Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 12
`Filed: January 8, 2019
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`JAGUAR LAND ROVER LTD and JAGUAR LAND ROVER
`NORTH AMERICA LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BLITZSAFE TEXAS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-01203
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, THOMAS L. GIANNETTI,
`and MIRIAM L. QUINN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01203
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background
`On June 6, 2018, Petitioner filed a Petition to institute inter partes
`review of claims 1, 2, 4–14, 23, 24, 57, 58, 60–65, 86, 88–92, 94, 97, and 98
`of U.S. Patent No. 7,489,786 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’786 patent”). On August
`21, 2018, Petitioner filed a Corrected Petition, authorized by the Board and
`not opposed by Patent Owner. Paper 8. The Corrected Petition challenges
`the same claims on the same grounds as articulated in the original Petition.
`Hereinafter, we refer to the Corrected Petition as the Petition (“Pet.”). On
`October 15, 2018, Patent Owner filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 11,
`“Prelim. Resp.”).
`To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the
`information presented in the Petition 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Having considered
`both the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner
`has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in
`establishing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims.
`Accordingly, we do not institute review and the Petition is denied.
`Related Matters
`The parties identify eight civil actions involving the ’786 patent.
`Pet. 3; Paper 5, 1–2. The ’786 patent also has been the subject of these inter
`partes review proceedings: IPR2016-00421, IPR2016-00422, IPR2016-
`01448, IPR2016-01472, IPR2016-01477, IPR2018-01142, IPR2018-01204,
`IPR2018-01211, and IPR2018-01214. Paper 5, 2. We instituted review
`only in IPR2016-00421, which has terminated by settlement. Id. A decision
`
`B.
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01203
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`on whether to institute inter partes review has not yet issued in IPR2018-
`01214. We have denied institution of review in all other proceedings.
`The ’786 Patent
`C.
`The ’786 patent is entitled “Audio Device Integration System.”
`Ex. 1001, [54]. According to the ’786 patent, a “particular problem with
`integrating after-market audio systems with existing car stereos is that
`signals generated by the car stereo is in a proprietary format, and is not
`capable of being processed by the after-market system.” Id. at 1:36–39.
`“Thus, in order to integrate after-market systems with car stereos, it is
`necessary to convert signals between such systems.” Id. at 1:42−44.
`The ’786 patent is directed to an audio device integration system that
`allows after-market audio devices to be integrated for use with an existing
`car stereo system, such that control commands can be issued at the car stereo
`for execution by the audio device and data from the audio device can be
`displayed on the car stereo. Id. at Abstr., 2:12–42. More specifically,
`control commands generated at the car stereo are received, converted into a
`format recognizable by the after-market audio device, and dispatched to the
`device for execution. Id. at Abstr., 2:35–40. In addition, information from
`the audio device, such as track, channel, song, and artist information, is
`received, processed, converted (into a format recognizable by the car stereo),
`and dispatched to the stereo for display. Id. at Abstr., 2:40–47. The audio
`device could, for example, comprise a “CD player, CD changer, MP3 player,
`satellite receiver, [or] digital audio broadcast (DAB) receiver.” Id. at 4:28–
`30; see id. at [57], 2:23–26. Figures 2A–2C are reproduced below:
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01203
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`Figures 2A–C illustrate embodiments in which a car stereo is integrated with
`a CD player (Figure 2A), an MP3 player (Figure 2B), and a satellite radio or
`DAB receiver (Figure 2C). Id. at 3:14–23.
`With regard to Figure 2B, the ’786 patent describes:
`The interface 20 allows data and audio signals to be exchanged
`between the MP3 player 30 and the car radio 10, and processes
`and formats signals accordingly so that instructions and data
`from the radio 10 are processable by the MP3 player 30, and vice
`versa. Operational commands, such as track selection, pause,
`play, stop, fast forward, rewind, and other commands, are entered
`via the control panel buttons 14 of car radio 10, processed by the
`interface 20, and formatted for execution by the MP3 player 30.
`Data from the MP3 player, such as track, time, and song
`information, is received by the interface 20, processed thereby,
`and sent to the radio 10 for display on display 13. Audio from
`the MP3 player 30 is selectively forwarded by the interface 20 to
`the radio 10 for playing.
`Id. at 6:11–24. Similar description is provided with respect to Figures 2A
`and 2C. Id. at 5:49–55, 6:35–43.
`In addition, an external audio device, as well as auxiliary input
`sources, may be integrated with a car stereo. Id. at Abstr., 2:53–56. A user
`then “can select between the external audio device and the auxiliary input
`using the controls of the car stereo.” Id. at 2:56–57. Figure 1 is reproduced
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01203
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`below:
`
`
`Figure 1 illustrates an embodiment integrating a car stereo with a CD player,
`a MP3 player, and a satellite radio or DAB receiver, as well as a number of
`auxiliary input sources. Id. at 3:12–13, 5:14–27.
`As shown in the above figures, central to the ’786 patent is an
`“interface” positioned between the car stereo and the audio device(s) and
`auxiliary input(s). See, e.g., id. at Fig. 1, 2A–C, 5:33–36. The interface
`allows for the integration of the audio devices and auxiliary inputs with the
`original or after-market car radio or stereo. Id. at 5:33–36. A docking
`station also is provided for docking a portable audio or video device for
`integration with the car stereo. Id. at Abstr.
`Claims 1, 57, 86, and 92 are independent. Claim 1 is directed to a
`system that connects an after-market audio device, as well as one or more
`auxiliary input sources, to a car stereo. In particular, claim 1 recites a first
`connector electrically connectable to a car stereo, a second connector
`electrically connectable to an after-market device, and a third connector
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01203
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`electrically connectable to one or more auxiliary input sources. Id. at 21:33–
`38. Claim 1 also recites an interface connected between the first and second
`electrical connectors, and that the interface includes a microcontroller pre-
`programmed to execute:
`a first pre-programmed code portion for remotely controlling the
`after-market audio device using the car stereo by receiving a
`control command from the car stereo through said first
`connector in a format incompatible with the after-market
`audio device, processing the received control command into
`a formatted command compatible with the after-market audio
`device, and transmitting the formatted command to the after-
`market audio device through said second connector for
`execution by the after-market audio device;
`a second pre-programmed code portion for receiving data from
`the after-market audio device through said second connector
`in a format incompatible with the car stereo, processing the
`received data into formatted data compatible with the car
`stereo, and transmitting the formatted data to the car stereo
`through said first connector for display by the car stereo; and
`a third pre-programmed code portion for switching to one or
`more auxiliary input sources connected to said third electrical
`connector.
`Id. at 21:44–64.
`Claim 57 is directed to a system including an interface that connects a
`portable MP3 player to a car stereo. Claim 86 is directed to a system
`including an interface that connects an after-market video device to a car
`stereo. Claim 92 is directed to a system including an interface that connects
`a portable audio device with a car stereo. Claims 57, 86, and 92 each require
`the generation, within an interface, of a device presence signal that is
`transmitted to the car stereo to maintain the car stereo in an operational state.
`Claims 57, 86, and 92 are reproduced below:
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01203
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`
`57. An audio device integration system comprising:
`a first electrical connector connectable to a car stereo;
`a second electrical connector connectable to a portable MP3
`player external to the car stereo
`an interface connected between said first and second electrical
`connectors for transmitting audio from a portable MP3 player
`to a car stereo, said interface including a microcontroller in
`electrical communication with said first and second electrical
`connectors,
`said microcontroller pre-programmed to execute:
`a first pre-programmed code portion for generating a
`device presence signal and transmitting the signal to
`the car stereo to maintain the car stereo in an
`operational state; and
`a second pre-programmed code portion for remotely
`controlling the MP3 player using the car stereo by
`receiving a control command from the car stereo
`through said first electrical connector in a format
`incompatible with the MP3 player, processing the
`control command into a formatted control command
`compatible with the MP3 player, and transmitting
`the formatted control command to the MP3 player
`through said second electrical connector for
`execution by the MP3 player.
`Id. at 26:13–37.
`86. A device for integrating video information for use with a car
`stereo, comprising:
`a first electrical connector connectable to a car stereo;
`a second electrical connector connectable to an after-market
`video device external to the car stereo;
`an interface connected between said first and second electrical
`connectors for transmitting video information from the after-
`market video device to the car stereo, the interface including
`a microcontroller in electrical communication with said first
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01203
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`
`and second electrical connectors, said microcontroller pre-
`programmed to execute:
`a first pre-programmed code portion for generating a
`device presence signal and transmitting the signal to
`the car stereo through said first electrical connector
`to maintain the car stereo in an operational state
`responsive to signals generated by the after-market
`video device.
`Id. 28:40–56.
`92. An audio device integration system comprising:
`a car stereo;
`a portable audio device external to the car stereo;
`an interface connected between the car stereo and the portable audio
`device, the interface including a microcontroller pre-programmed
`to execute:
`first pre-programmed means for generating a device presence
`signal and transmitting the signal to the car stereo to
`maintain the car stereo in an operational state;
`second pre-programmed means for remotely controlling the
`portable audio device using the car stereo by receiving a
`control command from the car stereo in a format
`incompatible with the portable audio device, processing
`the control command into a formatted control command
`compatible with
`the portable audio device, and
`transmitting the formatted control command to the
`portable audio device for execution thereby; and
`means for transmitting audio from the portable audio device
`to the car stereo.
`Id. at 29:11–31.
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01203
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`D.
`
`Evidence Relied Upon
`Petitioner relies on the following references:1
`
`
`
`Reference
`
`Mufid
`
`EP 1068997 A2
`
`MOST
`Specification
`
`Media Oriented System
`Transport (MOST)
`Specification, Multimedia and
`Control Networking
`Technology, Version 2.1.00,
`MOST Cooperation (2001)
`
`Date
`
`Exhibit
`
`Jan. 17, 2001
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`Feb. 2001
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`
`Petitioner also relies on the Declarations of John M. Strawn, Ph.D.
`(Ex. 1003) (“Strawn Decl.”), Dr. Wolfgang Bott, Ph. D. (Ex. 1011), Ingrid
`Hsieh-Yee (Ex. 1012), and David Wiseman (Ex. 1028), and the Affidavit of
`Christopher Butler (Ex. 1010).
`
`E.
`
`The Asserted Ground of Unpatentability
`The sole ground of unpatentability asserted by Petitioner is:
`
`Claims Challenged
`1, 2, 4–14, 23, 24, 57, 58, 60–
`65, 86, 88–92, 94, 97, and 98
`
`
`References
`Basis
`§ 103(a) Mufid and MOST
`Specification
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A.
`
`The Burden of Proof
`In an inter partes review, the petitioner has the burden of proving
`unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e).
`
`1 The ’786 patent was filed on December 11, 2002. Ex. 1001, [22].
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01203
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`That burden never shifts to the patentee. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l
`Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`The Law on Obviousness
`B.
`The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective
`evidence of nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18
`(1966). One seeking to establish obviousness based on more than one
`reference also must articulate sufficient reasoning with rational
`underpinnings to combine teachings. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
`
`C.
`
`The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Petitioner asserts that the level of ordinary skill in the art corresponds
`to “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.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 25–27). Patent Owner
`states that for purposes of this proceeding, it agrees that the level of ordinary
`skill as articulated by Petitioner is appropriate. Prelim. Resp. 3–4. We
`adopt the level of ordinary skill as articulated by Petitioner, and agreed to by
`Patent Owner, except that we delete the two instances of the qualifier “at
`least” to eliminate vagueness both as to the level of education and the
`amount of practical experience. The qualifier expands the range indefinitely
`without an upper bound and thus precludes a meaningful indication of the
`level of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01203
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`D. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, the Board interprets claim terms of an
`unexpired patent using the “broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`specification of the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs.,
`LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016). Under the broadest
`reasonable interpretation standard, claim terms generally are given their
`ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary
`skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. See In re Translogic
`Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). There are, however, two
`exceptions to that rule: “1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as
`his own lexicographer,” and “2) when the patentee disavows the full scope
`of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.” Thorner v.
`Sony Comp. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`If an inventor acts as his or her own lexicographer, the definition must
`be set forth in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and
`precision. Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243,
`1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Disavowal can be effectuated by language in the
`specification or the prosecution history. Poly-America, L.P. v. API Indus.,
`Inc., 839 F.3d 1131, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “In either case, the standard for
`disavowal is exacting, requiring clear and unequivocal evidence that the
`claimed invention includes or does not include a particular feature.” Id.
`Only those claim terms that are in controversy need to be construed,
`
`and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec Motor
`Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013,
`1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355,
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01203
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d
`795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`In this case, there is no dispute between the parties that requires an
`express construction to resolve for purposes of rendering a decision on
`whether to institute review, except for the term “command.” Our
`construction is provided and explained in the body of the analysis below, in
`pertinent context of the arguments. In summary, we determine that it is
`unreasonable to regard addressing information used to indicate the address
`of a sending device or the address of a receiving device as a part of a
`command sent from the sending device to the receiving device.
`
`E. Alleged Unpatentability of Claims 1, 2, 4–14, 23,
`
`24, 57, 58, 60–65, 86, 88–92, 94, 97, and 98
`
`as Obvious over Mufid and MOST Specification
`1. Mufid
`Mufid discloses a vehicle information, communication and
`entertainment system that implements an “open, scalable architecture . . .
`[with] a front control unit [that] achieves centralised control throughout the
`system.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 1.
`Figure 2 of Mufid is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01203
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`Figure 2 is a block diagram illustrating the overall invention disclosed in
`Mufid. Id. ¶ 9. According to Mufid, front control unit (“FCU”) 25 includes
`an HMI (human-machine interface), a media player, a complex instruction
`set processor, a voice recognition function, and a navigation function. Id.
`¶ 13. FCU 25 connects to an audio communication unit (“ACU”) 26 via a
`plastic optical fiber 27. Id. ACU 26 includes a broadcast tuner, amplifier,
`cell phone transceiver, and GPS receiver. Id. Mufid discloses an optional
`compact disk jockey (“CDJ”) 28 that is connected to ACU 26 and FCU 25
`via plastic optical fibers 29 and 30. Id.
`The plastic optical fibers form a plastic optical ring, which supports a
`plastic optical network. Id. ¶¶ 13, 14; Fig. 2. The plastic optical network is
`“preferably implemented using a network protocol such as the Media
`Oriented System Transport (MOST) protocol.” Id. ¶ 14. FCU 25, ACU 26,
`and CDJ 28 include hardware that supports the MOST technology, such as
`MOST transceivers and connectors. Id. ¶¶ 13, 14, 28, 33; Figs. 2–4.
`Figure 3 of Mufid is reproduced below:
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01203
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 3 is a block diagram showing an embodiment of FCU 25. Id. ¶ 9.
`Mufid discloses that FCU 25 includes “[a] peripheral input/output interface
`91 [that] is coupled to a MOST transceiver 92.” Id. ¶ 28. FCU 25 also
`includes “[a] MOST connector 93 [that] connects to plastic optical fibre 27
`which is coupled to ACU 26.” Id. Mufid also describes element 94 as a
`second MOST transceiver and element 95 as a MOST connector. Id.
`Figure 4 of Mufid is reproduced below:
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01203
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 4 is a block diagram showing an embodiment of ACU 26. Id. ¶ 9.
`Mufid discloses that ACU 26 includes a “MOST connector 121 and MOST
`transceiver 122.” Id. ¶ 33.
`Mufid also discloses that its invention includes a scalable architecture.
`Id. at Abstr. (“[A] front control unit (25) and an audio communication unit
`(26) . . . provide an open, scalable architecture.”). Both FCU 25 and ACU
`26 facilitate this open-scalable architecture. Mufid discloses that FCU 25
`includes a “scalable processor,” such as an X86 type of processor. Id. ¶¶ 13,
`14. Such a scalable processor enables the system to run all system
`applications and thus eliminates distributed processor functions. Id. ¶ 14.
`
`15
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01203
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`Mufid further discloses that various resources of FCU 25, such as serial
`ports, PCMCIA connectors, USB expansion connectors, UART connectors,
`and an ISA expansion slot, are available for scalability—i.e. to expand the
`features and capabilities of the system. Id. ¶¶ 21, 25.
`
`Similarly, ACU 26 includes a multiplex input 143 and its physical
`layer circuit 144, which Mufid describes as facilitating the scalability and
`expansion of functions performed by ACU microprocessor 120. Id. ¶ 38.
`
`In its last numbered paragraph, Mufid states:
`The segmentation of functions and components
`according to the present invention and the use of
`plastic optical fibre in a network ring have provided
`significant advantages unachievable according to
`the prior art. In addition, system expansion is also
`achievable by additional components in the plastic
`optical ring itself. Thus, additional remote control
`stations within the vehicle or additional video
`monitors may be located within the vehicle by
`adding these units to the optical ring.
`
`Id. ¶ 39.
`2. MOST Specification
`The MOST Specification is “part of the specification documentation
`of the MOST (Media Oriented Systems Transport) system.” Ex. 1006, 13.
`It “specifies the MOST system services, which are needed to develop MOST
`Devices, i.e. hardware using MOST technology.” Id. 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 17. 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. “To distinguish between the different
`
`16
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01203
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`function blocks (FBlocks) and functions (Fkt) of a device, each function and
`function block has a name, or an identifier (ID) respectively.” Id. at 32.
`The MOST Specification describes that MOST functions consist of a
`function block, a function, and an operation. A MOST function has the
`following structure: FBlockID . FktID . OPType (Data). Id. at 18.
`Functions are grouped together according to their function blocks. See id.
`OPType “stands for the operation which must be applied to the property or
`method specified in FktID.” Id. at 37. An operation is thus specified by
`OPType, and the parameters of the operation follow the OPType. Id. at 18.
`The MOST Specification also describes a “protocol structure” for
`communications between MOST Devices: DeviceID . FBlockID . InstID .
`FktID . OPType . Length (Data). See id. at 32–51, 53−55. The MOST
`protocols are messages that MOST transceivers transmit and receive via one
`or more telegrams.2 See id. at 55, 152–153. For example, in the section
`describing “Control Message Service,” the MOST Specification states that
`“protocols of the following type must be transmitted:
`DeviceID.FBlockID.InstID.FktID.OPType.Length (Parameter)” and that
`“MOST telegrams transport application protocols.” Id. at 152–153.
`DeviceID stands for the address for a device, either sender or receiver,
`in the MOST network. Id. at 32, 54. “If the sender does not know the
`receiver’s address, the DeviceID is set to 0xFFFF. In that case it is corrected
`by the Net Services.” Id. at 32. FBlockID is the name of a special function
`block. Id. at 33. FktID “stands for a function.” Id. at 36. OPType “stands
`
`
`2 A MOST telegram is sent and received by a MOST transceiver, and
`consists of a sender or receiver address and a maximum number of 17 data
`bytes. Id. at 152.
`
`17
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01203
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`for the operation [that] must be applied” to what is specified in FktID. Id. at
`37. InstID, which stands for an instance ID, complements the FBlockID in
`circumstances where a system has multiple function blocks (e.g. two CD
`changers, four amplifiers, several tuners, etc.). Id. at 35. Length (Data)
`“specifies the length of the data field in bytes.” Id. at 47.
`A MOST protocol (i.e., a message) thus includes a DeviceID (i.e., an
`address of a sender or receiver), a MOST function and associated operation
`to be performed (i.e., the FBlockID, FktID, and OPType fields) an InstID
`(i.e., an instance identifier) where needed, and a Length (i.e., length of the
`data field). As described in the MOST Specification, the DeviceID is not
`part of the MOST function, and it corresponds to an address of a MOST
`device. Id. at 32, 54.
`
`Figure 2-20 of the MOST Specification is reproduced below:
`
`Figure 2–20 illustrates a general data flow that takes place during
`communication between two MOST devices. Id. at 55.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01203
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`
`To provide a specific example of the general data flow illustrated in
`Figure 2–20, the MOST Specification discloses that a device with a physical
`MOST address HMI (i.e., Device 1 in Figure 2–20) initially sends the
`following to cause the selection of another track at the receiving device:
`CD.0.Track.Set(10). Id. at 54. Because at the application level, the physical
`address of the receiving device (i.e., Device 2 in Figure 2–20) is not known,
`the following is passed to the NetServices layer: FFFF.CD.0.Track.Set(10).
`Id. The NetServices layer then complements the address to produce the
`following: CDC.CD.0.Track.Set(10). Id. The MOST transceiver then adds
`the sender’s address (i.e., the physical address of Device 1, “HMI”) for the
`receiving device (i.e., Device 2), and sends the following:
`HMI.CDC.CD.0.Track.Set(10). Id.
`At the CD changer (i.e. Device 2 in Figure 2–20), because the
`receiving device knows its own physical address, the MOST transceiver
`does not pass that on to the application level. Id. Thus, the received
`protocol is: HMI.CD.0.Track.Set(10). Id.
`Independent Claims 1, 57, 86, and 92
`3.
`Independent claim 1 requires an after-market audio device, and
`independent claim 86 also requires an after-market video device. We
`discuss below in subsection “a” that Petitioner has not sufficiently shown
`that the combination of Mufid and MOST teaches or suggests the
`requirement for an after-market device.
`Each of independent claims 1, 57, and 92 requires an interface to
`receive control commands from the car stereo in a format incompatible with
`another device, i.e., after-market audio device (claim 1), portable MP3
`player (claim 57), and portable audio device (claim 92), and to process the
`
`19
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01203
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`incompatible commands into a format that is compatible with the other
`device. We discuss below in subsection “b” that Petitioner has not
`sufficiently shown that the combination of Mufid and MOST teaches these
`receiving and processing limitations.
`For reasons discussed in subsections (a) and (b) below, we determine
`that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in
`establishing the unpatentability of any of independent claims 1, 57, 86, and
`92, as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Mufid and the MOST
`Specification.
`
`a. After-market
`Independent claim 1 recites: “An audio device integration system
`
`comprising: . . . a second connector electrically connectable to an after-
`market audio device external to the car stereo; . . . a third connector
`electrically connectable to . . . the after-market audio device; an interface . . .
`for channeling audio signals to the car stereo from the after-market audio
`device, . . . said microcontroller pre-programmed to execute: a first pre-
`programmed code portion for remotely controlling the after-market audio
`device . . . ; a second pre-programmed code portion for receiving data from
`the after-market audio device . . . .” Ex. 1001, 21:30–56 (emphasis added).
`And independent claim 86 recites: “A device for integrating video
`information for use with a car stereo, comprising: . . . a second electrical
`connector connectable to an after-market video device external to the car
`stereo; an interface . . . for transmitting video information from the after-
`market video device to the car stereo . . . said microcontroller pre-
`programmed to . . . : maintain the car stereo in an operational state
`responsive to signals generated by the after-market video device.” Id. at
`
`20
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01203
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`28:40–44 (emphasis added). Petitioner asserts that Mufid in combination
`with the MOST Specification teaches or suggests an after-market device as
`recited in claims 1 and 86. See Pet. 36, 67 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 188–195).
`
`Petitioner relies on Mufid’s CDJ 28 to meet the “after-market audio
`device” of claim 1 and the “after-market video device” of claim 86.3 Pet.
`36–37, 67. Petitioner explains that Mufid discloses that CDJ 28 “is an
`example of an after-market device because it is optional and not part of the
`existing car stereo.” Id. at 36–37 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 13; Ex. 1003 ¶ 189).
`The cited portion of Mufid states: “This architecture also supports an
`optional compact disc jockey (CDJ) as a third module of the system.”
`Ex. 1005 ¶ 13. Dr. Strawn, whose testimony is cited by Petitioner, testifies:
`
`The after-market audio device is at least the Mufid
`compact disc jockey in the compact disc jockey device 28; see
`Mufid Fig. 2. “This architecture also supports an optional
`compact disc jockey (CDJ) 28 as a third module of the system.”
`[Mufid, 0012, emphasis added]. Mufid teaches that the compact
`disc jockey device is or can be after-market because it is optional
`and thus not a part used in new car production. The fact that the
`compact disc jockey device is external to the car stereo is shown
`in Mufid Fig. 2. A compact disc jockey is an audio device. “A
`compact disc jockey (CDJ) 17 provides analogue audio signals
`. . .” [Mufid, 0011].
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 189 (brackets in original).
`Patent Owner notes that even though Mufid’s CDJ 28 is an “‘optional’
`component of the Mufid system, Mufid does not disclose that CDJ 28 can be
`added after the system enters the market “as an after-market device.”
`
`
`3 Petitioner’s challenge to claim 86 relies on Mufid’s disclosure of CDJ 28
`for the “after-market video device” limitation. When addressing claim 86’s
`after-market video device, Petitioner refers to and relies on the discussion of
`claim 1’s after-market audio device. Pet. 36, 37, 67.
`
`21
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01203
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`Prelim. Resp. 10. We agree. There is a gap between “optional equipment”
`and “after-market device” that is not sufficiently filled by Petitioner and its
`technical witness Dr. Strawn.
`Petitioner’s and Dr. Strawn’s reliance on the optional nature of CDJ
`28 to argue that CDJ 28 is an after-market device is not persuasive. Mufid
`does not disclose that CDJ 28 is added to Mufid’s system after the sale of a
`system integrated in a vehicle or after the sale of the vehicle. Instead, Mufid
`discloses only that CDJ 28 is optional equipment in a vehicle. Ex. 1005,
`¶ 13. That is not enough to meet the “after-market” requirement of
`independent claims 1 and 86. CDJ 28 may be optional equipment in
`connection with the initial acquisition of a new vehicle, with the option
`specified at the time of acquisition, and not as an after-market device. Mufid
`is silent as to what it means for the CDJ to be “optional,” and the Petition
`fails to explain sufficiently persuasively that providing an option teaches or
`suggests, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, that the CDJ would be an
`after-market device. Without more explanation, we do not adopt conclusory
`counsel argument or attempt to fill in the gap. See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3);
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2), 42.104(b)(4)–(5); In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l,
`Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that because petitioner
`“bears the burden of proof,” the Board “must base its decision on arguments
`that were advanced by [Petitioner]”).
`Petitioner argues “[t]o the extent that [Patent Owner] contends that the
`optional CDJ is an optional portion of the car stereo and not an ‘after-
`market’ audio device, it would