`____________
`
`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