host platform 30. Id.
`
`With regard to wireless devices, VCSI host platform 30 is able to
`
`communicate with various wireless devices including cell phone 48,
`
`personal digital assistant (“PDA”) 50, and media player (e.g., MPEG1 audio
`
`layer 3 “MP3” player) 52, via wireless link 46. Id. ¶ 41. Simonds explains
`
`that a user of a cell phone, PDA, MP3 player and keyfob 51 may travel in
`
`and out of the vehicle and communicate with the vehicle via wireless link
`
`46. Id. Simonds also states that “[i]t should also 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.
`
`(2) Ekstrom (Exhibit 1006)
`
`Ekstrom is a thesis that describes a design of a gateway between
`
`Bluetooth and MOST technologies. Ex. 1006, 1. The gateway “shall be
`
`able to handle control data to initiate a synchronous link and to route
`
`synchronous audio sent from Bluetooth to MOST.” Id. Ekstrom first
`
`defines the audio source because “the gateway needs to know the
`
`preferences of the audio source.” Id. at 33. One requirement of the audio
`
`source is the “possibility to send control data that establishes a synchronous
`
`
`
`1 Motion Pictures Experts Group.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00544
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`connection for transferring voice data.” Id. Ekstrom describes the use of the
`
`Headset (HS) Profile of the Bluetooth specification as it fulfills the
`
`requirement and fits as an audio source. Id. In Figure 27, reproduced
`
`below, Ekstrom illustrates how a headset and the audio gateway
`
`communicate, using attention (“AT”) commands to establish a Bluetooth
`
`connection.
`
`Figure 27 depicts the establishment of a connection between the
`
`Bluetooth headset (HS) and the Bluetooth audio gateway (AG). According
`
`to Ekstrom, pressing of the headset button causes the headset to issue an AT
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00544
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`command (AT+CKPD2=200), which the Bluetooth audio gateway
`
`understands and responds with an acknowledgement (“OK”). Id.
`
`Ekstrom recognized that a design problem is the differences between
`
`transmission of synchronous audio and control data. Id. at 35. Specifically,
`
`“[f]or synchronous audio the transmission is in the link layer but for the
`
`control data the approach is to design an interpreter on the application level.”
`
`Id. Accordingly, Ekstrom adopts the approach of an “interpreter that
`
`handles the used Bluetooth profile procedure and converts them to the
`
`corresponding MOST procedures.” Id. at 36. Figure 30, reproduced below
`
`illustrates the gateway structure.
`
`
`
`Figure 30 depicts the Bluetooth-MOST gateway structure. Id. In
`
`particular, Ekstrom explains Figure 30 as showing that the interpreting
`
`application at the “gateway handles the actual Bluetooth profile and
`
`interprets it to functions and methods understandable by the MOST network
`
`nodes.” Id. With regard to the data transfer involved in sending audio from
`
`Bluetooth to MOST, Ekstrom states that first the “connection has to be
`
`established using control data,” and, subsequently, “the stream of
`
`
`
`2 Generally, a keypad emulator on a device.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00544
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`synchronous audio is transferred.” Id. “The data in both cases has to be
`
`modified to fit the other system.” Id.
`
`More specifically with regard to the control data, Ekstrom explains
`
`that the headset profile in the headset talks to the headset profile in the
`
`gateway and the gateway interprets the commands so that the MOST system
`
`makes the connection independently of what happens on the Bluetooth side.
`
`Id. at 37; see also 46 (“The gateway has to be programmed so that the
`
`command sent from Bluetooth gets interpreted correctly on MOST and that a
`
`Bluetooth command from MOST gets interpreted to the correct command.”).
`
`(3) MOST Specification (Exhibit 1007)
`
`“This document specifies the MOST system services, which are
`
`needed to develop MOST Devices, i.e. hardware using MOST technology.”
`
`Ex. 1007, 15. The MOST Specification describes that a MOST Device
`
`contains multiple components, which are called function blocks, such as
`
`“tuner, amplifier, or CD player.” Id. at 19. Each function block, in turn,
`
`contains a number of single functions, such as “Play, Stop, Eject, and
`
`Played” (single functions) for a CD player (function block). Id. Each
`
`function and function block has an identifier (“ID”). Id. at 20. Further, the
`
`MOST Specification describes the “protocol structure” for communication
`
`between MOST Devices. Id. at 5558. For instance, the CD Changer with a
`
`physical MOST address “CDC,” has a function block “CD Player,” and
`
`various functions, one of which is “track.” Id. at 57. For an HMI to change
`
`the track in the CD Player, the HMI sends a protocol addressed to the CDC:
`
`CDC.CD.1.Track.Set(10). Id. This protocol is transmitted from the HMI
`
`NetServices to the MOST transceiver of the HMI, which communicates the
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00544
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`protocol on the MOST bus for receipt by the MOST transceiver of the node
`
`of the CDC. Id. at 56.
`
`Figure 222 of Ekstrom illustrates how a controller, such as an HMI,
`
`communicates with the CDC when using the “Next Track” button on the
`
`HMI.
`
`
`
`Figure 222 illustrates the controlled properties in the control device. For
`
`example, upon selecting the “Next Track” button, the HMI “takes the
`
`contents of its local variable Track, increments it by one, and sends the
`
`protocol CD.0.Track.Set(Track+1) to device CDC.” Id. at 61. “After the
`
`player has changed track, it replies by sending protocol
`
`CD.0.Track.Status(3).” Id.
`
`Intelligent MOST devices contain their entire functionality and must
`
`support all method and properties of NetBlock and MOST Device. Id. at 31
`
`(stating that “functionality” means the device includes a MOST chip with
`
`the properties NodeAddr and Logical Addr). A NetworkMaster contains the
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00544
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`central registry, which represents an image of the physical and logical
`
`system configuration. Id. at 67 (explaining that the registry includes each
`
`device’s function blocks: FBlock IDs).
`
`C.
`
`Alleged Obviousness of Independent Claims 49, 73, 97, and 120
`
`The “integration subsystem” recited in claims 49, 73, and 120
`
`“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.” See
`
`Ex. 1001, 42:4244 (“the instruction limitation”).
`
`Petitioner contends that the combination of Simonds, Ekstrom, and
`
`the MOST Specification teaches the “integrated subsystem.” Pet. 2835. In
`
`particular, Petitioner relies on Simonds’s VCSI acting “as the Network
`
`Master described in the MOST Specification and includes the Ekstrom
`
`MOST/Bluetooth gateway.” Pet. 29. With regard to the instruction
`
`limitation, Petitioner argues that
`
`(1) Simonds’s VCSI interfaces off-board devices and HMIs;
`
`(2) A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the
`
`VCSI instructs the portable device to perform an action in response
`
`to a user selection on the HMI;
`
`(3) A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to
`
`implement the VCSI to instruct the portable to play the audio file
`
`in response to a user selecting the audio file using the HMI
`
`controls as disclosed in the MOST Specification;
`
`(4) The MOST Specification discloses that the “Player” device
`
`includes the play or next function block;
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00544
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`
`(5) The Network Master of the MOST Specification or Simonds’s
`
`VCSI has a central registry of each function block associated with
`
`a device;
`
`(6) A user can use the HMI function block to use the play or next
`
`function block of a “Player” portable device;
`
`(7) Through an abstract method, a CD player could be set to mode
`
`“Play” by “SourceActivity.Start(On);”
`
`(8) The MOST Specification discloses an example of using “Next
`
`track” button with a protocol CD.0.Track.Set(Track+1);
`
`(9) A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a
`
`portable device (Simonds’s MP3 player) would respond to MOST
`
`commands (“Play” and “Next Track”) from the Network
`
`Master/VCSI as disclosed in the MOST Specification. Pet. 4344.
`
`Patent Owner challenges Petitioner’s arguments and evidence with
`
`regard to the instruction limitation. Prelim. Resp. 2031. In particular, to
`
`address argument (1) above, Patent Owner argues that Simonds does not
`
`teach issuing commands from the VCSI to the MP3 player in response to a
`
`user selecting an audio file. Id. at 21. We agree. Simonds describes the
`
`VCSI’s ability to interface the devices, but is silent as to how the devices
`
`communicate with the VCSI.
`
`As to Petitioner’s argument (2), Petitioner relies on the Strawn
`
`Declaration to fill Simonds’s gap in this regard. Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1003
`
`¶¶ 16167). The factual support for Strawn’s assertion that Simonds’s VCSI
`
`“instructs the portable device” is that: (a) Simonds “interfaces” various
`
`devices; and (b) that the VCSI host platform is “able to communicate with
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00544
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`various wireless devices.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 162. We are not persuaded by the
`
`testimony as it ascribes to Simonds the ability to control an MP3 player from
`
`the HMI connected to the MOST bus when Simonds neither describes nor
`
`implies such functionality. The facts presented to us do not appear to
`
`support the conclusion that Simonds performs the “instruction limitation”
`
`based on the generic statements of Simonds’s VCSI communicating with or
`
`interfacing the wireless device.
`
`With respect to Petitioner’s arguments (3)(9), as to whether the
`
`MOST Specification provides the details of the communications between the
`
`HMIVCSIMP3 player, Patent Owner argues that the MOST Specification
`
`“only discloses how one MOST device can transmit commands to control
`
`another MOST device where both devices are built into a vehicle.” Id. at 23.
`
`We agree with Patent Owner that the MOST Specification details the
`
`manner in which MOST devices, such as the CD Player, are controlled by an
`
`HMI in a MOST bus.
`
`However, Petitioner relies on the MOST Specification to argue that
`
`the MP3 player would understand the disclosed commands, in the same
`
`manner the CD Player is shown to understand them. Pet. 44 (see argument
`
`(9) listed above). But there is no evidence of a portable device, such as an
`
`MP3 player that would have both MOST and Bluetooth capabilities, so that
`
`the purported combination of teachings would work as the claims require.
`
`Upon further study of the Petition we note an explanation in the
`
`Strawn Declaration that the MOST network architecture, which follows
`
`object-oriented programming, allows for the “functionality of a program” to
`
`be broken down into a collection of objects. Ex. 1003 ¶ 65. Thus the
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00544
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`Strawn Declaration provides, “The functionality could represent for example
`
`the MP3 player’s ability to start and stop playing a song, or selecting a
`
`song.” Id (emphasis added). We find this is insufficient to show how the
`
`combination of teachings would work as asserted.
`
`First, for the combination of teachings to work predictably, the MP3
`
`player (or any other devices coupled to the wireless link) must be a MOST
`
`device or, at a minimum, have the MOST functionality to receive the
`
`protocols and methods that Petitioner asserts would work to issue “Play” or
`
`“Next Track” instructions. The record lacks persuasive evidence of any
`
`such device. Nor has Petitioner asserted how a typical MP3 player, such as
`
`the one shown in Simonds, would be modified to include the MOST
`
`functionality, in addition to the Bluetooth functionality.
`
`Second, if Petitioner is not relying on a portable device with the
`
`functionality of a MOST device, then it must show how the VCSI/Network
`
`Manager, or any other alleged “interface,” would translate the
`
`protocols/methods (“Play” or “Next Track”) from the MOST Specification
`
`into commands that the wireless portable device would understand. The
`
`record contains no such evidence. At best, Ekstrom teaches that an
`
`“interpreting application” is used to translate, into MOST, the Bluetooth
`
`control data needed to establish a communication link. There is no evidence
`
`that a MOST protocol for “Play” would have been translated into a
`
`Bluetooth command that the MP3 player of Simonds would understand.
`
`Indeed, the Bluetooth Headset Profile of Ekstrom does not allow for either a
`
`“Play” or “Next Track” command. Thus, even if Petitioner had relied on
`
`Ekstrom for the “instruction limitation,” which it did not, Ekstrom does not
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00544
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`teach or suggest that the gateway would have interpreted a MOST protocol
`
`for “Play” or “Next Track” into a corresponding Bluetooth command.
`
`Third, the motivation to combine Simonds and the MOST
`
`Specification is too generic and insufficient for us to be persuaded. See
`
`ActiveVideo Networks Inc. v. Verizon Comm., Inc., 694 F.3d 1312, 1328
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2012) (finding expert testimony of motivation to combine “to
`
`build something better,” “more efficient, cheaper, or” something that “had
`
`more features” was generic and insufficient). Petitioner asserts, for instance,
`
`that the generic goal of providing a single, cohesive system would have been
`
`a reason to combine the teachings of Simonds and the MOST Specification.
`
`Pet. 25. As further reasons, Petitioner asserts that the combination would
`
`result in the user having an enhanced vehicle experience, safer driving
`
`experience, and predictable results because both Simonds and the MOST
`
`Specification use the MOST bus. Id. at 26.
`
`Again, these assertions are generic and bear little relation to any
`
`specific combination of elements. According to the ActiveVideo court, such
`
`generalizations “fail[] to explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have combined elements from specific references in the way the
`
`claimed invention does.” ActiveVideo, 694 F.3d at 1328 (emphasis added).
`
`None of the proffered reasons address why the Simonds MP3 player would
`
`have been designed to include MOST functionality in addition to Bluetooth,
`
`or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have added programming
`
`to the VCSI to include an MP3 player object that understands CD Player
`
`commands, or how a gateway would have been designed to translate MOST
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00544
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`commands to Bluetooth in order to control the play functions of an MP3
`
`player.
`
`For at least the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded that Petitioner
`
`has shown sufficiently that the asserted combination of references teaches
`
`the “instruction limitation” or that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have had a reason to combine Simonds and the MOST Specification as
`
`asserted for this limitation. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has
`
`not shown a reasonable likelihood that claims 49, 73, and 120 would have
`
`been obvious over Simonds, Ekstrom, and the MOST Specification.
`
`D.
`
`Alleged Obviousness of Claim 97
`
`Claim 97 recites the “integration subsystem” to “receive[] a control
`
`command issued by a user through one or more controls of the car
`
`audio/video system in a format incompatible with the portable device,
`
`processes the control command into a formatted command compatible with
`
`the portable device, and dispatches the formatted command to the portable
`
`device for execution thereby.” Ex. 1001, 45:5763 (the “control command
`
`limitation”). Petitioner relies on Simonds, the MOST Specification, and
`
`Ekstrom as teaching the limitation. In particular, Petitioner argues that
`
`Simonds’s VCSI receives an “audio command input” from the HMI and that
`
`the command is in a format incompatible with the portable device. Pet. 47
`
`(citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 3536). Petitioner alleges that Simonds’s VCSI is a
`
`“bridge” between different protocols and enables compatibility between
`
`devices provided by a variety of different suppliers. Id. (citing Ex. 1005
`
`¶ 38 and what appears to be the analysis provided for the “instruction
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00544
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`limitation” discussed above). However, Petitioner relies on the details
`
`taught in the MOST Specification and Ekstrom, explained above with
`
`respect to the “instruction limitation” of how the MOST Specification
`
`discloses a “Next Track” command issued to the CD Player and that
`
`Ekstrom translates control data from “MOST language to Bluetooth.” Id. at
`
`4749.
`
`We do not repeat the analysis discussed above, but reiterate that
`
`Petitioner does not show how the VCSI/Network Manager, or any other
`
`alleged “interface,” would translate the protocols/methods (“Play” or “Next
`
`Track”) from the MOST Specification into commands that the wireless
`
`portable device would understand. Claim 97 expressly requires that the
`
`command issued by the car/audio video system is incompatible with the
`
`portable device. And as stated above, at best, Ekstrom teaches that an
`
`“interpreting application” is used to translate, into MOST, the Bluetooth
`
`control data needed to establish a communication link between a headset and
`
`a MOST audio/speaker device. But there is no evidence that a MOST
`
`protocol for “Play” would have been translated into a Bluetooth command
`
`that the MP3 player of Simonds would understand. The Bluetooth Headset
`
`Profile of Ekstrom does not allow for either a “Play” or “Next Track”
`
`command. Thus, the Petition fails to show that Ekstrom teaches or suggests
`
`a gateway that would have interpreted a MOST protocol for “Play” or “Next
`
`Track” into a corresponding Bluetooth command.
`
`As stated above, the motivation to combine Simonds and the MOST
`
`Specification is too generic and the motivation to combine with Ekstrom
`
`also is too generic and insufficient. See ActiveVideo, 694 F.3d at 1328.
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00544
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`Petitioner states that it would have been obvious to implement formatting
`
`data and commands for wireless transmission as described in Ekstrom
`
`because of the goal of integrating wireless devices to a car audio/video
`
`system and the general benefits of using Bluetooth. Pet. 26. For instance,
`
`Petitioner alleges that Bluetooth allows seamless audio channeled to the car
`
`audio/video system, avoids cables, is “less cumbersome to the user,” saves
`
`costs, avoids delay of playback that might result from sending entire audio
`
`files. Id. at 2627.
`
`Petitioner finally alleges that implementing Bluetooth and MOST as
`
`alleged would provide predictable results because Simonds and Ekstrom
`
`describe their use. Id. at 27. All of these assertions are generic and bear
`
`little relation to any specific combination of elements. The benefits derived
`
`from using Bluetooth generally do not speak to the reasons a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would implement translation of certain commands
`
`issued by the car/audio video system using a MOST protocol into the
`
`Bluetooth standard in order to control the wireless MP3 player.
`
`Rather, the reasons provided for the implementation of Ekstrom’s
`
`teachings with Simonds’s system contradict the reasons provided for the
`
`other independent claims, for which Petitioner contends no translation of
`
`commands would be necessary. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 166 (Strawn opining
`
`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”); but see ¶ 190 (Strawn opining that the “command received
`
`from the MOST HMI would be in a format incompatible with the portable
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00544
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`device” and stating that Ekstrom’s “gateway has to be programmed so that
`
`the command sent from Bluetooth gets interpreted correctly on MOST and
`
`that a Bluetooth command from MOST gets interpreted to the correct
`
`command.”).
`
`The Petition and the Strawn Declaration vacillate between these
`
`positions depending on the claim addressed, evidencing the strong inference
`
`that hindsight is at play. The Strawn Declaration without sufficient
`
`explanation and without credible support states that Simonds’s MP3 player
`
`“may communicate not only with Bluetooth but also via wire such as
`
`MOST.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 97. The cite to Simonds does not support this assertion
`
`as there is no disclosure in Simonds that an MP3 player would have had both
`
`Bluetooth and MOST functionalities. Nevertheless, the assertion belies
`
`Petitioner’s contentions of obviousness that an MP3 player would require
`
`translation of commands (claim 97) received from a MOST device of the car
`
`stereo, as the same MP3 player, according to Petitioner, for claims 43, 73,
`
`and 120, could understand the MOST commands.
`
`For at least the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded that Petitioner
`
`has shown sufficiently that the asserted combination of references teaches
`
`the “control command limitation” or that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have had a reason to combine Simonds, the MOST Specification, and
`
`Ekstrom as asserted for this limitation. Accordingly, we determine that
`
`Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that independent claim 97
`
`would have been obvious over Simonds, Ekstrom, and the MOST
`
`Specification.
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00544
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`
`Accordingly, it is:
`
`III. ORDER
`
`ORDERED that the Petition is denied and no inter partes review is
`
`instituted.
`
`.
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00544
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`
`Matthew J. Moore
`Jonathan M. Strang
`Clement Naples
`Lisa K. Nguyen
`matthew.moore@lw.com
`jonathan.strang@lw.com
`clement.naples@lw.com
`lisa.nguyen@lw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Peter Lambrianakos
`Vincent J. Rubino, III
`Enrique W. Iturralde
`plambrianakos@brownrudnick.com
`vrubino@brownrudnick.com
`eiturralde@brownrudnick.com
`
`
`
`24
`
`