`
`
`IPR2018-01203
`Patent No. 7,489,786
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`JAGUAR LAND ROVER LTD. AND
`JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`BLITZSAFE TEXAS, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`Patent No. 7,489,786
`Issue Date: December 11, 2002
`Title: AUDIO DEVICE INTEGRATION SYSTEM
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`Case No. IPR2018-01203
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`IPR2018-01203
`Patent No. 7,489,786
`
`A.
`B.
`C.
`D.
`E.
`
`A.
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 1
`Prior Unsuccessful Challenges ................................................................... 1
`Asserted Prior Art ....................................................................................... 2
`Effective Filing Date .................................................................................. 3
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art .............................................................. 3
`Claim Construction ..................................................................................... 4
`THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE NOT OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF
`THE CITED REFERENCES........................................................................... 7
`The Obviousness Standard ......................................................................... 8
`The Cited References Do Not Teach or Disclose an Aftermarket
`Audio or Video Device or Portable Device External to the Car
`Stereo .......................................................................................................... 9
`The Cited References Do Not Teach or Disclose a “Third
`Connector Electrically Connectable to One or More Auxiliary
`Input Source External to the Car Stereo and the After-Market
`Audio Device” As Required By Independent Claim 1 ............................ 14
`The Cited References Do Not Teach or Disclose an Interface That
`Includes a Microcontroller That Is Separate from the Car Stereo
`and Aftermarket or Portable Devices as Required by Each of the
`Independent Claims .................................................................................. 15
`The Cited References Do Not Teach or Disclose a Code Portion
`for Remotely Controlling a Portable/Aftermarket Audio Device by
`Processing a Command in a Format Incompatible with the Device
`Into a Compatible Format As Required By Independent Claims 1,
`57, and 92 ................................................................................................. 18
`The Cited References Do Not Teach or Disclose a Code Portion
`for Receiving Data from a Portable/Aftermarket Audio Device in a
`Format Incompatible with a Car Stereo and Processing it Into a
`Compatible Format As Required By Independent Claim 1 ..................... 23
`The Cited References Do Not Teach or Disclose a “Device
`Presence Signal” As Required By Independent Claims 57, 86, and
`92 .............................................................................................................. 26
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`H.
`
`IPR2018-01203
`Patent No. 7,489,786
`The Cited References Do Not Teach or Disclose the Means-Plus-
`Function Limitations of Independent Claim 92 ....................................... 29
`III. THE GENERAL PLASTIC FACTORS FAVOR DENIAL OF
`INSTITUTION .............................................................................................. 32
`IV. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 36
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`IPR2018-01203
`Patent No. 7,489,786
`
`Cases
`C.B. Distributors, Inc. v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V.,
`IPR2013-00387, Paper 43 (PTAB Dec. 24, 2014) ............................................... 9
`General Plastic Industrial Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha,
`IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017) (precedential) ................. 32, 34
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) .................................................................................................. 8
`In re Hedges,
`783 F.2d 1038 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ............................................................................ 9
`Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd.,
`IPR2013-00324, Paper 19 (PTAB Nov. 21, 2013) ............................................. 32
`Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., LLC v. Blitzsafe Texas, LLC,
`IPR2018-00544, Paper 8 (PTAB Aug. 10, 2018) ............................................... 13
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .............................................................................. 8
`Netapp, Inc. v. Realtime Data LLC,
`IPR2017-01195, Paper 9 (PTAB Oct. 12, 2017) ................................ 3, 13, 33, 34
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 314 ........................................................................................................ 32
`35 U.S.C. § 316 ........................................................................................................ 34
`
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6 ................................................................................................. 29, 30
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ..................................................................................................... 4
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Exhibit
`2001
`
`
`IPR2018-01203
`Patent No. 7,489,786
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`Transcript of August 10, 2018 PTAB Conference Call
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2018-01203
`Patent No. 7,489,786
`Institution should be denied because, as shown herein, Petitioners have
`
`failed to demonstrate that the references teach or disclose each of the limitations of
`
`the challenged claims.1
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`Prior Unsuccessful Challenges
`A.
`Five prior petitions for inter partes review of the ’786 Patent have been
`
`filed. The previous petitions all resulted in zero claims cancelled or amended. A
`
`brief summary of the previous IPRs is below:2
`
`IPR
`
`PETITIONER(S)
`
`OUTCOME
`
`IPR2016-00421
`
`Toyota Motor Corp.
`
`IPR2016-00422
`
`Institution denied as to all claims
`except 44 and 47 (July 7, 2016)3
`
`Institution denied (July 6, 2016)
`
`
`1 Unless otherwise noted, all citations to the Petition are to the Corrected Petition
`filed on August 17, 2018.
`
`2 Four additional petitions were filed on June 6–7, 2018: IPR2018-01142 and
`IPR2018-01204 by BMW of North America, LLC; and IPR2018-01211 and
`IPR2018-01214 by Daimler, AG.
`
`3 The Board instituted the ’421 Petition only as to claims 44 and 47, which relate to
`“docking stations.” The ’421 IPR was terminated due to settlement on February 21,
`2017.
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2018-01203
`Patent No. 7,489,786
`
`IPR
`
`PETITIONER(S)
`
`OUTCOME
`
`IPR2016-01448
`
`IPR2016-01472
`
`IPR2016-01477
`
`Volkswagen Group
`of Am., Inc.
`
`Am. Honda Motor
`Co., Inc.
`
`Hyundai Motor Co.
`Ltd., et al.
`
`Institution denied (Jan. 13, 2017)
`
`Institution denied (Feb. 2, 2017)
`
`Institution denied (Jan. 27, 2017)
`
`B. Asserted Prior Art
`Petitioners now file an additional petition against the ’786 Patent. In the
`
`present petition, Petitioners assert that claims 1–2, 4–14, 23–24, 57–58, 60–65, 86,
`
`88–92, 94, and 97–98 (collectively, “the Challenged Claims”)4 are obvious in view
`
`of:
`
`• European Patent Application EP 1 0 068 997 A2 to Akram Mufid et al.
`
`(“Mufid,” Ex. 1005); and
`
`• Most Corporation, Media Oriented System Transport (MOST) Specification
`
`– Version 2.1-00 (“the MOST Specification,” Ex. 1006)5;
`
`
`4 Claims 1, 57, 86, and 92 are independent. The remaining Challenged Claims
`depend from them.
`
`5 The MOST Specification was asserted as a prior art reference by Petitioners in a
`petition for inter partes review filed by them on January 29, 2018 against related
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,342. See Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., LLC v. Blitzsafe Texas,
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01203
`
`Patent No. 7,489,786
`
`(collectively, “the Cited References”). Petition at 6. But, as discussed below, the
`
`Cited References fail to address the repeated deficiencies of the prior petitions.
`
`C. Effective Filing Date
`Petitioners assert that the Cited References qualify as prior art because they
`
`were “publicly available more than a year before the application for the ’786 patent
`
`was filed on December 11, 2002.” Petition at 17; see also id. at 23. 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 date in any district court proceeding or in any other proceeding if
`
`necessary.
`
`D. 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 9. Petitioners further state that “[m]ore education can
`
`
`LLC, IPR2018-00544, Paper 3 (PTAB Jan. 29, 2018). Institution of inter partes
`review based on that petition was denied. See Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., LLC v.
`Blitzsafe Texas, LLC, IPR2018-00544, Paper 8 (PTAB Aug. 10, 2018).
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01203
`
`Patent No. 7,489,786
`
`supplement relevant experience and vice versa. Id. Patent Owner agrees for the
`
`purposes of this proceeding that this level of skill is appropriate.
`
`E. Claim Construction
`Because the ’786 Patent is not expired, the broadest reasonable construction
`
`of each claim term is applied. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`
`Petitioners adopts the construction that the Board applied for the claim terms
`
`“interface” and “device presence signal” in previous IPRs relating to the ’786
`
`Patent. See Petition at 10–11; see also IPR2016-00421, Paper 13 at 15, 18;
`
`IPR2016-00422, Paper 12 at 15; IPR2016-01448, Paper 7 at 13; IPR2016-01472,
`
`Paper 7 at 13, 14; IPR2016-01477, Paper 13 at 10. For the purposes of this
`
`preliminary response, Patent Owner assumes that the Board will apply its prior
`
`constructions.
`
`In their original Petition, Petitioners similarly adopted the construction that
`
`the Board applied for the claim term “portable” in previous IPRs relating to the
`
`’786 Patent. See Original Petition (Paper 3) at 10 (adopting the Board’s prior
`
`construction or “portable” to mean “capable of being carried by a user”); see also
`
`IPR2016-00421, Paper 13 at 12; IPR2016-01472, Paper 7 at 11. In their Corrected
`
`Petition, however, Petitioners impermissibly substantively altered their arguments
`
`and omitted this proposed construction. Compare Original Petition (Paper 3) at 10
`
`with Corrected Petition (Paper 8) at 10–11; see also Order, Conduct of the
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01203
`
`Patent No. 7,489,786
`
`Proceeding, 37 C.F.R. § 42.5 (Paper 7) at 2 (permitting “[r]efiling of Corrected
`
`Petitions” only “where the corrections are non-substantive”), 3 (requiring that
`
`“material that is re-purposed from the argument section to the claim construction
`
`must not include any substantive edits, whether by rephrasing, summarizing, or
`
`otherwise”). For the purposes of this preliminary response, Patent Owner assumes
`
`that the Board will apply its prior constructions.
`
`Additionally, Petitioners “adopt[] the … constructions agreed to by [Patent
`
`Owner] in the Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement from” from the
`
`district court litigation “integration”/“integrating” and “channeling audio signals,”
`
`as well as of six means-plus-function claim terms: (1) “first pre-programmed
`
`means for generating a device presence signal …”; (2) “first pre-programmed
`
`means for … transmitting the signal to the car stereo to maintain the car stereo in
`
`an operational state”; (3) “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”;
`
`(4) “second pre-programmed means for remotely controlling the portable audio
`
`device using the car stereo by … processing the control command into a formatted
`
`control command compatible with the portable audio device”; (5) “second pre-
`
`programmed means for remotely controlling the portable audio device using the
`
`car stereo by … transmitting the formatted control command to the portable audio
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01203
`
`Patent No. 7,489,786
`
`device for execution thereby”; and (6) “means for transmitting audio from the
`
`portable audio device to the car stereo.” See Petition at 11–16. For the purposes of
`
`this preliminary response, Patent Owner assumes that the Board will apply these
`
`constructions.
`
`Petitioners assert that car stereo should be construed to mean “presently
`
`existing car stereo and radios, such as physical devices that are presently at any
`
`location with a vehicle, in addition to software and/or graphically-or [sic] display-
`
`driver receivers.” Petition at 14–15. Patent Owner notes that this construction
`
`quotes a portion of the specification of the ’786 Patent. See ’786 Patent at 5:1–5
`
`(“Also, as used herein, the terms ‘car stereo’ and ‘car radio’ are used
`
`interchangeably and are intended to include all presently existing car stereos and
`
`radios, such as physical devices that are present at any location within a vehicle, in
`
`addition to software and/or graphically-or [sic] display-driver receivers.”). Patent
`
`Owner notes that the specification further provides examples of receivers that are
`
`included within that definition:
`
`… An example of such a receiver is a software-driven receiver that
`operates on a universal LCD panel within a vehicle and is operable by
`a user via a graphical user interface displayed on the universal LCD
`panel. Further, any future receiver, whether a hardwired or a
`software/graphical receiver operable on one or more displays, is
`considered within the definition of the terms “car stereo” and “car
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2018-01203
`Patent No. 7,489,786
`radio,” as used herein, and is within the spirit and scope of the present
`invention.
`
`Id. at 5:5–14. For the purposes of this preliminary response, Patent Owner assumes
`
`that the Board will apply this construction.
`
`Petitioners also assert that “formatted [control] command compatible with”
`
`and “formatted data compatible with” should be construed to mean “[control]
`
`command in a format recognizable by” and “data in a format recognizable by.”
`
`Petition at 15–16. For the purposes of this preliminary response, Patent Owner
`
`assumes that the Board will apply this construction.
`
`II. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE NOT OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF
`THE CITED REFERENCES
`
`Institution should be denied because Petitioners have not established that the
`
`Challenged Claims are obvious in view of the Cited References. In particular, the
`
`Petition is deficient because Petitioners have not shown that the Cited References
`
`teach or disclose (1) an aftermarket audio or video device or portable device
`
`external to the car stereo as required by each of the independent claims; (2) an
`
`auxiliary input source external to the car stereo as required by independent claim 1;
`
`(3) an interface that includes a microcontroller that is physically and functionally
`
`separate from the car stereo and aftermarket and portable devices as required by
`
`each of the independent claims; (4) a microcontroller within the interface to
`
`execute a code for remotely controlling a portable or aftermarket audio device by
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01203
`
`Patent No. 7,489,786
`
`processing or receiving a command in a format incompatible with the device into a
`
`compatible format as required by independent claims 1, 86, and 92; (5) a code for
`
`receiving data from a portable or aftermarket audio device in a format
`
`incompatible with a car stereo and processing it into a compatible format as
`
`required by independent claim 1; (6) a “device presence signal” as required by
`
`independent claims 57, 86, and 92; and (7) the means-plus-function limitations of
`
`claim 92.6
`
`A. The Obviousness Standard
`Obviousness is determined 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 skill in the art, and
`
`(4) where in evidence, so-called secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere
`
`Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). However, a conclusion of obviousness “cannot be
`
`sustained with mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated
`
`reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
`
`obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). In determining
`
`6 Patent Owner reserves the right to present additional argument and evidence that
`the Cited References fail to teach or disclose additional limitations of each of the
`Challenged Claims and that Petitioners have failed to show that a POSA would
`have been motivated to combine the references with a reasonable expectation of
`success.
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01203
`
`Patent No. 7,489,786
`
`obviousness, the references must be considered as a whole; picking and choosing
`
`from a reference only the favorable parts and ignoring the rest is prohibited. In re
`
`Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1041 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
`
`Here, the Petition fails because it fails to explain how the references, alone
`
`or in combination, teach each element of each claim. See C.B. Distributors, Inc. v.
`
`Fontem Holdings 1 B.V., IPR2013-00387, Paper 43 at 30–31 (PTAB Dec. 24,
`
`2014).
`
`B.
`
`The Cited References Do Not Teach or Disclose an
`Aftermarket Audio or Video Device or Portable Device
`External to the Car Stereo
`
`Each of the independent claims requires an aftermarket audio or video
`
`device or portable device external to the car stereo. Claim element 1[c] recites, “a
`
`second connector electrically connectable to an after-market audio device external
`
`to the car stereo.” ’786 Patent at 21:33–34. Claim element 57[c] recites, “a second
`
`electrical connector connectable to a portable MP3 player external to the car
`
`stereo.” Id. at 26:15–16. Claim element 86[c] recites, “a second electrical
`
`connector connectable to an after-market video device external to the car stereo.”
`
`Id. at 28:43–45. Claim element 92[c] recites, “a portable device external to the car
`
`stereo.” Id. at 29:13.
`
`Petitioners provide the same core arguments with respect to each of these
`
`limitations. See Petition at 36–39 (providing analysis for claim element 1[c]), 61
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01203
`
`Patent No. 7,489,786
`
`(for claim element 57[c], referring back to analysis of claim element 1[c]), 67 (for
`
`claim element 86[c], referring back to analysis of claim elements 1[c] and 57[c]),
`
`68 (for claim element 92[c], referring back to analysis of claim element 57[c]).
`
`Petitioners argue that Mufid’s “compact disc jockey 28” external to the car
`
`stereo system is an example of an after-market device because it is optional and not
`
`part of the existing car stereo.” Petition at 36–37 (citing Mufid at ¶ 13). However,
`
`just because Mufid’s compact disc jockey 28 is an “optional” component of the
`
`Mufid system does not mean that it can be added to the system after the fact as an
`
`aftermarket device, and Petitioners do not cite any evidence that Mufid provides
`
`any such disclosure.
`
`Perhaps recognizing this, Petitioners argue in the alternative that “it would
`
`have been obvious to connect an after-market audio device by adding it to the
`
`MOST network in the same manner as CDJ 28.” Petition at 38. There are several
`
`flaws with this argument.
`
`First, Petitioners do not provide any evidence from the Cited References that
`
`it would have been obvious to add an aftermarket device to either the Mufid
`
`system in particular or to a MOST network in general. Rather, at most, they cite
`
`evidence that the Mufid system has “an open, scalable architecture,” see Petition at
`
`38 (citing Mufid at ¶¶ 38, 39), and that the MOST network could accommodate
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01203
`
`Patent No. 7,489,786
`
`numerous “nodes,” id. at 38–39 (citing Most Specification at 96)7. But this
`
`evidence does not show that any devices can be later added to an existing system
`
`as aftermarket devices. Rather, it describes the flexibility available when building
`
`the original systems in the first place.
`
`Second, to the extent that Petitioners do not rely on Mufid’s compact disc
`
`jockey 28 as the aftermarket audio device, the Petition fails with respect to this
`
`claim element and numerous other claim elements for a lack of specificity.
`
`Petitioners do not describe any details regarding what the aftermarket device is or
`
`how it functions if it is not the compact disc jockey of Mufid. This is especially
`
`important because numerous other claim elements describe how the claimed
`
`interface integrates with and controls the aftermarket device. See, e.g., ’786 Patent
`
`at 21:45–49 (claim element 1[g], reciting “a first pre-programmed code portion for
`
`remotely controlling the after-market audio device using the car stereo by receiving
`
`
`7 Petitioners also improperly rely on a Mufid SAE Article that they do assert as a
`prior art reference. See Petition at 39. But even this article does not support their
`argument. It merely states that a MOST network can incorporate devices and
`application that “are already present or will be soon introduced into the automotive
`environment.” Mufid SAE Article at 167. But this does not describe that any
`devices can be later added to an existing system as aftermarket devices. It merely
`describes the type of devices that will be available when building original systems
`in the future.
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01203
`
`Patent No. 7,489,786
`
`a control command from the car stereo through said first connector in a format
`
`incompatible with the after-market audio device”), 26:23–26 (claim element 57[g],
`
`similar), 28:66–67 (claim element 90[a], similar), 29:17–19 (claim element 92[g],
`
`similar). Without knowing what in particular Petitioners assert is the claimed
`
`aftermarket device, it is impossible to determine how Petitioners claim these other
`
`limitations are satisfied as well.
`
`Moreover, claim element 57[g] specifically requires a “portable MP3
`
`player” rather than just an aftermarket device. ’786 Patent at 26:15–16. And claim
`
`element 92[d] requires “a portable audio device.” Id. at 29:13. The Board has
`
`previously construed “portable” to mean “capable of being carried by a user.” See
`
`Section I.E supra. Petitioners have not cited any evidence whatsoever that either
`
`Mufid or the MOST Specification could enable the incorporation of a portable
`
`device such as a portable MP3 device, nor how the components of Mufid that
`
`Petitioners allege satisfy the “interface” limitation could integrate with such a
`
`portable device in the claimed manner. Petitioners do not provide any evidence
`
`from the Cited References that either the Mufid system specifically or a MOST
`
`network in general could incorporate a portable device. Rather, Petitioners
`
`improperly rely entirely on documents outside of the Cited References in support
`
`of their assertion that “[a] POSA would have understood that MOST could
`
`interface with any after-market audio device, including an MP3 player.” see
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01203
`
`Patent No. 7,489,786
`
`Petition at 61 (citing MOST Framework (not the Most Specification) at 14 and
`
`Mufid SAE Article at 167).
`
`Indeed, the Board rejected Petitioners’ similar argument in another petition
`
`for inter partes review against a related patent. In IPR2018-00544, Petitioners
`
`argued that a person of ordinary skill would understand the MOST Specification to
`
`teach how to control a portable device such as an MP3 player that was connected
`
`to a car stereo via Bluetooth. See Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., LLC, IPR2018-
`
`00544, Paper 8 at 16–17. But the Board found “[t]he record lacks persuasive
`
`evidence” of any “MP3 player … [that is] a MOST device or, at a minimum, ha[s]
`
`the MOST functionality.” Id. at 17. Petitioners have not provided any additional
`
`evidence here of any portable device that is a MOST device or includes MOST
`
`functionality.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioners have failed to meet their burden to demonstrate that
`
`the Cited References teach an aftermarket audio or video device or portable device
`
`external to the car stereo, as they assert.
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2018-01203
`Patent No. 7,489,786
`C. The Cited References Do Not Teach or Disclose a “Third
`Connector Electrically Connectable to One or More
`Auxiliary Input Source External to the Car Stereo and the
`After-Market Audio Device” As Required By Independent
`Claim 1
`
`Claim element 1[d] recites, “a third connector electrically connectable to one
`
`or more auxiliary input sources external to the car stereo and the after-market audio
`
`device.” ’786 Patent at 21:35–38.
`
`Petitioners assert that this limitation is disclosed by Mufid’s “audio line
`
`output 104.” See Petition at 39 (“The audio line output 104 is an auxiliary input
`
`source.”). But, Mufid’s audio line output 104 is a component of Mufid’s “front
`
`control unit (FCU) 25” that provides (as its name implies) for the output of audio
`
`to the audio communications unit 26. See Mufid at ¶ 29 (“An analogue audio
`
`output may be provided directly to the audio communications unit 26 via an
`
`analogue audio line output 104.”). There are thus several flaws with Petitioners’
`
`assertion. First, Petitioners assert that Mufid’s front control unit 25 (or at least a
`
`portion of it) is the claimed “car stereo.” See Petition at 31 (asserting “motherboard
`
`31,” which is part of front control unit 25, is “part of a car stereo”). Thus, the audio
`
`line output 104 is not a “source external to the car stereo” as required by the clear
`
`claim language. Second, the audio line output 104 does not provide input to the car
`
`stereo. Rather, it provides output from the car stereo to the audio communications
`
`unit, which is the opposite of the claimed relationship.
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2018-01203
`Patent No. 7,489,786
`Accordingly, Petitioners have failed to meet their burden to demonstrate that
`
`the Cited References teach an auxiliary input source external to the car stereo, as
`
`they assert.
`
`D. The Cited References Do Not Teach or Disclose an Interface That
`Includes a Microcontroller That Is Separate from the Car Stereo
`and Aftermarket or Portable Devices as Required by Each of the
`Independent Claims
`
`Each of the independent claims requires an interface, which the Board has
`
`previously construed as “a physical unit that connects one device to another and
`
`that has a functional and structural identity separate from that of both connected
`
`devices” (i.e., separate from the car stereo and aftermarket and portable devices).
`
`See Petition at 10. Claim elements 1[e] and 1[e(i)] recite, “an interface connected
`
`between said first and second electrical connector … including a microcontroller in
`
`electrical communication with said first and second electrical connectors.” ’786
`
`Patent at 21:39–43. Claim elements 57[d] and 57[d(i)] recites, “an interface
`
`connected between said first and second electrical connectors … including a
`
`microcontroller in electrical communication with said first and second electrical
`
`connectors.” Id. at 26:17–21. Claim elements 86[d] and 86[d(ii)] recite, “an
`
`interface connected between said first and second electrical connectors including a
`
`microcontroller in electrical communication with said first and second electrical
`
`connectors.” Id. at 28:45–50. Claim elements 92[d] and 92[e] recite, “an interface
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01203
`
`Patent No. 7,489,786
`
`connected between the car stereo and the potable audio device, the interface
`
`including a microcontroller ….” Id. at 29:14–16.
`
`Petitioners provide the same core arguments with respect to each of these
`
`limitations. See Petition at 40–41 (providing analysis for claim element 1[e]), 43–
`
`44 (providing analysis for claim element 1[e(ii)], 61–62 (for claim element 57[d]
`
`and 57[d(ii)], referring back to analysis of claim elements 1[e] and 1[e(ii)]), 67 (for
`
`claim element 86[d] and 86[d(ii)], referring back to analysis of claim elements
`
`1[d], 1[d(ii), 57[d], and 57[d(ii)]), 68 (for claim element 92[d], referring back to
`
`analysis of claim elements 1[d] and 1[d(ii)]).
`
`Petitioners never specifically identify which components of the Mufid
`
`system it alleges correspond to the claim “interface.” Rather, Petitioners vaguely
`
`allege that “Mufid discloses an interface (MOST) connected between said first and
`
`second electrical connectors.” Petition at 40. It is clear, however, that whatever
`
`Petitioners identify as the claimed interface includes multiple separate processors
`
`that are spread out across multiple components of the Mufid system, including
`
`Mufid’s “media processor 86, microprocessor 120, and CDJ 28 Microcontroller.”
`
`See id. at 43. These processors, however, do not have a “functional and structural
`
`identity separate from that of both connected devices” (i.e., from the car stereo and
`
`from the aftermarket or portable devices), as is required by Petitioners’ proposed
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01203
`
`Patent No. 7,489,786
`
`claim construction (which was adopted by the Board in prior IPRs). See Section I.E
`
`supra.
`
`First, the microprocessors identified by Petitioners as being part of the
`
`claimed interface are not physically and functionally separate from the aftermarket
`
`or portable devices to which they connect. Petitioners identify Mufid’s compact
`
`disc jockey 28 as the aftermarket and portable devices. See Petition at 36. CDJ 28
`
`microcontroller is, to say the least, both physically and functionally part of the
`
`compact disc jockey.
`
`Second, the microprocessors identified by Petitioners as being part of the
`
`claimed interface are not physically and functionally separate from the car stereo.
`
`Petitioners identify Mufid’s motherboard 31 as being part of the car stereo. See
`
`Petition at 31, 36. Mufid’s “[m]otherboard 31 includes a complex instruction set
`
`processor 34.” Mufid at ¶ 15. The ACU microprocessor 120, which Petitioners
`
`identify as being part of the interface, see Petition at 43, “operates under control of
`
`main processor 34 on control motherboard 31,” Mufid at ¶ 33. The ACU
`
`microprocessor 120 is therefore not functionally separate from the car stereo, as
`
`required by Petitioners’ proposed construction of “interface.” Additionally, the
`
`media processor 86, which Petitioners also identify as being part of the interface,
`
`see Petition at 43, is in fact part of the same front control unit (FCU) 25 as
`
`motherboard 31. See Mufid at ¶ 15 (“FCU 25 is shown in greater detail in Figure 3.
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01203
`
`Patent No. 7,489,786
`
`A motherboard 31 is connected to a video processor board 32 ….”), ¶ 28 (“Video
`
`processor board 32 includes a media processor 86 ….”). The media processor 86 is
`
`therefore not physically separate from the car stereo, as required by Petitioners’
`
`proposed construction of “interface.”
`
`Accordingly, Petitioners have failed to meet their burden to demonstrate that
`
`the Cited References teach an interface that includes a microcontroller that is
`
`physically and functionally separate from the car stereo and aftermarket and
`
`portable devices, as they assert.
`
`E.
`
`The Cited References Do Not Teach or Disclose a Code
`Portion for Remotely Controlling a Portable/Aftermarket
`Audio Device by Processing a Command in a Format
`Incompatible with the Device Into a Compatible Format As
`Required By Independent Claims 1, 57, and 92
`
`Each of independent claims 1, 57, and 92 (and claim 90, which depends
`
`from independent claim 86) requires a microcontroller within the interface to
`
`execute a code for remotely controlling a portable or aftermarket audio device by
`
`processing or receiving a command in a format incompatible with the device into a
`
`compatible format. Claim elements 1[f(i)], recites “said interface including a
`
`microcontroller …, said microcontroller pre-programmed to execute: … a first pre-
`
`programmed code portion for remotely controlling the after-market audio device
`
`using the car stereo by r