throbber
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 ............................................................... 6
`
`The ’786 Prosecution History ............................................................... 7
`
`The Claims of the ’786 Patent ............................................................... 8
`
`Prior Petitions ........................................................................................ 8
`
`Other Pending Petitions Are Not Duplicative ....................................... 9
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................................... 9
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 10
`
`A.
`
`“device presence signal” ..................................................................... 10
`
`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
`
`Plagge ........................................................................................ 13
`
`Bhogal ....................................................................................... 14
`
`CAN .......................................................................................... 15
`
`Frese .......................................................................................... 16
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Ground 1 – Barnea, Plagge 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, Plagge and Bhogal ....................................................... 18
`
`2.
`
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................. 24
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`(d)
`
`(e)
`
`(f)
`
`(g)
`
`(h)
`
`(i)
`
`(j)
`
`(k)
`
`(l)
`
`1[a] .................................................................................. 24
`
`1[b] .................................................................................. 26
`
`1[c] .................................................................................. 27
`
`1[d] .................................................................................. 30
`
`1[e] .................................................................................. 32
`
`1[f] .................................................................................. 37
`
`1[g] .................................................................................. 40
`
`1[h] .................................................................................. 42
`
`1[i] ................................................................................... 42
`
`1[j] ................................................................................... 42
`
`1[k] .................................................................................. 43
`
`1[l] ................................................................................... 45
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`claim 2 ....................................................................................... 46
`
`claim 4 ....................................................................................... 46
`
`claim 5 ....................................................................................... 47
`
`Claim 13 .................................................................................... 48
`
`Claim 14 .................................................................................... 48
`
`Claim 23 .................................................................................... 48
`
`Claim 24 .................................................................................... 49
`
`10. Claims 44 & 47 ......................................................................... 49
`
`C.
`
`Ground 2 – Barnea, Plagge, Bhogal, and the CAN
`Specification render claims 6, 57, 58, 60, 63, 64, 65, 92, 94, 97,
`and 98 obvious ..................................................................................... 51
`
`1.
`
`claim 6 ....................................................................................... 51
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`(a)
`
`The CAN protocol discloses the claimed “device
`presence” signal .............................................................. 51
`
`(b) A POSITA would have included CAN’s “wake-
`up” command in the modified Barnea system ................ 54
`
`Independent Claim 57 ............................................................... 56
`
`Dependent Claims 58, 63-65..................................................... 57
`
`Independent Claim 92 ............................................................... 58
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`(d)
`
`(e)
`
`"first pre-programmed means for generating. . . " .......... 59
`
`"first pre-programmed means for . . . transmitting" ....... 60
`
`"second pre-programmed means for remotely
`controlling. . . by receiving. . . " ..................................... 61
`
`“second pre-programmed means for remotely
`controlling. . . by processing. . . ” ................................... 62
`
`"second pre-programmed means for remotely
`controlling. . . by transmitting. . . " ................................. 63
`
`(f)
`
`"means for transmitting. . ." ............................................ 64
`
`5.
`
`Dependent Claims 94, 97 and 98 .............................................. 65
`
`D. Ground 3 – Barnea, Plagge, Bhogal and Ohmura render claims
`7 and 8 obvious .................................................................................... 65
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 7 ...................................................................................... 65
`
`Claim 8 ...................................................................................... 68
`
`Ground 4 – Barnea, Plagge, Bhogal, Ohmura and CAN render
`claims 61 and 62 obvious ................................................................... 70
`
`1.
`
`Dependent Claims 61 and 62 .................................................... 70
`
`Ground 5 – Barnea, Plagge, Bhogal and Frese render claim 10
`obvious ................................................................................................ 71
`
`1.
`
`Claim 10 .................................................................................... 71
`
`G. Ground 6 – Barnea, Plagge, Bhogal, Frese and CAN render 86,
`88, 89, 90 and 91 obvious ................................................................... 75
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Independent Claim 86 ............................................................... 75
`
`Dependent Claims 88-91 ........................................................... 76
`
`H. Ground 1 Continued ............................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`1.
`
`Claims 44 & 47 ......................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
`
`I.
`
`Secondary Considerations Do Not Support A Finding Of Non-
`Obviousness ......................................................................................... 77
`
`VI. MANDATORY NOTICES ........................................................................... 78
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Real Party-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) ................................... 78
`
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) ............................................ 78
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Related Patent Office Proceedings............................................ 78
`
`Related Litigation ...................................................................... 78
`
`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)) ............................... 79
`
`Payment of Fees (37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a)) ............................................. 79
`
`Service ................................................................................................. 79
`
`IX. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW (37 C.F.R
`§§ 42.101, 42.104, AND 42.108) .................................................................. 80
`
`A. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a); 37 C.F.R.
`§§ 42.101(a)-(c)) ................................................................................. 80
`
`X.
`
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 80
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.) ................................................................78
`
`Blitzsafe Texas, LLC v. Daimler AG, et al.,
`Case No. 2:2017-cv-00422 (E.D. Tex.) ................................................................78
`
`Blitzsafe Texas, LLC v. Jaguar Land Rover Ltd., et al.,
`Case No. 2:2017-cv-00424 (E.D. Tex.) ................................................................78
`
`Blitzsafe Texas, LLC v. Mazda Motor Corp., et al.,
`Case No. 2:2017-cv-00423 (E.D. Tex.) ................................................................78
`
`Blitzsafe Texas, LLC v. Mitsubishi Electric Corp., et al.
`Case No. 2:2017-cv-00430 (E.D. Tex.) ................................................................79
`
`Blitzsafe Texas, LLC v. Robert Bosch LLC, et al.,
`Case No. 2:2017-cv-00105 (E.D. Tex.) ................................................................78
`
`Blitzsafe Texas, LLC v. Subaru Corp., et al.,
`Case No. 2:2017-cv00421 (E.D. Tex.) .................................................................78
`
`Blitzsafe Texas, LLC v. Zhejiang Geely Holding Grp. Co., Ltd. et al.,
`Case No. 2:2017-cv-00420 (E.D. Tex.) ................................................................78
`
`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) ..........................................................................77
`
`Sega of Am., Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc.,
`IPR2015-01453 (Mar. 10, 2015) ..........................................................................77
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`Statutes and Rules
`Statutes and Rules
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 ................................................................................................. 1
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311—319 ................................................................................................. 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ....................................................................................................11
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) .................................................................................................... 11
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 315 (a)-(b) ..........................................................................................80
`35 U.S.C. §§ 315 (a)-(b) .......................................................................................... 80
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1) ..............................................................................................78
`37 CPR. § 42.8(a)(1) .............................................................................................. 78
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) .............................................................................................78
`37 CPR. § 42.8(b)(1) ............................................................................................. 78
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) .............................................................................................78
`37 CPR. § 42.8(b)(2) ............................................................................................. 78
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ..............................................................................................79
`37 CPR. § 42.8(b)(3) .............................................................................................. 79
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)-(4) ........................................................................................79
`37 CPR. § 42.8(b)(3)—(4) ........................................................................................ 79
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) ................................................................................................79
`37 CPR. § 42.10(b) ................................................................................................ 79
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) .................................................................................................79
`37 CPR. § 42.15(a) ................................................................................................. 79
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a) .................................................................................................81
`37 CPR. § 42.24(a) ................................................................................................. 81
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a)(i) .............................................................................................81
`37 CPR. § 42.24(a)(i) ............................................................................................. 81
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ..................................................................................................... 1
`37 CPR. § 42.100 ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.101(a)-(c) .......................................................................................80
`37 CPR. §§ 42.101(a)-(c) ....................................................................................... 80
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ...............................................................................................80
`37 CPR. § 42.104(a) ............................................................................................... 80
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ..............................................................................................11
`37 CPR. § 42.104(b) .............................................................................................. 11
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(2) .........................................................................................11
`37 CPR. § 42.204(b)(2) ......................................................................................... 11
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`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. 1003
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Chris Kyriakakis
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,396,164 (“Barnea”)
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`DE 10101702A1 (“Plagge”)
`
`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”)
`
`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
`
`vii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`No.
`
`Description
`
`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. Most significantly, they had limited
`
`storage capacity, often only a dozen songs. In 1990s CD changers were
`
`introduced, which allowed consumers to store and play multiple CDs in their
`
`automobile. But they suffered one significant drawback – a CD changer made by
`
`one company was often incompatible with the head unit from another company.
`
`Other devices came on the market in the late 1990s that addressed this
`
`storage problem specifically, solid-state devices, such as MP3 players, that allowed
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`a user to 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 anywhere, including while driving, since
`
`radios (or “head units”) of the time did not have the ability to interface with these
`
`devices.
`
`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.
`
`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
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`“Way Back machine”) remove old Blitzsafe webpages from its archive. Ex. 1015
`
`at p. 3.
`
`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. 1003 at ¶ 11-12. Typically, these devices
`
`plugged into an existing port on the head unit that was used to control a
`
`manufacturer-specific remote CD-changer. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 12. 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. 1003 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
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`car stereos, allowing for playback of audio and control of music players using the
`
`car stereo.
`
`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 the protocol of the factory
`
`radio and communicate 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. One retailer of
`
`the time was Pacific Accessory Company (“PAC”). Ex. 1003 at ¶ 15. PAC
`
`offered an interface known as the “AAI-FRD2,” designed for use with Ford cars,
`
`shown below:
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1007; Ex. 1003 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; Ex. 1003 at ¶ 15. The AAI-FRD2 allowed integration of
`
`a variety of devices, including “MP3, DVD, VCP, and satellite radio.” Ex. 1007;
`
`Ex. 1003 at ¶ 15.
`
`USA SPEC offered similar interface options. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 16. For
`
`example, their PA-10 product allowed consumers to “connect, control, play, and
`
`charge an iPod.” Ex. 1010; Ex. 1003 at ¶ 16. 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
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`SoundGate, who manufactured a “DOCKTOYO” docking station for MP3 players
`
`to interfaced with Toyota head units. Ex. 1014; Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 16-17.
`
`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. 1003 at ¶¶ 18-19. 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.
`
`
`
`The interface is described as being connected to a plurality of device 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
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`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.
`
`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. 1003 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).
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`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.
`
`D. The Claims of the ’786 Patent
`
`The ’786 patent recites 99 claims, among the Challenged Claims are
`
`independent claims 1, 44, 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. Ex. 1016.
`
`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 of which
`
`are challenged here).1
`
`
`1 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
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`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
`
`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 are 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. 1003 at ¶ 26.
`
`
`from no such failures of proof and furthermore relies on combinations not raised in
`
`those petitions.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`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. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 27.
`
`A.
`
` “device presence signal”
`
`Challenged claims 6, 57, 86 and 92 require a “device presence signal.”
`
`Ex. 1001. In construing claims 57 and 86 in the ’421 petition, the Board construed
`
`this term pursuant to the BRI 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 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.
`
`The Board expressly rejected the petitioner’s proposed construction in the
`
`’421 petition, 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. 1003 at ¶ 29. As set forth below,
`
`regardless of which construction is adopted, the prior art nevertheless renders
`
`challenged claims obvious.
`
`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
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`petition, Petitioner adopts Blitzsafe’s constructions. Regardless of which parties’
`
`constructions are adopted, the prior art renders the claims obvious. These
`
`constructions are set forth in in attached Ex. 1017. See Ex. 1017 at 15-18; Ex.
`
`1002 at ¶ 30.
`
`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; Ex. 1003 at ¶ 31.
`
`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:
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`Grounds for Challenge
`
`Ground 1 – Barnea, Plagge and Bhogal render claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 13, 14,
`23, 24, 44 and 47 Obvious
`
`Ground 2 – Barnea, Plagge, Bhogal, and CAN render claims 6, 57, 58, 60,
`63, 64, 65, 92, 94, 97, and 98 obvious
`
`Ground 3 – Barnea, Plagge, Bhogal and Ohmura render claims 7 and 8
`obvious
`
`Ground 4 – Barnea, Plagge, Bhogal, Ohmura and CAN render claims 61
`and 62 obvious
`
`Ground 5 – Barnea, Plagge, Bhogal and Frese render claim 10 obvious
`
`Ground 6 – Barnea, Plagge, Bhogal, Frese and CAN render claims 86, 88,
`89, 90 and 91 obvious
`
`
`
`V.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE
`UNPATENTABLE
`
`A. Overview of the Cited Prior Art
`
`1.
`
`Barnea 2
`
`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
`
`
`2 While Barnea was cited during prosecution, it was not the subject of any
`
`substantive rejection or discussion. Ex. 1002.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`that otherwise would not be able to connect to such devices. Ex. 1004 at Abstract,
`
`claim 14, fig 1.
`
`
`
`Barnea expressly discloses that the devices are controlled using the controls
`
`
`
`on the radio. Id. at 2:19-28; Ex. 1003 at ¶ 33-34.
`
`2.
`
`Plagge
`
`Plagge is a German patent, published on July 18, 2002. It discloses an
`
`“interface emulator” that allows an MP3 player to connect to a car stereo that only
`
`has a standard CD audio input. Ex. 1005 at (57). It does so by converting the MP3
`
`music fro

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket