`
`
`IPR2018-01209
`PATENT NO. 8,155,342
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`DAIMLER AG,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BLITZSAFE TEXAS, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`Patent No. 8,155,342
`Issue Date: June 27, 2006
`Title: MULTIMEDIA DEVICE INTEGRATION SYSTEM
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`Case No. IPR2018-01209
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`IPR2018-01209
`PATENT NO. 8,155,342
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 1
`A.
`The ’342 Patent ..................................................................................... 1
`B.
`Effective Filing Date ............................................................................. 2
`C.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ......................................................... 3
`D.
`Claim Construction................................................................................ 3
`E.
`Prior Unsuccessful Challenges .............................................................. 4
`F.
`Asserted Prior Art .................................................................................. 9
`1.
`Simonds ....................................................................................... 9
`
`2.
`
`Ekstrom ..................................................................................... 12
`
`3. MOST Specification ................................................................. 14
`
`THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE NOT OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF
`THE CITED REFERENCES......................................................................... 16
`A.
`The Obviousness Standard .................................................................. 17
`B.
`The Cited References Do Not Teach or Disclose an Integration
`Subsystem Instructing a Portable Device to Play an Audio File
`in Response to a User Selecting the Audio File Using Controls
`of a Car Audio/Video System ............................................................. 18
`1.
`Simonds Does Not Teach or Disclose a User Issuing a
`Command from a Car Audio/Video System to Play an
`Audio File From a Portable Device .......................................... 20
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The MOST Specification Does Not Teach or Disclose
`Any Missing “Implementation Details” To Enable a User
`Issuing a Command from a Car Audio/Video System to
`Play an Audio File From a Portable Device ............................. 23
`
`Ekstrom Does Not Teach or Disclose Any Missing
`“Implementation Details” To Enable a User Issuing a
`Command from a Car Audio/Video System to Play an
`Audio File From a Portable Device .......................................... 25
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`
`C.
`
`IPR2018-01209
`PATENT NO. 8,155,342
`The Cited References Do Not Teach or Disclose an Integration
`System Receiving Audio Generated by a Portable Device for
`Playing on a Car Audio/Video System ............................................... 31
`1.
`Simonds Does Not Teach or Disclose Generating Audio
`on a Portable Device for Playing on a Car Audio/Video
`System ....................................................................................... 33
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Ekstrom Does Not Teach or Disclose Any Missing
`“Implementation Details” for Generating Audio on a
`Portable Device for Playing on a Car Audio/Video
`System ....................................................................................... 39
`
`The MOST Specification Does Not Teach or Disclose
`Any Missing “Implementation Details” for Generating
`Audio on a Portable Device for Playing on a Car
`Audio/Video System ................................................................. 40
`
`III. EKSTROM IS NOT A PRIOR ART PRINTED PUBLICATION ............... 43
`A.
`The Printed Publication Standard ........................................................ 44
`B.
`Petitioner Has Not Established that Ekstrom Was Publicly
`Available on the Linkoping University Website ................................. 47
`1.
`Strawn is Not Qualified to Opine on the Functionality of
`Webpages and Web Search Engines in the 2003–2005
`Time Frame ............................................................................... 48
`
`2.
`
`The Evidence Does Not Establish that Ekstrom Was
`Publicly Available on the Linkoping University Website ........ 49
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`The Evidence Does Not Establish that a POSA
`Could Have Found Ekstrom on the Linkoping
`University Website Through Search Engines................. 50
`
`The Evidence Does Not Establish that a POSA
`Could Have Found Ekstrom on the Linkoping
`University Website Through Keyword Searching
`on the Website Itself ....................................................... 53
`
`C.
`
`Petitioner Has Not Established that Ekstrom Was Publicly
`Available Through DiVA .................................................................... 55
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2018-01209
`PATENT NO. 8,155,342
`Petitioner’s “Evidence” is Inadmissible ................................... 55
`
`The Evidence Does Not Establish that Ekstrom Was
`Publicly Available on DiVA ..................................................... 58
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`D.
`
`Petitioner Has Not Established that Ekstrom Was Publicly
`Available Through the Linkoping University Library Catalog .......... 61
`IV. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 62
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2018-01209
`PATENT NO. 8,155,342
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`Apple Inc. v. Saint Lawrence Commc’ns LLC,
`IPR2017-01075, Paper 8 (PTAB Sept. 21, 2017) ............................................... 46
`Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc.,
`815 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................... 44, 45
`Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc.,
`445 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .......................................................................... 45
`C.B. Distribs., Inc. v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V.,
`IPR2013-00387, Paper 43 (PTAB Dec. 24, 2014) ............................................. 18
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ................................................................................................ 17
`Groupon, Inc. v. Blue Calypso LLC,
`CBM2013-00044, Paper 47 (PTAB Dec. 17, 2014)........................................... 46
`In re Hall,
`781 F.2d 897 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ............................................................................ 45
`In re Hedges,
`783 F.2d 1038 (Fed. Cir. 1986) .......................................................................... 18
`Int’l Bus. Mach. Corp. v. Envisionit, LLC,
`IPR2017-01248, Paper 7 (PTAB Oct. 16, 2017) ................................................ 45
`Intel Corp. v. Alacritech, Inc.,
`IPR2017-01395, Paper 8 (PTAB Nov. 22, 2017) ............................................... 46
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 997 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ...................................................................... 17, 34
`Rohm & Hass Co. v. Brotech Corp.,
`127 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .......................................................................... 34
`SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys., Inc.,
`511 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 45
`Tempur Sealy Inter’l Inc. v. Select Comfort Corp.,
`IPR2014-01419, Paper 7 (PTAB Feb. 17, 2015) ................................................ 25
`Voter Verified, Inc. v. Premier Election Sols., Inc.,
`698 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 45
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................ 44
`35 U.S.C. § 312 ........................................................................................................ 25
`
`IPR2018-01209
`PATENT NO. 8,155,342
`
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6 ....................................................................................................... 25
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22 ..................................................................................................... 25
`37 C.F.R. § 42.51 ..................................................................................................... 56
`37 C.F.R. § 42.63 ............................................................................................... 52, 55
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65 ..................................................................................................... 34
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ..................................................................................................... 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ................................................................................................... 20
`Fed. R. Evid. 602 ..................................................................................................... 57
`Fed. R. Evid. 702 ..................................................................................................... 48
`Fed. R. Evid. 801 ..................................................................................................... 56
`Fed. R. Evid. 802 ..................................................................................................... 56
`Fed. R. Evid. 901 ..................................................................................................... 57
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01209
`PATENT NO. 8,155,342
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`Declaration of Richard Stern, Ph.D. in Support of Patent
`Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Richard Stern, Ph.D.
`
`Internet Archive, Wayback Machine summary of archives of
`www.diva-portal.org
`
`Internet Archive, Wayback Machine archive of www.diva-
`portal.org (June 4, 2004)
`
`Internet Archive, Wayback Machine archive of www.diva-
`portal.org (Mar. 5, 2005)
`
`Internet Archive, Frequently Asked Questions,
`https://archive.org/about/faqs.php
`
`Email to Internet Archive Requesting Affidavit Authenticating
`Archived Webpages
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2018-01209
`PATENT NO. 8,155,342
`Institution should be denied because this Petition is identical to the petition
`
`in IPR2018-00544,1 institution of which has been denied. See IPR2018-00544,
`
`Paper 8. For the same reasons that it denied institution of the ’544 Petition, the
`
`Board should deny institution here.
`
`Patent Owner repeats herein its arguments for denial from its Preliminary
`
`Response to the ’544 Petition.2
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`A. The ’342 Patent
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,342 (EX1001) describes and claims inventions
`
`relating to integrating a wireless portable device into a car stereo system. ’342
`
`Patent at 8:38–46.3 Among its accomplishments, the ’342 Patent enables “[c]ontrol
`
`of the [portable] device … using the car stereo or car video system, and
`
`information from the after-market device, such as channel, artist, track, time, song,
`
`and other information, [can be] retrieved f[ro]m the [portable] device, processed,
`
`
`1 See Petition at 61–63; Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder, Paper 3.
`
`2 Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Richard Stern, is well qualified in the field of
`multimedia device integration. See EX2001 at ¶¶ 5–13; EX2002 (CV). His
`opinions relating to the ’342 Patent have been credited by the Board. See IPR2018-
`00090, Paper 15 at 19–20.
`
`3 Unless otherwise noted, citations are provided with reference to the internal page
`number of exhibits.
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01209
`
`PATENT NO. 8,155,342
`
`and forwarded to the car stereo or car video system for display thereon.” Id. at
`
`8:46–51. Such systems were not possible prior to the invention of the ’342 Patent
`
`because “signals generated by [wireless portable devices and car stereo systems]
`
`[we]re in proprietary formats” and it was therefore “necessary to convert signals
`
`between such system.” Id. at 1:54–63. In order to overcome these challenges, the
`
`’342 Patent discloses and claims an “integration subsystem” or module that can be
`
`positioned within the car audio/video system to receive data from the portable
`
`device (such as track information, song information, artist information, etc.) and
`
`process it into a format compatible with the car system. Id. at 5:23–30. This
`
`integration subsystem allows both data and commands to be exchanged between
`
`the portable device and the car audio/video system so that the user can access
`
`information relating to the audio and/or video files on the portable device from the
`
`car stereo and use the car stereo controls to issue commands to the portable device
`
`to play audio generated by the portable device. Id. at 33:43–35:62, Figure 19. See
`
`also EX2001 at ¶ 34.
`
`Effective Filing Date
`
`B.
`Petitioner submits that the challenged claims are entitled to an effective
`
`filing date no earlier than March 3, 2005. Petition at 9. Patent Owner states that, for
`
`the purposes of this proceeding, a determination of the effective filing date is
`
`unnecessary and thus does not respond to this characterization of the effective
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01209
`
`PATENT NO. 8,155,342
`
`filing date. Patent Owner reserves the right to establish an earlier effective filing
`
`date in any district court proceeding or in any other proceeding where such a date
`
`may be necessary.
`
`C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Petitioner states 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 11. Petitioner further states that more education can supplement
`
`relevant experience and vice versa. Id. Patent Owner agrees for the purposes of this
`
`proceeding that this level of skill is appropriate. See also EX2001 at ¶¶ 35–38.
`
`D. Claim Construction
`Because the ’342 Patent is not expired, the broadest reasonable construction
`
`of each claim term is applied. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Petitioner proposes
`
`constructions for three claim phrases consistent with the constructions adopted
`
`with the Board in IPR2016-00418: (1) “integration subsystem;” (2) “car
`
`audio/video system;” and (3) “device presence signal.” Patent Owner agrees with
`
`these constructions for the purposes of this proceeding.
`
`Additionally, in its April 20, 2018 decision denying institution in IPR2018-
`
`00090, the Board addressed the construction of the term “audio generated by the
`
`portable device … for [playing or subsequently playing of the audio] on the car
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01209
`
`PATENT NO. 8,155,342
`
`audio/video system.” Paper 15 (“00090-Decision”) at 8–11 (alterations in original).
`
`Specifically, the Board stated that “if the integration subsystem either receives an
`
`‘audio file’ or must decode what it receives in order to render ‘audio’ for playing at
`
`the car audio/video system, then there is no ‘audio generated by the portable
`
`device’ for [subsequent] playing [of the audio] at the car audio/video system.’” Id.
`
`at 11 (alterations in original).
`
`Prior Unsuccessful Challenges
`E.
`This is the fifteeth petition for inter partes review of the ’342 Patent. The
`
`previous petitions all resulted in zero claims cancelled or amended. A brief
`
`summary of the previous IPRs is below:
`
`IPR
`
`PETITIONER(S)
`
`OUTCOME
`
`IPR2016-00118
`
`Unified Patents Inc.
`
`Institution denied (Apr. 27, 2016)
`
`IPR2016-00418
`
`Toyota Motor Corp. Terminated due to settlement after oral
`argument (Mar. 10, 2017)
`
`IPR2016-01533
`
`IPR2016-01557
`
`IPR2016-01560
`
`American Honda
`Motor Co., Inc.
`
`Hyundai Motor
`Company Ltd., et al.
`
`Nissan North
`America, Inc., et al.
`
`Joined with IPR2016-00418
`
`Terminated due to settlement after oral
`argument (Mar. 10, 2017)
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR
`
`PETITIONER(S)
`
`IPR2018-01209
`PATENT NO. 8,155,342
`OUTCOME
`
`IPR2018-00090
`
`Subaru of America,
`Inc., et al.
`
`“substantially identical to”
`IPR2016-00418
`
`IPR2016-00419
`
`Toyota Motor Corp.
`
`Institution denied (July 19, 2016)
`
`Institution denied (Apr. 20, 2018)
`
`IPR2016-01445
`
`IPR2016-01449
`
`IPR2016-01473
`
`IPR2016-01476
`
`IPR2018-00544
`
`Rehearing denied (Aug. 31, 2016)
`
`Volkswagen Group
`of America, Inc.
`
`Terminated due to settlement before
`institution (Jan. 31, 2017)
`
`Institution denied (Jan. 24, 2017)
`
`Identical to this Petition,
`Institution denied (Aug. 10, 2017)
`
`American Honda
`Motor Co., Ltd.
`
`Hyundai Motor
`Company Ltd., et al.
`
`Jaguar Land Rover
`North America, LLC
`and Jaguar Land
`Rover Ltd.
`
`IPR2018-00926 BMW of North
`America, LLC
`
`IPR2018-00927
`
`Decision on institution currently
`pending.
`
`Each of the prior petitions failed, at least in part, because the petitioners had
`
`failed to show that the references that they relied on disclosed the “audio generated
`
`by the portable device” limitations of the challenged claims.
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2018-01209
`PATENT NO. 8,155,342
`In IPR2016-00118, the Board found that in one of the primary references,
`
`Ohmura, “audio is generated on the car audio/video system by playing a
`
`transferred music file and not generated on the portable device by playing a music
`
`file on the portable device as is required by the claims.” Paper 19 at 20. The
`
`petitioner conceded that its other primary reference, Owens, disclosed “all aspects
`
`of the challenged claims … except for the wireless Bluetooth connection” and
`
`alleged “it would have been obvious to substitute the Bluetooth interface of Ahn
`
`for the wired bus of Owens.” Id. at 27. But, the Board found that the petitioner had
`
`not shown that Owens and Ahn could be combined with a reasonable expectation
`
`of success such that “Owen’s ‘head unit’ [could] instruct Ahn’s mobile device or
`
`any other portable device to play the audio file and transmit/receive ‘audio
`
`generated by the portable device’ as the result of playing the audio file in the
`
`manner suggested by the claim.” Id. at 31.
`
`In IPR2018-00090, the Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate
`
`that the primary reference, Clayton, teaches or suggests that the “‘integration
`
`subsystem’ ‘receives audio generated by the portable device over said wireless
`
`communication link for playing on the car audio/video system,’ as recited in claims
`
`49 and 73, and similarly addressed in claims 97 and 120.” 00090-Decision at 25.
`
`The Board found that Clayton teaches that audio content is transferred from a
`
`portable device and then further decoded into a format understood by the car
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01209
`
`PATENT NO. 8,155,342
`
`audio/video system for playback. Id. at 20. The transfer of an audio file does not
`
`meet the limitation that the integration subsystem receives “audio generated by the
`
`portable device that is also for playing at the car audio/video system.” Id. at 18.
`
`In IPR2016-00419, the Board found that the primary reference, Ohmura, did
`
`not disclose the “audio generated by the portable device” limitation because
`
`“Ohmura’s audio is generated at car audio/video system 100 by playing a
`
`transferred music file and is not generated on portable device 200a or 200b by
`
`playing a music file on portable device 200a or 200b.” Paper 13 at 28.
`
`In IPR2016-01473, the Board found that one of the primary references,
`
`Marlowe, “[did] not disclose a wireless communication link.” Paper 9 at 15.
`
`Similarly, the petitioners conceded that another primary reference, Simon, did not
`
`disclose audio signals being transmitted over a wireless communication link. Id. at
`
`22. The Board found the petitioner’s attempts to rely on additional references to
`
`overcome these shortcomings insufficient. For example, the petitioner asserted that
`
`Marlowe could be combined with Plagge, which did include a wireless link. Id. at
`
`15. But, Plagge was insufficient because in it “the audio from the portable device
`
`[wa]s transmitted through a wire connection, despite the disclosure of a wireless
`
`interface.” Id. Similarly, the petitioner asserted that Marlowe and Simon could be
`
`combined with Bhogal, but this was insufficient because Bhogal only contained
`
`“disclosure of accessing or retrieving digital audio files,” which the Board found
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01209
`
`PATENT NO. 8,155,342
`
`did not “constitute[] receiving audio generated by the portable device over said
`
`wireless communication link.” Id. at 18; see also id. at 22.
`
`In IPR2016-01476, the Board found that the primary reference, Shibasaki,
`
`did not disclose the “audio generated by the portable device” limitation because it
`
`“expressly discloses that what MP3 player 20-2 ‘transmits’ over the Bluetooth
`
`system and what car audio apparatus 10 ‘receive[s]’ is the ‘music file.’” Paper 12
`
`at 19–20.
`
`Finally, in IPR2018-0544, which is identical to this Petition and which
`
`Petitioner sought to join, the Board denied institution because the primary
`
`reference, Simonds, did not disclose an “integration subsystem” that “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,” Paper 8 at 14–16, and that a
`
`secondary references relied on by Petitioner, the MOST Specification and
`
`Ekstrom, did not overcome this deficiency, id. at 16–19. Additionally, the Board
`
`found that the references did not disclose an “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 command into a formatted command compatible with the portable device, and
`
`dispatches the formatted command to the portable command for execution
`
`thereby.” Id. at 19–22.
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2018-01209
`PATENT NO. 8,155,342
`
`F. Asserted Prior Art
`Petitioner asserts that claims 49–57, 62–64, 66, 68, 70–71, 73–80, 83, 86–
`
`88, 94–95, 97, 99–103, 109–11, 113, 115, and 120 (collectively, “the Challenged
`
`Claims”) are obvious in view of:
`
`• U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0093155 A1 to Craig John
`
`Simonds, et al. (EX1005);
`
`• Peter Ekstrom, et al., Audio over Bluetooth and MOST (EX1006); and
`
`• Media Oriented System Transport (MOST) Specification Rev. 2.2 (Nov.
`
`2002) (EX1007)
`
`(collectively, “the Cited References”). Petition at 5. But, as discussed below, the
`
`Cited References fail to address the repeated deficiencies of the prior petitions.
`
`Simonds
`
`1.
`Petitioner’s primary reference is Simonds. Petitioner asserts that “Simonds
`
`teaches all the limitations of the challenged independent claims,” but admit that “it
`
`does not include certain implementation details,” which it asserts can be found in
`
`the other two references. See Petition at 23.
`
`Simonds discloses an “infotainment system” “for providing vehicle context
`
`information for onboard vehicle devices.” Simonds at 15. It describes a vehicle
`
`“electronic system [that] includes a main visual human machine interface (HMI)
`
`12 in the form of a touch screen display 14 that allows passengers in the vehicle 10
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01209
`
`PATENT NO. 8,155,342
`
`to interface with one or more electronic devices, including services, that are made
`
`onboard the vehicle 10.” Id. at ¶ 35. It further describes that “various electronic
`
`host devices [are] coupled to a vehicle consumer services interface (VCSI) host
`
`platform,” which is “shown coupled to the vehicle data bus 20, a high speed media
`
`oriented system transport (MOST) bus 44, and one or more wireless links 46.” Id.
`
`at ¶ 37. “The VSCI host platform 30 allows various electronic host devices in the
`
`vehicle to interface with each other, to interface with off-board devices, and to
`
`interface with the HMIs.” Id. at ¶ 38. A wired “high speed MOST bus 44” is used
`
`to “allow[] data communication between each of the electronic host devices
`
`[described as including “a radio tuner 34, an audio amplifier 36, a compact
`
`disc/digital versatile disc (CD/DVD) player 38, a navigation system 40, and a
`
`global positioning system (GPS) receiver 42”] coupled to the bus 44 and the VCSI
`
`host platform 30.” Id. at ¶ 40. See also EX2001 at ¶ 40.
`
`In addition to the onboard devices connected to the MOST bus, Simonds
`
`describes that “[t]he VCSI host platform 30 is further able to communicate with
`
`various wireless devices including a cell phone 48, a personal digital assistant
`
`(PDA) 50, and a media player (e.g., MP3 player) 52, via a wireless link 46
`
`[described as “including, but not limited to, Bluetooth and 802.11b].” Simonds at
`
`¶ 41. While Simonds states that “[i]t should be appreciated that a user may
`
`interface with any of the wireless devices (e.g., cell phone) via any of the HMIs 12,
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01209
`
`PATENT NO. 8,155,342
`
`22, and 32 communicating via the VCSI host platform 30,” id., it does not further
`
`describe what it means by “interface with” or how this could be accomplished. In
`
`particular, Simonds does not describe any particular interactions that could occur
`
`with an MP3 player, does not describe information that could be wirelessly
`
`transmitted between the MP3 player and the vehicle, does not describe issuing any
`
`commands from the car to the MP3 player, and does not describe the receipt of and
`
`playing of audio generated by the MP3 player from audio files stored on that
`
`device. See EX2001 at ¶ 41.
`
`The only evidence identified by Petitioner’s expert, Dr. John Strawn, that
`
`Simonds teaches controlling a portable device using the controls of the car
`
`audio/video system is Figure 1 of Simonds, which shows a visual human machine
`
`interface that includes a “dial” input button for use with a cell phone. Petition at
`
`15–16; EX1003 at ¶ 48. Neither Petitioner nor Strawn point to any evidence that
`
`Simonds teaches or suggests that the VCSI issues a command to a portable device
`
`to play an audio file.
`
`Strawn also opines, without support, that “[a] POSA would understand that a
`
`portable device such as the MP3 player 52 would play the audio file, that is,
`
`convert the audio file from MP3 compression format to audio.” See EX1003 at
`
`¶ 162. Strawn offers this conclusion based solely on disclosures in Simonds that
`
`the VCSI of Simonds permits devices to interface with one another, and that the
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01209
`
`PATENT NO. 8,155,342
`
`VCSI can communicate with wireless devices such as an MP3 player. See id.
`
`Strawn identifies no evidence that suggests that even if the VCSI were capable of
`
`transmitting a play command to an MP3 player, the MP3 player would generate
`
`audio rather than transmit the audio file to the VCSI for subsequent conversion into
`
`audio.
`
`Ekstrom
`
`2.
`Perhaps recognizing the prior, repeated failures to show the transfer of audio
`
`generated by a portable device for playing on a car audio/video system, Petitioner
`
`relies on Ekstrom, a Swedish master’s thesis that investigates how audio from a
`
`wireless Bluetooth headset microphone can be transferred to a wired MOST
`
`network in a vehicle. Ekstrom at iii. But Ekstrom fails to disclose many necessary
`
`implementation details and, because it only seeks to work with a simple Bluetooth
`
`headset (such as for taking a telephone call), does not include any teachings
`
`relating to a portable device that has audio files. See EX2001 at ¶ 42. Petitioner
`
`does not contend that Ekstrom discloses a portable device that contains audio files,
`
`receives a play command, and generates audio from those audio files for
`
`transmission to and for playing on a car audio/video system.
`
`Ekstrom describes connecting a Bluetooth headset, which “should have a
`
`control button, a microphone and a speaker,” Ekstrom at 34, to “a gateway
`
`dedicated for transferring audio from the Bluetooth headset to the MOST speaker
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01209
`
`PATENT NO. 8,155,342
`
`node,” id. at 35. The connection is accomplished pursuant to a portion of the
`
`Bluetooth specification known as the “Bluetooth Headset Profile,” id. at 34, which
`
`is described by Ekstrom as “[o]ne of the most trivial [Bluetooth] profiles,” id. at
`
`10. Ekstrom describes that “the gateway handles the actual Bluetooth profiles and
`
`interprets it to functions and methods understandable by the MOST network
`
`nodes.” Id. at 36. In particular, Ekstrom describes that “[t]here are two different
`
`kinds of data transferred between the systems when sending audio from Bluetooth
`
`to MOST. The connection has to be established using control data. When this is
`
`done the stream of synchronous audio is transferred. The data in both cases has to
`
`be modified to fit the other system.” Id. (emphasis added). See also EX2001 at
`
`¶ 43.
`
`While Ekstrom describes that “[t]he handling of data transformation is
`
`described separately for control data and synchronous audio,” Ekstrom at 36, “[t]he
`
`key issue in th[e] report is [actually] the sample rate conversion between the two
`
`systems [sic] samples frequencies,” id. at iii. Thus, Ekstrom does not actually
`
`describe how particular control data, which for the purposes of the Bluetooth
`
`Headset Profile is limited to a small set of commands, see id. at 33, could be
`
`converted to MOST, see id. at 37–41. See EX2001 at ¶ 44. Indeed, it appears that
`
`the design and implementation of the conversion of commands was left as potential
`
`future work.” See Ekstrom at 52 (“A future work of the results in this Master
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01209
`
`PATENT NO. 8,155,342
`
`Thesis would be to implement a complete gateway. This could be done by using
`
`Ericsson Bluetooth Development Kit (EBDK) and the MOST General Node
`
`(MGN). … The MGN also has a microprocessor that can handle special
`
`application requirements such as interpreting Control commands form Bluetooth to
`
`MOST and vice versa.”). Ekstrom only “theoretically describes how Bluetooth
`
`could be integrated with MOST via a gateway,” id. at iii, and does not contain any
`
`“implementation description of the achieved solutions to this task,” id. at 1. See
`
`also EX2001 at ¶ 44.
`
`Additionally, although Petitioner asserts that Ekstrom is a prior art printed
`
`publication, see Petition at 17–19, it does not provide any admissible evidence in
`
`support of that assertion. Instead, Petitioner relies on its purported experts, Strawn
`
`and Hsieh-Yee, for opinions regarding the public availability of Ekstrom. See id. at
`
`18. But, as explained below in more detail, Strawn is not qualified to give such an
`
`opinion, and his and Hsieh-Yee’s opinions, which themselves rely on inadmissible
`
`evidence, cannot overcome Petitioner’s failure to provide actual, admissible
`
`evidence to prove that Ekstrom qualifies as prior art.
`
`3. MOST Specification
`MOST (Media Oriented Systems Transport) is a “network technology based
`
`on synchronous data communication” that “was originally developed for
`
`multimedia applications in the automotive environment.” See EX1008 at 7, 9. The
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01209
`
`PATENT NO. 8,155,342
`
`MOST Specification is one of the documents that provide “information defining
`
`the MOST standard.” Id. at 8; MOST Specification at 15. A MOST network
`
`connects devices within a vehicle using “Plastic Optical Fiber (POF).” EX1008 at
`
`9. See also EX2001 at ¶ 46.
`
`In order to operate on a MOST Network, a “Most Device” must meet certain
`
`requirements of the MOST standard, including that they “[s]hall provide a standard
`
`interface in terms of their: [r]esponse to network management functions such as
`
`configuration, reset, channel allocation and fail safe operation[;] [c]ommunications
`
`mechanism[; and] [p]hysical interface.” EX1008 at 14. For example, every MOST
`
`device must implement a “NetBlock” function block, id. at 15; MOST Framework
`
`at 19, and include an “optical interface,” EX1008 at 16; MOST Specification at
`
`191. See also EX2001 at ¶ 47.
`
`Petitioner does not present any evidence that the MOST Specification
`
`teaches or suggests integrating a wireless portable device with a MOST network.
`
`Strawn states that the MOST Specification discloses that control commands issued
`
`from a MOST controller can be sent to a MOST CD changer on a MOST network
`
`to cause the CD changer to play an audio file. See EX1003 at ¶ 167. Strawn further
`
`contends that “[t]he MOST Specification discloses that the integration subsystem
`
`instructs the portable device to play an audio file because the MOST Specification
`
`discloses a ‘start play function and gives a specific play (‘On’) example.’” See id.
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01209
`
`PATENT NO. 8,155,342
`
`at ¶ 165 (emphasis added). He concludes that “[a] POSA would understand that a
`
`portable device such as Simonds MP3 player 52 would respond t