UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`DAIMLER AG,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BLITZSAFE TEXAS,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,489,786
`
`“Audio Device Integration System”
`____________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. 2018-____
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. CHRIS KYRIAKAKIS
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,489,786
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 108
`
`Daimler Exhibit 1103
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ................................................. 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Educational Background ....................................................................... 2
`
`Relevant Professional Experience ......................................................... 3
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE TECHNOLOGY ......................................................... 5
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Blitzsafe commercially sold an interface that connected third
`party CD changers to preexisting car stereos ........................................ 6
`
`Other Manufacturers Also Commercialized Similar Interfaces ............ 6
`
`The ’786 Patent Specification ............................................................... 8
`
`The ’786 Prosecution History ............................................................... 9
`
`The Claims of the ’786 Patent ............................................................. 11
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ..................................................... 11
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 11
`
`A.
`
`“device presence signal” ..................................................................... 11
`
`B. Means Plus Function Claim Elements ................................................ 12
`
`V.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE
`UNPATENTABLE ........................................................................................ 13
`
`A. Materials Considered ........................................................................... 13
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Barnea ...................................................................................... 14
`
`Ouchida .................................................................................... 15
`
`Bhogal ....................................................................................... 16
`
`CAN .......................................................................................... 17
`
`(a) CAN Specification Authentication ................................. 18
`
`5.
`
`Frese ......................................................................................... 18
`
`B.
`
`Ground 1 – Barnea, Ouchida and Bhogal render claims 1, 2, 4,
`5, 13, 14, 23 and 24 obvious ............................................................... 19
`
`1.
`
`A POSITA would have been motivated to combine
`Barnea, Ouchida and Bhogal ................................................. 20
`
`
`
`i
`
`Page 2 of 108
`
`

`

`2.
`
`Independent Claim 1 ............................................................... 29
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`(d)
`
`(e)
`
`(f)
`
`(g)
`
`(h)
`
`(i)
`
`(j)
`
`(k)
`
`(l)
`
`1[a] .................................................................................. 29
`
`1[b] .................................................................................. 31
`
`1[c] .................................................................................. 32
`
`1[d] .................................................................................. 35
`
`1[e] .................................................................................. 37
`
`1[f] .................................................................................. 43
`
`1[g] .................................................................................. 48
`
`1[h] .................................................................................. 50
`
`1[i] ................................................................................... 50
`
`1[j] ................................................................................... 50
`
`1[k] .................................................................................. 51
`
`1[l] ................................................................................... 55
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Claim 2 ..................................................................................... 55
`
`Claim 4 ..................................................................................... 56
`
`Claim 5 ..................................................................................... 56
`
`Claim 13 ................................................................................... 57
`
`Claim 14 ................................................................................... 57
`
`Claim 23 ................................................................................... 58
`
`Claim 24 ................................................................................... 58
`
`C.
`
`Ground 2 – Barnea, Ouchida, Bhogal, and the CAN
`Specification render claims 6, 57, 58, 60, 63, 64, 65, 92, 94, 97,
`and 98 obvious ..................................................................................... 58
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Claim 6 ..................................................................................... 58
`
`Independent Claim 57 ............................................................. 63
`
`Dependent Claims 58, 63-65 ................................................... 65
`
`Independent Claim 92 ............................................................. 66
`
`(a)
`
`"first pre-programmed means for generating a
`device presence signal" ................................................... 67
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Page 3 of 108
`
`

`

`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`(d)
`
`(e)
`
`"first pre-programmed means for . . . transmitting
`the signal to the car stereo to maintain the car
`stereo in an operational state" ......................................... 68
`
`"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" .................................................... 69
`
`“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” .................................................... 70
`
`"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 device for
`execution thereby" .......................................................... 71
`
`(f)
`
`"means for transmitting audio from the portable
`audio device to the car stereo" ........................................ 72
`
`5.
`
`Dependent Claims 94, 97 and 98 ............................................ 73
`
`D. Ground 3 – Barnea, Ouchida, Bhogal and Ohmura render
`claims 7 and 8 obvious ........................................................................ 73
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 7 ..................................................................................... 73
`
`Claim 8 ..................................................................................... 76
`
`Ground 4 – Barnea, Ouchida, Bhogal, Ohmura and CAN render
`claims 61 and 62 obvious ................................................................... 78
`
`1.
`
`Dependent Claims 61 and 62 .................................................. 78
`
`Ground 5 – Barnea, Ouchida, Bhogal and Frese render claim 10
`obvious ................................................................................................ 79
`
`1.
`
`Claim 10 ................................................................................... 79
`
`G. Ground 6 – Barnea, Ouchida, Bhogal, Frese and CAN render
`86, 88, 89, 90 and 91 obvious ............................................................. 82
`
`1.
`
`Independent Claim 86 ............................................................. 82
`
`
`
`iii
`
`Page 4 of 108
`
`

`

`2.
`
`Dependent Claims 88-91 ......................................................... 84
`
`H. Ground 1 Continued ............................................................................ 85
`
`1.
`
`Claims 44 & 47 ......................................................................... 85
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`Page 5 of 108
`
`

`

`I, Chris Kyriakakis, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I am a tenured Associate Professor in the Department of Electrical
`
`Engineering at the University of Southern California (“USC”). I have been
`
`retained by Daimler AG as a technical expert to explain how a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would understand certain terms in the asserted claims of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,489,786 (“’786 patent”).
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated for my time at a consulting rate of $525 per
`
`hour. My compensation does not depend on the outcome of this litigation.
`
`3.
`
`I have considered the ’786 patent, its prosecution history, and the
`
`documents cited in this declaration, and I have also applied my own knowledge
`
`and experience from more than two decades in the relevant art, as set forth more
`
`fully below.
`
`4.
`
`I reserve the right to modify or supplement my opinion, as well as the
`
`bases for my opinion, based on the nature and content of the documentation, data,
`
`proof, and other evidence or testimony that Blitzsafe Texas, LLC or its expert(s)
`
`may present or based on any additional discovery or other information provided to
`
`me or found by me in this matter.
`
`
`
`1
`
`Page 6 of 108
`
`

`

`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`5.
`
`In this section I have summarized my education, career history,
`
`publications, and other relevant information. My curriculum vitae, which includes
`
`my qualifications as well as my publications, is attached as Exhibit A.
`
`A. Educational Background
`
`6.
`
`I earned my Bachelor of Science degree in Engineering and Applied
`
`Science from the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) in 1985. I received
`
`my Master of Science degree in Electrical Engineering in 1987 and my Ph.D. in
`
`Electrical Engineering in 1993, both from USC. My expertise is audio and
`
`acoustic sciences. My research interests lie at the intersection of acoustics,
`
`psychoacoustics (the science that studies human perception of sound), and audio
`
`signal processing. My recent research has focused on the study of audio systems in
`
`challenging environments including automobiles and mobile devices, as well as
`
`algorithms for enhancing the performance of voice recognition engines. I have
`
`published several technical papers on acoustical measurement and calibration
`
`methods that can be applied to listening rooms, movie theaters and automobiles,
`
`and developed novel signal processing algorithms for optimizing sound system
`
`performance. Other topics I have researched include multichannel audio
`
`acquisition and rendering, virtual microphones and virtual speakers, hybrid
`
`
`
`2
`
`Page 7 of 108
`
`

`

`headphone-loudspeaker rendering methods, and advanced signal processing
`
`techniques for optimizing sound quality in automobiles.
`
`B. Relevant Professional Experience
`
`7.
`
`I am the founding Director of the USC Immersive Audio Laboratory
`
`with facilities for experimental work in room acoustics, multichannel audio, and
`
`psychoacoustics. This laboratory also serves as a unique teaching facility for my
`
`undergraduate course in Introduction to Digital Audio and my graduate course in
`
`Immersive Audio Signal Processing. Both courses have a major acoustics
`
`component that examines the interaction of sound with the acoustical environment
`
`(home, movie theater, car). The graduate course was developed through a two-
`
`year grant I received from the National Science Foundation entitled “Collaborative
`
`Learning in Engineering Using Immersive Environments,” and was the first of its
`
`kind to assess the impact of audio immersion in student learning. In addition to the
`
`courses I teach, I have also supervised and served on Ph.D. dissertation committees
`
`for more than 30 students.
`
`8.
`
`From 2003-2018, I was also the founder and Chief Technology
`
`Officer of Audyssey Laboratories, a USC spin-off company that develops and
`
`licenses audio technology to leading automotive, professional and consumer
`
`electronic companies around the world including Jaguar, Land Rover, Audi,
`
`Mercedes Benz, Volvo, IMAX, Denon and Intel. As part of my work at Audyssey,
`
`
`
`3
`
`Page 8 of 108
`
`

`

`I lead the development of audio algorithms and designed speakers with Bluetooth
`
`and WiFi playback capability. These speakers were novel acoustical designs that
`
`used a combination of unique enclosures, and audio signal processing to optimize
`
`their performance and overcome limitations that arise from small drivers and
`
`enclosures. For example, we used signal processing technologies combined with
`
`novel acoustical design to extend the bass response of small woofers and passive
`
`radiators beyond what was previously possible in small speaker enclosures. The
`
`innovations in these designs have received awards, including Popular Science’s
`
`“Best of What’s New.”
`
`9.
`
`I am also a member of the Audio Engineering Society, an association
`
`for professionals in the audio industry. I have published nearly 100 technical
`
`papers, including several peer reviewed papers. I have published a book entitled
`
`Immersive Audio Signal Processing, and hold several patents in acoustic
`
`measurement of loudspeakers in rooms and cars, loudspeaker crossover
`
`optimization, and loudspeaker response correction using signal processing. My
`
`publications examine various aspects of sound measurement, how sound interacts
`
`with the acoustical elements of the environment, novel methods for surround sound
`
`recording and reproduction, and the perception of sound by human listeners. In
`
`2006, I received a World Technology Network Award. This organization presents
`
`awards to innovators in several areas in which technology can foster a paradigm
`
`
`
`4
`
`Page 9 of 108
`
`

`

`change. My award was for innovations in immersive audio that enable new
`
`capabilities in media and journalism. Other award recipients at that event included
`
`Vice President Al Gore, Google, and Space-X.
`
`10.
`
`In the late 1990s and early 2000s, I was a faculty researcher and later
`
`Deputy Director of the National Science Foundation’s engineering research center
`
`established at USC. I was studying the fundamental and technological limitations
`
`of immersive audio and the role of acoustics on the performance of loudspeakers
`
`and audio systems in homes and cars. In 2003, together with one of my graduate
`
`students, I received the award for Best Paper at the Institute of Electrical and
`
`Electronics Engineers (“IEEE”) Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE TECHNOLOGY
`
`11.
`
`In the 1990s, car stereos, or “head units” typically offered only a few
`
`sources of audio such as AM/FM radio, cassette tapes and/or a CD player. They
`
`could not directly connect to MP3 players, and could not connect to CD Changers
`
`for any other manufacturer.
`
`12. The 1990s saw a surge in popularity of “interfaces” that allowed
`
`consumers to integrate their CD Changers and MP3 players into head units while
`
`retaining the original quality of the music. Typically, these devices plugged into
`
`an existing port on the head unit that was used to control a manufacturer-specific
`
`remote CD-changer. These interfaces translated control commands from the head
`
`
`
`5
`
`Page 10 of 108
`
`

`

`unit (that could be natively understood by the manufacturer-specific CD changer)
`
`into commands understood by, e.g., an incompatible MP3 player or another
`
`manufacturer’s CD changer, thus allowing the user to control those devices using
`
`the car’s head unit controls. Conversely, the interface converted audio signals
`
`from the external audio device that were not natively understood by the head unit
`
`(e.g., MP3 encoded audio or digital satellite transmissions) into a format that could
`
`be understood and played back by the head unit.
`
`A. Blitzsafe commercially sold an interface that connected third
`party CD changers to preexisting car stereos
`
`13.
`
`I understand that years before the ’786 patent’s earliest priority date,
`
`Blitzsafe itself marketed an interface that connected an incompatible third-party
`
`music player to preexisting car stereos, allowing for playback of audio and control
`
`of music players using the car stereo.
`
`14. A February 1998 issue of Automedia also described Blitzsafe’s
`
`“DMX” product as allowing the “easy hook-up” of after-market CD changers from
`
`other manufacturers, and which “actually recognize[d] the protocol of the factory
`
`radio and communicate[d] with it through the use of microprocessor[.]” See Ex.
`
`1012.
`
`B. Other Manufacturers Also Commercialized Similar Interfaces
`
`15. As an expert in this field, I was aware of other retailers that
`
`recognized this pervading market trend and, years before the ’786 patent was filed,
`
`
`
`6
`
`Page 11 of 108
`
`

`

`introduced to the market interfaces that allowed users to connect their after-market
`
`portable devices to car stereo systems. This trend continued with the later release
`
`of MP3 players and iPods – the industry continued to use interfaces to integrate
`
`these newer devices into existing (incompatible) stereo systems without losing
`
`sound quality or control. One retailer of the time was Pacific Accessory Company
`
`(“PAC”). PAC offered an interface known as the “AAI-FRD2,” designed for use
`
`with Ford cars, shown below:
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1007. As described in the AAI-FRD2 manual, a user could connect the device
`
`to the car’s head unit through the CD player, such that the user’s portable media
`
`device would be “controlled via the factory radio and the appropriate input is
`
`displayed.” Ex. 1007. The AAI-FRD2 allowed integration of a variety of devices,
`
`including “MP3, DVD, VCP, and satellite radio.” Ex. 1007.
`
`
`
`7
`
`Page 12 of 108
`
`

`

`16. USA SPEC offered similar interface options. For example, their PA-
`
`10 product allowed consumers to “connect, control, play, and charge an iPod.” Ex.
`
`1010. Similar to the PAC audio device, the PA-10 connected through a car’s CD
`
`player cable, and allowed the “factory Radio CD changer [to] operate the iPOD
`
`just like a CD changer.” Ex. 1010. In use, it displayed the play list number and
`
`the song number. Ex. 1010. Other manufacturers of similar devices included
`
`SoundGate, who manufactured a “DOCKTOYO” docking station for MP3 players
`
`to interface with Toyota head units. Ex. 1014; Ex. 1019.
`
`17. Persons of ordinary skill in the art recognized the drive to
`
`manufacture interface devices came from the development of other technology,
`
`such as the iPOD and aftermarket CD changers.
`
`C. The ’786 Patent Specification
`
`18. The ’786 patent describes an “audio device integration system” that
`
`integrates a car stereo and one or more external or “after-market” devices, such as
`
`an MP3 player, that may otherwise be incompatible with the car stereo. See Ex.
`
`1001 at Abstract, 1:20-35, and FIG. 1. The integration of external devices with the
`
`car stereo is provided by an “interface system,” separate from the car stereo and the
`
`external device. Id. at 5:14-15, Fig. 1.
`
`
`
`8
`
`Page 13 of 108
`
`

`

`
`
`19. The interface is described as being connected to a plurality of devices
`
`and auxiliary inputs and integrated with a car stereo. Id. at Fig. 1. The interface
`
`converts control signals from the car stereo into a format compatible with an after-
`
`market external device, and vice versa, allowing commands input at the car stereo
`
`to control the external device, and display external device information on the car’s
`
`display. Information from the audio device (e.g., track, disc, song, station, and
`
`time) is received, processed, converted into a format recognizable by the car stereo,
`
`and displayed. Id. at Abstract, 4:27-46, 5:15-8:15.
`
`D. The ’786 Prosecution History
`
`20.
`
`I reviewed the prosecution history of the ’786 patent, which shows
`
`that the ’786 patent issued from U.S. Pat. App. No. 10/316,961 (“the ’961
`
`application”), which was filed on December 11, 2002. The Examiner rejected the
`
`
`
`9
`
`Page 14 of 108
`
`

`

`claims four times in view of various prior art references. The Applicant made
`
`claim amendments in response to each of those four Office Actions, also adding
`
`new claims twice.
`
`21.
`
`In a first Office Action dated June 5, 2006, all pending claims were
`
`rejected on prior art grounds. Ex. 1002 at 204-230.
`
`22. The applicant unsuccessfully attempted to argue over the cited art,
`
`and, in response, the Examiner issued another Office Action on November 14,
`
`2006 rejecting all of the claims on new grounds, relying primarily on U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,163,079 (Miyazaki). Id. at 282-326. A final rejection was issued on April
`
`19, 2007, relying primarily on Miyazaki. Id. at 378-442. In response to these
`
`Office Actions, the Applicant amended the independent claims to specify the
`
`interface performed a “format” conversion of control commands from the car
`
`stereo to the external device. Ex. 1002 at 335-358 (Feb. 14, 2007 Amendment).
`
`23. On February 20, 2008, the Examiner issued a Final Office Action
`
`rejecting all of the pending claims on new grounds, relying primarily on U.S.
`
`Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0084910 (Owens) and U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,175,789 (Beckert). Id. at 616-665.
`
`24. On April 2, 2008, the Examiner and the Applicant discussed possible
`
`claim amendments and in a Response dated April 21, 2008, the Applicant amended
`
`the claims to recite that the microcontroller of the interface is “pre-programmed” to
`
`
`
`10
`
`Page 15 of 108
`
`

`

`execute “pre-programmed” code. Id. at 672-709. The claims were ultimately
`
`allowed based on this amendment. Id. at 1039-1041.
`
`E.
`
`25.
`
`The Claims of the ’786 Patent
`
`I have studied the claims of the ’786 patent, which recites 99 claims,
`
`including independent claims 1, 57, 86, and 92 which are among the challenged
`
`claims. Ex. 1016.
`
`F.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`26.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at
`
`time of the earliest claimed effective filing date of the ’786 Patent (December 11,
`
`2002) would have at least an undergraduate degree in computer science or
`
`computer engineering, or equivalent work experience, including familiarity with
`
`transmission of audio and video and methods of software control and data
`
`conversion.
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`27.
`
`In my opinion, the claims listed below should be construed as follows:
`
`A.
`
`“device presence signal”
`
`28. Challenged claims 6, 57, 86 and 92 require a “device presence signal.”
`
`Ex. 1001. I understand that in construing claims 57 and 86, the Board in the ’421
`
`petition construed this term according to the BRI construction as “a signal
`
`indicating that an audio device (claim 57) or video device (claim 86) or portable
`
`audio device (claim 92), other than the car stereo, is connected to the interface”
`
`
`
`11
`
`Page 16 of 108
`
`

`

`’421 ID at 16-18. For purposes of this petition, I accept this construction as proper
`
`under the BRI standard, for the reasons adopted by the Board in the ‘421 petition.
`
`Id.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that the Board in the ’421 petition expressly rejected the
`
`petitioner’s proposed construction in that case, which is similar to the stipulated
`
`construction in the Daimler-Blitzsafe district court action: “a continuously
`
`transmitted signal indicating an audio device is present.” See Ex. 1017 at 2. As
`
`set forth below, in my opinion regardless of which construction is adopted, the
`
`prior art nevertheless renders challenged claims obvious.
`
`B. Means Plus Function Claim Elements
`
`30.
`
`I have been informed that the means plus function claim elements in
`
`claim 92 have been construed by Blitzsafe in the Eastern District of Texas action.
`
`For the limited purpose of this petition, I adopt Blitzsafe’s constructions which I
`
`believe to be reasonable given the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard
`
`used in IPR proceedings. See Ex. 1017 at 15-18.
`
`31. Likewise, while I understand that the parties dispute whether the
`
`“first/second/third code portions” recited in the other challenged claims are subject
`
`to §112(6) in that case, for the limited purpose of this Petition, I adopt Blitzsafe’s
`
`position that these claim limitations are not subject to §112(6), which I believe to
`
`
`
`12
`
`Page 17 of 108
`
`

`

`be reasonable given the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard used in IPR
`
`proceedings. Ex. 1017 at 10-16.
`
`V.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE
`UNPATENTABLE
`
`A. Materials Considered
`
`32. As part of my preparation for writing this Declaration, I reviewed the
`
`following materials:
`
`No.
`
`Description
`
`Ex. 1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,489,786 to Marlowe et al. (“’786”)
`
`Ex. 1002
`
`’786 File History
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,396,164 (“Barnea”)
`
`Ex. 1105
`
` JP Model Utility App. H7-6954 (“Ouchida”)
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,629,197 (“Bhogal ”)
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`Ford Auxiliary Audio Input Interface for Model No. AAI-FRD2
`(“AAI-FRD2”)
`
`Ex. 1008
`
`US Patent Pub. 2001/0028717 (“Ohmura”)
`
`Ex. 1009
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,472,771 (“Frese”)
`
`Ex. 1010
`
`Webpage for USA Specifications for iPod to Car Interfaces (“PA-
`10”)
`
`Ex. 1011
`
`CAN Specification v 2.0 (“CAN”)
`
`
`
`13
`
`Page 18 of 108
`
`

`

`Ex. 1012
`
`February 1998 Automedia Publication, titled “Blitzsafe Designs
`“Smart” Integration Device” (“Automedia Publication”)
`
`Ex. 1014
`
`SoundGate Summer 2002 Catalog
`
`Ex. 1015
`
`Marlowe Patent Holdings LLC v. Dice Electronics, LLC, et al.,
`3:10-cv-01199 (PGS)-Memorandum Opinion and Order
`
`Ex. 1016
`
`List of the Challenged Claims
`
`Ex. 1017
`
`Blitzsafe’s Proposed Claim Constructions
`
`Ex. 1018
`
`Appendix C to Blitzsafe’s Infringement Contentions
`
`
`
`1. Barnea
`
`33. Barnea was filed October 20, 1999, and issued May 28, 2002. Barnea
`
`describes a “gateway” that allows different aftermarket devices (such as a cell
`
`phone, pager, or an “entertainment device”) to interface to a preexisting car stereo
`
`that otherwise would not be able to connect to such devices. Ex. 1004 at Abstract,
`
`claim 14, fig 1.
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`Page 19 of 108
`
`

`

`34. Barnea expressly discloses that the devices are controlled using the
`
`
`
`controls on the radio. Id. at 2:19-28.
`
`2. Ouchida
`
`35. Ouchida is a Japanese publication published in 1995. It relates to an
`
`interface for “audio equipment for a vehicle, [that allows] the additional
`
`installation of a CD changer of a Company B in a main unit of a Company A.”
`
`Ex. 1105 at Abstract. Ouchida’s interface allows audio devices, such as CD
`
`changers, to be controlled by a head unit that uses incompatible signals and cannot
`
`play the audio transmitted by the CD changer. The device is shown, for example,
`
`in Figs. 1 and 2:
`
`
`
`15
`
`Page 20 of 108
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`3. Bhogal
`
`36. Bhogal was filed on November 3, 2000 and issued September 30,
`
`2003. Bhogal describes a “CD-changer Emulator Unit” that interfaces with and
`
`streams audio to a car stereo. Ex. 1006 at Abstract. Bhogal’s interface, in one
`
`embodiment, stores music in a variety formats, e.g., .wav, .midi., .voc. Ex. 1006 at
`
`6:45-48. In another embodiment, it may be “positioned in an independent docking
`
`station that accepts portable electronics, possibly in a standard manner such that
`
`the docking station also accepts other types of MP3 players.” Ex. 1006 5:61-64.
`
`Bhogal’s interface organizes its stored songs and maps them as “virtual CDs,” in a
`
`manner that is compatible with the car stereo. Id. at 7:57-67.
`
`
`
`16
`
`Page 21 of 108
`
`

`

`
`
`4. CAN
`
`37. Bosch published the CAN standard v 2.0 in 1991, and it was publicly
`
`available to those of skill in the art over a year before the earliest priority date of
`
`the ’786 patent. Ex. 1011. The standard specified various physical characteristics
`
`of an automotive bus as well as signals that devices connected to the bus must be
`
`able to understand. The CAN protocol discloses a “wake up” signal which, when
`
`triggered, would power-up devices connected to the network.
`
`38.
`
`Indeed, the proliferation of the CAN bus was even acknowledged by
`
`the ’786 patent, which refers to the “CAN” bus as a “bus technology known in the
`
`art,” and is used in one embodiment to connect a “docking station” to the car
`
`stereo. Id. at 21:19-24.
`
`
`
`17
`
`Page 22 of 108
`
`

`

`(a) CAN Specification Authentication
`
`39.
`
`I became aware of the CAN protocol and the CAN Specification 2.0
`
`document around April 1999. The laboratory that I direct at USC was funded by
`
`the TRW company for a project entitled “In-Vehicle Acoustics.” In the course of
`
`that project, I performed acoustic measurements in various vehicles and made
`
`recommendations for signal processing algorithms that could be used to mitigate
`
`the effects of road noise. Practical implementation of such algorithms within in-
`
`vehicle processors were made and the CAN bus architecture was examined, in
`
`detail, to understand how such processors could be integrated within existing
`
`automotive system architectures. One of the specific processors examined for its
`
`ability to run noise reduction algorithms was the TMS320C24x from Texas
`
`Instruments. This processor contains an on-chip CAN module that follows the
`
`CAN Specification 2.0B. I recall studying the document from Texas Instruments
`
`entitled “TMS320C24x DSP Controller: Digital Signal Processing Solutions”
`
`(Application Report SPRA500, December 1998).
`
`40.
`
`I have looked at Exhibit 1011 and believe it to be an identical copy of
`
`the CAN Specification 2.0 document that I studied in April 1999.
`
`5. Frese
`
`41. Frese was filed on July 31, 2000 and issued on October 29, 2002. Ex.
`
`1009. Frese discloses integrating a personal computer with a motor vehicle’s
`
`
`
`18
`
`Page 23 of 108
`
`

`

`electronics’ system via an interface. Id. at Abstract. In particular, the vehicle
`
`electronics system 10 integrates an after-market personal computer 26 via an
`
`interface 22 to the vehicle’s PC 14:
`
`Ex. 1009 at Fig. 1, 3:19-22, 3:27-29, 4:44-46.
`
`
`
`B. Ground 1 – Barnea, Ouchida and Bhogal render claims 1, 2, 4, 5,
`13, 14, 23 and 24 obvious
`
`42.
`
`In my opinion, the combination of Barnea, Ouchida and Bhogal meets
`
`the limitations of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 13, 14, 23 and 24. This combination relies on
`
`the system identified in Barnea informed by the teachings of Bhogal and Ouchida
`
`to include an emulator and MP3 player. This proposed combination is shown
`
`below in Annotated Fig. 1:
`
`
`
`19
`
`Page 24 of 108
`
`

`

`
`
`43. Ex. 1004 at Fig. 1 (annotated). The combination implements
`
`Bhogal’s CPU-based interface (i.e., a microcontroller-based “emulator”),
`
`programmed to retain the functionality described in Bhogal, within Barnea’s
`
`system. Annotated Fig. 1 (right) shows Bhogal’s emulator (yellow) and an MP3
`
`player (blue border), like the one disclosed in Bhogal, integrated into the Barnea
`
`system. In my opinion, a POSITA would have understood this combination to
`
`have been an implementation of Barnea’s teachings in view of the Ouchida and
`
`Bhogal references.
`
`A POSITA would have been motivated to combine Barnea,
`Ouchida and Bhogal
`
`1.
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`Page 25 of 108
`
`

`

`44. A POSITA would readily have combined Barnea, Ouchida and
`
`Bhogal for a variety of reasons. A POSITA, starting with the expandable
`
`integration system taught by Barnea, would have naturally been motivated to
`
`replace Barnea’s “entertainment device” with an MP3 player, such as the one
`
`taught by Bhogal. Ex. 1006 at 6:61-64 (disclosing in one embodiment “other
`
`types” of portable MP3 players may be used instead of the emulator). Indeed, the
`
`proposed combination of Barnea and Ouchida already discloses interfacing an
`
`“entertainment device” such as Ouchida’s CD changer, and in view of the
`
`teachings of Bhogal, it would have been a trivial and obvious choice to interface an
`
`MP3 player, another type of “entertainment device,” in the Barnea system. A
`
`POSITA would have done so because, as already discussed, simple market
`
`pressures at the time of th