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-____
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,489,786
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.100 et seq.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 3
`
`A. Overview of the Technology ................................................................. 3
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Blitzsafe commercially sold an interface that connected
`third party CD changers to preexisting car stereos ..................... 3
`
`Other Manufacturers Also Commercialized Similar
`Interfaces ..................................................................................... 4
`
`The ’786 Patent Specification ............................................................... 5
`
`The ’786 Prosecution History ............................................................... 7
`
`The Claims of the ’786 Patent ............................................................... 8
`
`Prior Petitions ........................................................................................ 8
`
`Other Pending Petitions Are Not Duplicative ....................................... 8
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................................... 9
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 9
`
`A.
`
`“device presence signal” ....................................................................... 9
`
`B. Means Plus Function Claim Elements ................................................ 10
`
`IV. STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EACH
`CHALLENGED CLAIM .............................................................................. 11
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)) ........................... 11
`
`Grounds of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(2)) .............................. 11
`
`V.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE
`UNPATENTABLE ........................................................................................ 12
`
`A. Overview of the Cited Prior Art .......................................................... 12
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Barnea ...................................................................................... 12
`
`Ouchida ..................................................................................... 13
`
`Bhogal ....................................................................................... 14
`
`CAN .......................................................................................... 15
`
`Frese .......................................................................................... 16
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Ground 1 – Barnea, Ouchida and Bhogal render claims 1, 2, 4,
`5, 13, 14, 23, 24, 44 and 47 obvious ................................................... 17
`
`1.
`
`A POSITA would have been motivated to combine
`Barnea, Ouchida and Bhogal .................................................... 18
`
`2.
`
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................. 27
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`(d)
`
`(e)
`
`(f)
`
`(g)
`
`(h)
`
`(i)
`
`(j)
`
`(k)
`
`(l)
`
`1[a] .................................................................................. 27
`
`1[b] .................................................................................. 28
`
`1[c] .................................................................................. 30
`
`1[d] .................................................................................. 33
`
`1[e] .................................................................................. 35
`
`1[f] .................................................................................. 41
`
`1[g] .................................................................................. 46
`
`1[h] .................................................................................. 48
`
`1[i] ................................................................................... 48
`
`1[j] ................................................................................... 48
`
`1[k] .................................................................................. 49
`
`1[l] ................................................................................... 52
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 53
`
`Claim 4 ...................................................................................... 53
`
`Claim 5 ...................................................................................... 53
`
`Claim 13 .................................................................................... 54
`
`Claim 14 .................................................................................... 55
`
`Claim 23 .................................................................................... 55
`
`Claim 24 .................................................................................... 55
`
`10. Claims 44 & 47 ......................................................................... 56
`
`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 ..................................................................................... 57
`
`1.
`
`Claim 6 ...................................................................................... 57
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`(a)
`
`The CAN protocol discloses the claimed “device
`presence” signal .............................................................. 57
`
`(b) A POSITA would have included CAN’s “wake-
`up” command in the modified Barnea system ................ 60
`
`Independent Claim 57 ............................................................... 62
`
`Dependent Claims 58, 63-65..................................................... 63
`
`Independent Claim 92 ............................................................... 64
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`(d)
`
`(e)
`
`"first pre-programmed means for generating . . . " ......... 65
`
`"first pre-programmed means for . . . transmitting" ....... 66
`
`"second pre-programmed means for remotely
`controlling . . .by receiving . . .. . .” ................................ 67
`
`“second pre-programmed means for remotely
`controlling . . . by processing . . .” .................................. 68
`
`"second pre-programmed means for remotely
`controlling . . .by transmitting . . . " ................................ 69
`
`(f)
`
`"means for transmitting . . .” ........................................... 70
`
`5.
`
`Dependent Claims 94, 97 and 98 .............................................. 71
`
`D. Ground 3 – Barnea, Ouchida, Bhogal and Ohmura render
`claims 7 and 8 obvious ........................................................................ 71
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 7 ...................................................................................... 71
`
`Claim 8 ...................................................................................... 74
`
`Ground 4 – Barnea, Ouchida, Bhogal, Ohmura and CAN render
`claims 61 and 62 obvious ................................................................... 76
`
`1.
`
`Dependent Claims 61 and 62 .................................................... 76
`
`Ground 5 – Barnea, Ouchida, Bhogal and Frese render claim 10
`obvious ................................................................................................ 77
`
`1.
`
`Claim 10 .................................................................................... 77
`
`G. Ground 6 – Barnea, Ouchida, Bhogal, Frese and CAN render
`86, 88, 89, 90 and 91 obvious ............................................................. 81
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Independent Claim 86 ............................................................... 81
`
`Dependent Claims 88-91 ........................................................... 82
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`H.
`
`Secondary Considerations Do Not Support A Finding Of Non-
`Obviousness ......................................................................................... 83
`
`VI. MANDATORY NOTICES ........................................................................... 84
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Real Parties-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) ................................ 84
`
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) ............................................ 84
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Related Patent Office Proceedings............................................ 84
`
`Related Litigation ...................................................................... 84
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)) and
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)-(4)) ............................... 85
`
`Payment of Fees (37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a)) ............................................. 85
`
`Service ................................................................................................. 85
`
`VII. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW (37 C.F.R
`§§ 42.101, 42.104, AND 42.108) .................................................................. 86
`
`A. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a); 37 C.F.R.
`§§ 42.101(a)-(c)) ................................................................................. 86
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 86
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Page
`
`Blitzsafe Texas, LLC v. Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, et al.,
`Case No. 2:2017-cv-00418 (E.D. Tex.) ................................................................83
`
`Blitzsafe Texas, LLC v. Daimler AG, et al.,
`Case No. 2:2017-cv-00422 (E.D. Tex.) ................................................................84
`
`Blitzsafe Texas, LLC v. Jaguar Land Rover Ltd., et al.,
`Case No. 2:2017-cv-00424 (E.D. Tex.) ................................................................83
`
`Blitzsafe Texas, LLC v. Mazda Motor Corp., et al.,
`Case No. 2:2017-cv-00423 (E.D. Tex.) ................................................................84
`
`Blitzsafe Texas, LLC v. Mitsubishi Electric Corp., et al.,
`Case No. 2:2017-cv-00430 (E.D. Tex.) ................................................................84
`
`Blitzsafe Texas, LLC v. Robert Bosch LLC, et al.,
`Case No. 2:2017-cv-00105 (E.D. Tex.)
`
`Blitzsafe Texas, LLC v. Subaru Corp., et al.,
`Case No. 2:2017-cv00421 (E.D. Tex.) .................................................................83
`
`Blitzsafe Texas, LLC v. Zhejiang Geely Holding Grp. Co., Ltd. et al.
`Case No. 2:2017-cv-00420 (E.D. Tex.) ................................................................83
`
`Circuit Check Inc. v. QXQ Inc.,
`795 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................23
`
`Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson,
`745 F.2d 1437 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ............................................................................19
`
`Petroleum Geo-Services Inc. v. WesternGeco LLC,
`IPR2015-01478 (Mar. 17, 2015) ..........................................................................83
`
`Sega of Am., Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc.,
`IPR2015-01453 (Mar. 10, 2015) ........................................................................ 82
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`Statutes and Rules
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 ................................................................................................. 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ....................................................................................................11
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 315 (a)-(b) ..........................................................................................85
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42. ........................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1) ..............................................................................................83
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ..............................................................................................83
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ..............................................................................................83
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ..............................................................................................84
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)-(4) ........................................................................................84
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) ................................................................................................84
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) .................................................................................................68
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a) and (d) ....................................................................................86
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a)(i) and (b)(i) .............................................................................86
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.101(a)-(c) .......................................................................................85
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ...............................................................................................85
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ..............................................................................................11
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(2) ......................................................................................... 11
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`LIST OF PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS
`
`
`No.
`
`Description
`
`Ex. 1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,489,786 to Marlowe et al. (“’786”)
`
`Ex. 1002
`
`’786 File History
`
`Ex. 1103
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Chris Kyriakakis
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,396,164 (“Barnea”)
`
`Ex. 11051
`
` 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”)
`
`
`1 Petitioner has filed a second IPR Petition against the ’786 patent which uses the
`
`same references and declarations, except for Ouchida and this petition’s
`
`declaration by Dr. Kyriakakis, which are different. Therefore, pursuant to the
`
`USPTO guidelines, Petitioner uses 1103 and 1105 to label Ouchida and the Dr.
`
`Kyriakakis declaration in this petition to avoid confusion/overlap in the event these
`
`two proceedings are consolidated.
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`No.
`
`Description
`
`Ex. 1010
`
`Webpage for USA Specifications for iPod to Car Interfaces (“PA-
`10”)
`
`Ex. 1011
`
`CAN Specification v 2.0 (“CAN”)
`
`Ex. 1012
`
`February 1998 Automedia Publication, titled “Blitzsafe Designs
`“Smart” Integration Device” (“Automedia Publication”)
`
`Ex. 1013
`
`Declaration of Dr. P. Koopman
`
`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
`
`viii
`
`

`

`
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq., Daimler
`
`AG (“DAG”) respectfully requests that the Board initiate inter partes review of
`
`claims 1, 2, 4-8, 10, 13, 14, 23, 24, 44, 47, 57, 58, 60-65, 86, 88-92, 94, 97, and 98
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 7,489,786 (Ex. 1001), which is assigned to Blitzsafe
`
`Texas, LLC (“Blitzsafe”).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Technology related to music players began to make a dramatic change in the
`
`1980s with the development of portable tape decks and CD players. These new
`
`players had many benefits—they were far smaller than prior portable devices and
`
`allowed consumers to listen to a wide variety of music. Tapes and discs were also
`
`ubiquitous; they were not only used in portable devices, but also in home stereos
`
`and in automobile head units. A tape or a disc could be played while walking, then
`
`transferred to a car to be played while driving.
`
`But tapes and discs had drawbacks, including limited storage capacity, often
`
`only a dozen songs. CD changers were introduced, which allowed consumers to
`
`store and play multiple CDs in their automobile. But they still suffered one
`
`significant drawback—a changer made by one company was often incompatible
`
`with the radio (“head unit”) from another company.
`
`Other devices, such as solid state (“MP3”) players came on the market in
`
`the late 1990s that addressed this storage problem. These devices allowed a user to
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`carry and play dozens, and ultimately thousands, of songs. Despite solving the
`
`storage issue, solid state devices negated a significant advantage of tapes and
`
`discs—the ability to use them while driving, since head units of the time did not
`
`have the ability to interface with these devices. Ex. 1103 at ¶11.
`
`The industry was quick to respond to solve this incompatibility problem
`
`common to both CD changers and MP3 players. Companies introduced interfaces
`
`that, when wired into a car stereo, allowed devices such as an MP3 player or CD
`
`Changer to be connected to a car’s head unit. Id. at ¶12.
`
`Indeed, years before the earliest priority date of the ’786 patent, Patent
`
`Owner Blitzsafe began selling its own interface, which it referred to as its “DMX
`
`Protocol convert.” Blitzsafe, however, was not deterred from attempting to
`
`remove this technology from the public domain by filing the ’786 patent in 2002,
`
`years after the technology had already matured and been commercialized.
`
`Blitzsafe, in fact, has been accused of doing more than simply filing a patent on
`
`technology that was already in the public domain. The named inventor, Ira
`
`Marlowe, has been accused of trying to expunge documentation of its own prior art
`
`products from the public record. As one Court acknowledged, Mr. Marlowe
`
`admitted during deposition that he requested that the Internet Archive (i.e., the
`
`“Way Back machine”) remove old Blitzsafe webpages from its archive. Ex. 1015
`
`at p. 3.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`A. Overview of the Technology
`
`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. Ex. 1103 at ¶ 12. Typically, these devices plugged
`
`into an existing port on the head unit that was used to control a manufacturer-
`
`specific remote CD-changer. Id. These interfaces translated control commands
`
`from the head 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. Ex. 1103 at ¶ 12. 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.
`
`1.
`
`Blitzsafe commercially sold an interface that connected
`third party CD changers to preexisting car stereos
`
`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.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Indeed, a February 1998 issue of Automedia also described Blitzsafe’s
`
`“DMX” product as allowing the “easy hook-up” of aftermarket 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.
`
`
`
`2. Other Manufacturers Also Commercialized Similar
`Interfaces
`
`Other retailers recognized this pervading market trend and, years before the
`
`’786 patent was filed, introduced to the market interfaces that allowed users to
`
`connect their after-market portable devices to car stereo systems. Ex. 1103 at ¶ 15-
`
`17. One retailer of the time was Pacific Accessory Company (“PAC”). Id. PAC
`
`offered an interface known as the “AAI-FRD2,” designed for use with Ford cars,
`
`shown below:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex. 1007; Ex. 1103 at ¶ 15. As described in the AAI-FRD2 manual, a user could
`
`connect a device to a 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;
`
`Ex. 1103 at ¶ 15.
`
`USA SPEC offered similar interface options. Ex. 1103 at ¶ 16. For
`
`example, their PA-10 product allowed consumers to “connect, control, play, and
`
`charge an iPod.” Ex. 1010. 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 interfaced
`
`with Toyota head units. Ex. 1014; Ex. 1103 at ¶ 16; Ex. 1019.
`
`B.
`
`The ’786 Patent Specification
`
`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; Ex. 1103 at ¶¶ 18-19. The integration
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`of external devices with the car stereo is provided by an “interface system,”
`
`separate from the car stereo and the external device. Ex. 1001 at 5:14-15, Fig. 1.
`
`
`
`The interface is described as being connected to a plurality of devices 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 of 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.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`C. The ’786 Prosecution History
`
`The ’786 patent issued from U.S. Pat. App. No. 10/316,961 (“the ’961
`
`application”), which was filed on December 11, 2002. Ex. 1002; Ex. 1103 at ¶¶ 20-
`
`24. The Examiner rejected the 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.
`
`In a first Office Action dated June 5, 2006, all pending claims were rejected
`
`on prior art grounds. Ex. 1002 at 204-230.
`
`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, in response to which, the Applicant amended the claims. Id. at
`
`378-442; Ex. 1002 at 335-358 (Feb. 14, 2007 Amendment).
`
`The Examiner subsequently 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. The claims were subsequently allowed after an amendment. Id. at
`
`672-709, 1039-1041.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`D. The Claims of the ’786 Patent
`
`The ’786 patent recites 99 claims, among the Challenged Claims are
`
`independent claims 1, 57, 86, and 92. For ease of reference, the Challenged
`
`Claims are reproduced in the attached Ex. 1016 with labels for each limitation that
`
`are used throughout this petition.
`
`E.
`
`Prior Petitions
`
`Several petitions have been filed against the ’786 patent, and in IPR2016-
`
`000421 (“’421”) the board instituted a review of claims 44 and 47 (both challenged
`
`in this petition).2
`
`F. Other Pending Petitions Are Not Duplicative
`
`Petitioner has simultaneously filed a second petition against the ’786 patent.
`
`The present petition relies on Ouchida (published in 1995) while DAG’s second
`
`
`2 The Board declined institution of a subset of the challenged claims in that
`
`case primarily because the petitioner failed to provide sufficient proof on several
`
`claim limitations. See ’421 ID. Other petitions were denied institution in their
`
`entirety based on similar failures of proof. See Institution Decisions for IPR2016-
`
`00422, IPR2016-01448, IPR2016-01472, IPR2016-01477. This Petition suffers
`
`from no such failures of proof and furthermore relies on combinations not raised in
`
`those petitions.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`petition relies on DE 10101702A1 (“Plagge”) (published in July 2002), instead of
`
`Ouchida. These petitions are not duplicative or redundant because they rely on
`
`different references and different combinations, and they are also not duplicative to
`
`the extent Petitioner attempts to assert an earlier conception/reduction to practice
`
`for the ’786 patent.
`
`G.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`A 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. Ex. 1103 at ¶ 26.
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Unless listed otherwise below, Petitioner submits that the claim terms do not
`
`require construction and should be interpreted according to their plain and ordinary
`
`meaning.
`
`A.
`
` “device presence signal”
`
`Challenged claims 6, 57, 86 and 92 require a “device presence signal.”
`
`Ex. 1001. 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” ’421 ID at 16-18. For
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`purposes of this petition, petitioner accepts this construction as proper under the
`
`BRI standard, for the reasons adopted by the Board in the ’421 petition. Id.; see
`
`also Ex. 10013 at ¶ 28.
`
`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; Ex. 1103 at ¶ 29. As set
`
`forth below, regardless of which construction is adopted, the prior art nevertheless
`
`renders challenged claims obvious. Ex. 1103 at ¶ 29.
`
`B. Means Plus Function Claim Elements
`
`Claim 92 recites means plus function claim terms which Blitzsafe has
`
`construed in the Eastern District of Texas action. For the limited purpose of this
`
`petition, Petitioner adopts Blitzsafe’s constructions. Under either construction, the
`
`prior art renders the claims obvious. Ex. 1103 at ¶ 30. These constructions are set
`
`forth in in attached Ex. 1017. See Ex. 1017 at 15-18.
`
`For the same reasons, while the parties dispute in that case 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, Petitioner adopts
`
`Blitzsafe’s position that these claim limitations are not subject to §112(6) under the
`
`BRI standard. Ex. 1017 at 10-16.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`IV. STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EACH
`CHALLENGED CLAIM
`
`A.
`
`Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b))
`
`Petitioner requests that the Board cancel the challenged claims as
`
`unpatentable.
`
`B. Grounds of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(2))
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests that IPR of the Challenged Claims be
`
`instituted because this Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood that the Petitioner
`
`will prevail with respect to at least one claim. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). This petition
`
`is based on the following grounds:
`
`Grounds for Challenge
`
`Ground 1 – Barnea, Ouchida and Bhogal render claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 13, 14,
`23, 24, 44 and 47 Obvious
`
`Ground 2 – Barnea, Ouchida, Bhogal, and CAN render claims 6, 57, 58,
`60, 63, 64, 65, 92, 94, 97, and 98 obvious
`
`Ground 3 – Barnea, Ouchida, Bhogal and Ohmura render claims 7 and 8
`obvious
`
`Ground 4 – Barnea, Ouchida, Bhogal, Ohmura and CAN render claims 61
`and 62 obvious
`
`Ground 5 – Barnea, Ouchida, Bhogal and Frese render claim 10 obvious
`
`Ground 6 – Barnea, Ouchida, Bhogal, Frese and CAN render claims 86,
`88, 89, 90 and 91 obvious
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`V.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE
`UNPATENTABLE
`
`A. Overview of the Cited Prior Art
`
`1.
`
`Barnea 3
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`3 While Barnea was cited during prosecution, it was not the subject of any
`
`substantive rejection or discussion. Ex. 1002.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`Barnea expressly discloses that the devices are controlled using the controls
`
`
`
`on the radio. Id. at 2:19-28; Ex. 1103 at ¶ 33-34.
`
`2. Ouchida
`
`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. Ex. 1103 at ¶ 35. The device is
`
`shown, for example, in Figs. 1 and 2:
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Bhogal
`
`Bhogal was filed on November 3, 2000 and issued September 30, 2003. Ex.
`
`1103 at ¶¶ 36-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.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1103 at ¶ 36.
`
`4.
`
`CAN
`
`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. 1013 ; Ex. 1103 at 37-40; 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. Ex. 1103 at ¶ 37.
`
`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,”
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`and is used in one embodiment to connect a “docking station” to the car stereo. Id.
`
`at 21:19-