UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`———————
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`MICROPAIRING TECHNOLOGIES LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`———————
`
`IPR2021-01557
`U.S. Patent 8,953,816
`
`———————
`
`DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER K. WILSON UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,953,816
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 1 of 62
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .020...c.cccecceccecccceceeceeceeceeeeeseeceeeeeceesceaceseeseeeceaeeaeeaeeeseaeeeses 1
`
`Il.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS....2...0.0..ecceccecceccesceeeeseeteeeeteeeeees 4
`
`II.
`
`RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS ..022.2.0.ccceccescescececceceesceeeeseeseeseteeeneeeteees 6
`
`THE 7816 PATENT..022o.e. ccc cececcecceccceccescesceseeseeeeeeeeeceesceseescsaceseeseeseeseeeseaeeases 9
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Summary and Prosecution History............0..20..2:e:ccecceecceceeceeeeeeseeeeeeeees 9
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art 2220.20. ceeeeeeeeteeeeeeteeees 9
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION 002........cccccsceecceceeceeceeceeceeceececeeseeseeseeseeseeseeeeeseens 10
`
`VI.
`
`SUMMARYOF OPINIONS...02.........ceceeseeceeceeceeceeceeseeseeseeseeseeeeeseeseeneeeeees 11
`
`AL
`
`B
`
`C.
`
`D
`
`E
`
`F
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`I.
`
`Prnor Artec eecceeceeeeeceeceeceeceeceecesceseeeceesesececeeececeeseeaceaeesecseeseeseeseeeeneeseens 12
`
`Wired Audio SOUPCE .........2.....cccc0ccecceeceeesceeeeeeceessceeseesseeesseesseessseessees 14
`
`LOIC CirCutt 2.2... cece ee ceececeeeeeeeeeeeeeseceesecceseeceeseecesseeceseeeesseeeeseeeessseees 16
`
`Multiple Speaker's .............cccccccccceccceecceeseceseceecesceescceseeessceeseeesseeeseeees 17
`
`Located Within or Proximate to The Vehicle.............2..2..c:000000000000+ 21
`
`Identify[ing] a Wireless Audio Device Record .. . Previously
`Identified and Stored in Memory .........22..2:.::.c.:c+00s0c0ceeeeereeeeeeseeeeeeees 24
`
`Wireless Device Record Includes Previously Identified Data Codes
`From the Wireless Audio Device and From a First Software
`Application Running on the Wireless Audio Device ......................+-+- 31
`
`Provid[ing] a User with an Option to Direct Sound From the
`Wireless Audio Device Through at Least a First One ofthe Speakers
`ofthe Vehicle Audio System or Back to a Speakerin the Wireless
`AUIO D@ViCe «2.2... ce cceccesceeceeeeeeseeseeeseeseeesecaeeeseesscesecseeseeeseesseeseeeseeaes 37
`
`Indicating the Availability ofthe Wireless Audio Device on the
`DASPIQY 0.2 .oc ccc ccccc cece cence eesceeseeeesceesecesscesseeesecessccsscenseeetseesseeeseeesseeeseeees43
`
`1
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 2 of 62
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 2 of 62
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher K. Wilson Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,953,816
`
`J.
`
`K.
`
`L.
`
`M.
`
`N.
`
`Multiple Processors Networked Together into a Multi-Processor
`System ................................................................................................. 43
`
`Bluetooth Systems Use a Transceiver ............................................... 47
`
`Receiving Wirelessly at the Vehicular Audio System MP3 Encoded
`Audio/Operating the Audio System to Decode the MP3 Encoded
`Audio/ Playing the Decoded MP3 Audio over a Speaker Included in
`the Audio System ................................................................................ 48
`
`Various Combinations of Wireless Audio Devices Connecting to the
`In-Vehicle System .............................................................................. 50
`
`Wireless Audio Device has an Integrated Display/Displaying a
`Portion of Content from the Integrated Display on the Wireless Audio
`Device on a Display in the Vehicle Audio System ............................. 51
`
`VI. AVAILABILITY FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION ...................................... 54
`
`VII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 54
`
`ii
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 3 of 62
`
`

`

`I, Christopher K. Wilson, do hereby declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Unified Patents Inc. (“Unified” or
`
`Petitioner”) as an independent expert witness for the above-captioned Petition for
`
`Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,953,816 (“the ’816 patent”). I am
`
`being compensated at my usual and customary rate for the time I spend in connection
`
`with this IPR. My compensation is not affected by the outcomeofthis IPR. I make
`
`this declaration based upon my own personal knowledge and, if called upon to
`
`testify, would testify competently to the matters stated herein.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding whetherclaims1-
`
`4, 6, and 10-23 (each a “Challenged Claim” and collectively the “Challenged
`
`Claims”) of the °816 patent are unpatentable as they would have beenanticipated by
`
`the prior art or obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) as of
`
`the earliest claimed priority date of the ’816 patent. It is my opinionthat all of the
`
`Challenged Claims would have been obvious to a POSITA,after reviewing the prior
`
`art discussed below.
`
`3.
`
`In preparing this Declaration, I have reviewed:
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`EX1001, the ’816 patent:
`
`—_EX1003, thefile history of the ’816 patent:
`
`the prior art references discussed below:
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 4 of 62
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 4 of 62
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher K. Wilson Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,953,816
`
`● U.S. Patent 6,559,773 (filed December 21, 1999, issued May
`
`6, 2003) (“Berry” (EX1004)));
`
`● U.S. Patent 6,937,732 (filed April 4, 2001, issued August
`
`30, 2005) (“Ohmura” (EX1005));
`
`● U.S. Patent 6,618,754 (filed October 23, 1995, issued
`
`September 9, 2003) (“Gosling” (EX1006));
`
`● Nüsser, “Bluetooth-based Wireless Connectivity in an
`
`Automotive Environment,” 52nd Vehicular Technology
`
`Conference Fall 2000, IEEE Vehicular Technology Society,
`
`Fall VTC 2000, Boston, MA 2000, 1935-42 vol.4. (“Nüsser”
`
`(EX1007)); and
`
`● International Publication WO 00/72463 (filed May 26, 2000,
`
`published November 30, 2000) (“Witkowski” (EX1008));
`
`and
`
`f)
`
`any other document cited below.
`
`4.
`
`I understand that the ’816 patent issued on February 10, 2015 from U.S.
`
`Patent Application No. 13/196,654 (“the ’654 application”), filed on August 2, 2011.
`
`I understand that the ’654 application is a continuation of U.S. Application
`
`12/258,215, filed October 24, 2008, which is a continuation of U.S. Application
`
`11/462,958, filed August 7, 2006, which is a continuation of U.S. Application
`
`2
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 5 of 62
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher K. Wilson Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,953,816
`
`09/841,915, filed April 24, 2001. The face of the ’816 Patent lists Dan Alan Preston
`
`and Robert Pierce Lutter as the purported inventors. I understand that MicroPairing
`
`Technologies LLC is the current assignee of the ’816 patent.
`
`5.
`
`To the best of my knowledge, I have no financial interest in Petitioner.
`
`Petitioner’s counsel has informed me that MicroPairing Technologies LLC purports
`
`to own the ’816 patent. To the best of my knowledge, I have no financial interest in
`
`MicroPairing Technologies LLC, and, to the best of my recollection, I have had no
`
`contact with MicroPairing Technologies LLC, or the named inventors of the patent,
`
`Dan Alan Preston and Robert Pierce Lutter. To the best of my knowledge, I similarly
`
`have no financial interest in the ’816 patent. To the extent any mutual funds or other
`
`investments that I own have a financial interest in the Petitioner, Unified Patents,
`
`LLC, the Patent Owner, MicroPairing Technologies LLC, or the ’816 patent, I am
`
`not aware of, nor do I have control over, any financial interest that would affect or
`
`bias my judgment.
`
`6.
`
`In forming the opinions expressed in this Declaration, I relied upon my
`
`education and experience in the relevant field of art, and have considered the
`
`viewpoint of a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA), as of April 24, 2001.
`
`I have also considered:
`
`a)
`
`the documents listed above,
`
`3
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 6 of 62
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher K. Wilson Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,953,816
`
`b)
`
`any additional documents and references cited in the analysis
`
`below,
`
`c)
`
`the relevant legal standards, including the standard for
`
`obviousness, and
`
`d)
`
`my knowledge and experience based upon my work in this area
`
`as described below.
`
`7.
`
`I understand that claims in an IPR are construed according to the same
`
`claim construction standard as one would use in a District Court proceeding.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`8.
`
`My complete qualifications and professional experience are described
`
`in my curriculum vitae, a copy of which is attached as Appendix A to this
`
`declaration. The following is a brief summary of my relevant qualifications and
`
`professional experience.
`
`9.
`
`I have a bachelor’s degree in Physics from Princeton University and
`
`one year of graduate school in Physics at the University of California, San Diego.
`
`10.
`
`I am currently an independent consultant to the transportation industry
`
`focused on the use of vehicle data and analytics to provide cloud services in support
`
`of safety systems in automated and semi-automated vehicles.
`
`11.
`
`I have 27 years of experience in the automotive telematics and safety
`
`technology field working for tier 1 suppliers (TRW and TomTom) and vehicle
`
`4
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 7 of 62
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher K. Wilson Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,953,816
`
`manufacturers (DaimlerChrysler), as well as working with other vehicle
`
`manufacturers and government
`
`in consortia developing pre-competitive
`
`technologies and performance metrics for vehicle safety systems, and consulting. At
`
`TRW, I developed one of the first off-board navigation systems, known as TRW’s
`
`In-Vehicle Information System, in 1995.
`
`12.
`
`I worked on the development of traffic management systems in San
`
`Francisco, Atlanta and Houston where I advocated the use of vehicle data for
`
`managing the system.
`
`13. At Fastline (Information Access Inc.), in or around 1996, I developed
`
`techniques for integrating a PDA (Sony Magic Link) with various vehicle telematics
`
`and display systems. The primary application was to display local traffic data to
`
`drivers, either through the “brought in” device, or through an associated vehicle
`
`display. “Display” here includes audio information from the device.
`
`14.
`
`From 1996 to 2008, I worked for DaimlerChrysler (under a number of
`
`different names) developing telematics systems for various safety and infotainment
`
`applications. Many of these systems involved integrating aftermarket products, such
`
`as cell phones, navigation systems, and PDAs, into vehicle systems, including
`
`integration utilizing a wireless data link.
`
`15.
`
`In 2008, I began to work for TomTom BV., a manufacturer of personal
`
`navigation systems. While at TomTom I worked to integrate the displays from
`
`5
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 8 of 62
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher K. Wilson Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,953,816
`
`TomTom devices into the manufacturer installed displays of various vehicles, and
`
`to design the interfaces (including the audio interface) between the manufacturer’s
`
`user interface and the TomTom device.
`
`16.
`
`I am the named inventor on seven US and several international patents
`
`related to various aspects of navigation including improving a vehicle positioning
`
`system and methods for creating maps and uses for map content.
`
`17.
`
`In summary, I have extensive familiarity with fields involving personal
`
`navigation systems that provide driving directions to a user. I am familiar with what
`
`the state of this field was at the relevant time up to the time the ’816 patent was
`
`filed.1
`
`III. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`18.
`
`I am not an attorney and offer no legal opinions, but in my work, I have
`
`had experience studying and analyzing patents and patent claims from the
`
`perspective of a person skilled in the art. I am also a named inventor on at least 7
`
`1 I have been informed and understand that the ’816 patent was effectively filed on
`
`April 24, 2001 because it is a continuation of an application filed on this date. When
`
`I refer to the “time the patent was filed” or “time the ’816 patent was filed”
`
`throughout this Declaration, I am referring to the April 24, 2001 filing date of the
`
`’816 patent.
`
`6
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 9 of 62
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher K. Wilson Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,953,816
`
`U.S. patents. For the purposes of this declaration, I have been informed about certain
`
`aspects of the law that are relevant to forming my opinions. My understanding of the
`
`law is as follows:
`
`19.
`
`Petitioner’s counsel has informed me that for a claimed limitation to be
`
`inherently present, the prior art need not expressly disclose the limitation, so long as
`
`the claimed limitation necessarily flows from a disclosure in the prior art.
`
`20.
`
`Petitioner’s counsel has informed me that a patent claim can be
`
`considered to have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`the application was filed. This means that, even if all of the requirements of a claim
`
`are not found in a single prior art reference, the claim is not patentable if the
`
`differences between the subject matter in the prior art and the subject matter in the
`
`claim would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
`
`application was filed.
`
`21.
`
`Petitioner’s counsel has informed me that a determination of whether a
`
`claim would have been obvious should be based upon several factors, including,
`
`among others:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed;
`
`the scope and content of the prior art; and
`
`• what differences, if any, existed between the claimed invention and the
`
`prior art.
`
`7
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 10 of 62
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher K. Wilson Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,953,816
`
`22.
`
`Petitioner’s counsel has informed me that a single reference can
`
`render a patent claim obvious if any differences between that reference and the
`
`claims would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`Alternatively, the teachings of two or more references may be combined in the
`
`same way as disclosed in the claims, if such a combination would have been
`
`obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. In determining whether a
`
`combination based on either a single reference or multiple references would have
`
`been obvious, it is appropriate to consider, among other factors:
`
`• whether the teachings of the prior art references disclose known concepts
`
`combined in familiar ways, and when combined, would yield predictable
`
`results;
`
`• whether a person of ordinary skill in the art could implement a predictable
`
`variation, and would see the benefit of doing so;
`
`• whether the claimed elements represent one of a limited number of known
`
`design choices, and would have a reasonable expectation of success by
`
`those skilled in the art;
`
`• whether a person of ordinary skill would have recognized a reason to
`
`combine known elements in the manner described in the claim;
`
`• whether there is some teaching or suggestion in the prior art to make the
`
`modification or combination of elements claimed in the patent; and
`
`8
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 11 of 62
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher K. Wilson Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,953,816
`
`• whether the innovation applies a known technique that had been used to
`
`improve a similar device or method in a similar way.
`
`23.
`
`Petitioner’s counsel has informed me that one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art has ordinary creativity, and is not an automaton. Petitioner’s counsel has
`
`informed me that in considering obviousness, it is important not to determine
`
`obviousness using the benefit of hindsight derived from the patent being considered.
`
`IV. THE ’816 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`Summary and Prosecution History
`
`24.
`
`I have reviewed, had input into, and endorse the discussions in the
`
`Summary and Prosecution History sections of the Petition, which I hereby
`
`incorporate by reference.
`
`B.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`25.
`
`I understand that the level of ordinary skill may be reflected by the prior
`
`art of record, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) to which the
`
`claimed subject matter pertains would have the capability of understanding the
`
`scientific and engineering principles applicable to the pertinent art. I understand
`
`that one of ordinary skill in the art has ordinary creativity, and is not a robot.
`
`26.
`
`It is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art at and before
`
`the priority date for the ’816 patent (“POSITA”) would have had a bachelor’s
`
`degree in electrical engineering, computer science, computer engineering, physics,
`
`9
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 12 of 62
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher K. Wilson Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,953,816
`
`or a related subject, and two to three years of work experience in in-vehicle
`
`infotainment systems. A lack of experience can be remedied with additional
`
`education (e.g., a Master’s degree), and likewise, a lack of education can be
`
`remedied with additional work experience (e.g., 5–6 years).
`
`27. Based on my professional experience, I have an understanding of the
`
`capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field. As mentioned above,
`
`I have 27 years of experience in the development of in-vehicle systems that
`
`connect to wireless devices. Further, as detailed in Section I, I myself qualified as
`
`at least a POSITA at the time the ’816 patent was filed.
`
`28. The analysis set forth herein evaluates obviousness and priority issues
`
`consistent with the legal principles provided to me by counsel and through the eyes
`
`of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the ’816 patent was filed.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`29.
`
`It is my understanding that in order to properly evaluate the ’816 patent,
`
`the terms of the claims must first be interpreted. It is my understanding that the
`
`claims are to be construed according to the same claim construction standard that
`
`district courts use. Thus, it is my understanding that claim terms are construed
`
`according to their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 13 of 62
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher K. Wilson Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,953,816
`
`30.
`
`In order to construe the claims, I have reviewed the entirety of the ’816
`
`patent along with portions of the prosecution history of the ’816 patent (EX1003).
`
`Consistent with the ’816 patent disclosure, I have given the terms in the Challenged
`
`Claims their ordinary and customary meaning, as understood by one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art.
`
`31.
`
`I reviewed and contributed to the constructions proposed by petitioner
`
`in the Petition. The Petition’s explanation as to why these claims should be construed
`
`as proposed for this proceeding reflects my understanding of how I use them in this
`
`declaration, and I incorporate it herein by reference.
`
`VI.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS2
`
`32.
`
`In my opinion, claims 1-4, 6, and 10-23 (“the Challenged Claims”) of
`
`the ’816 patent are unpatentable because they would have been obvious to a POSITA
`
`at the time the ’816 patent was filed. My opinions are based on my expertise in the
`
`technology of the ’816 patent at the time the ’816 patent was filed, as well as my
`
`review of the ’816 patent, its file history, and the prior art discussed in the Petition.
`
`If the patent owner is allowed to submit additional evidence pertaining to the validity
`
`2 Unless otherwise specified, all bold emphasis below has been added. Text in italics
`
`is used to signify claim language, while reference names are also italicized.
`
`11
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 14 of 62
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher K. Wilson Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,953,816
`
`of the ’816 patent, I intend to review that as well and update my analysis and
`
`conclusions as appropriate and allowed under the rules of this proceeding.
`
`33.
`
`I reviewed and contributed to the Petition’s explanation as to why these
`
`claims are unpatentable. The Petition’s explanation as to why these claims are
`
`unpatentable reflects my understanding, and I incorporate it herein by reference.
`
`34. The Petition sets forth my reasons for my opinion that the Challenged
`
`Claims would have been obvious. Below I elaborate on certain points raised in the
`
`discussion of the Petition from the perspective of a POSITA at the time of the ’816
`
`priority date.
`
`A.
`
`Prior Art
`
`35.
`
`In my opinion, the systems described in Berry in view of Ohmura (as
`
`detailed for Ground 1), Berry in view of Ohmura and Gosling (as detailed for Ground
`
`2), Berry in view of Ohmura and Nüsser (as detailed for Ground 3), and Berry in
`
`view of Ohmura, Gosling, and Nüsser (as detailed for Ground 4), Berry (as detailed
`
`for Ground 5), Berry in view of Ohmura and Witkowski (as detailed for Ground 6),
`
`Berry in view of Ohmura, Gosling, and Witkowski (as detailed for Ground 7), Berry
`
`in view of Ohmura, Nüsser, and Witkowski (as detailed for Ground 8), and Berry in
`
`view of Ohmura, Gosling, Nüsser, and Witkowski (as detailed for Ground 9) had all
`
`of the key components and performed all of the same basic functions as the system
`
`described in the ’816 patent.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 15 of 62
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher K. Wilson Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,953,816
`
`1.
`
`Berry
`
`36. An overview of Berry is provided in the Petition, which I have
`
`reviewed, had input into, and adopt herein by reference.
`
`2.
`
`Gosling
`
`37. An overview of Gosling is provided in the Petition, which I have
`
`reviewed, had input into, and adopt herein by reference.
`
`3. Nüsser
`
`38. An overview of Nüsser is provided in the Petition, which I have
`
`reviewed, had input into, and adopt herein by reference.
`
`39. Based on my experience, IEEE is (and has been since well before
`
`September 2001) a well-known technical professional organization.3 I personally
`
`have attended many IEEE conferences and reviewed many of their publications to
`
`learn about various vehicle technologies. Their standards (including IEEE 802.11,
`
`“WiFi” and 802.15 “Bluetooth”) are widely used in the automotive industry. A
`
`3 The progenitor of IEEE (the American Institute of Electrical Engineers) was
`
`founded in 1884 by Thomas Edison and Nikola Tesla, among others. The
`
`antecedent of the IEEE Vehicular Technology Society has been working on
`
`vehicle communications since 1949. IEEE currently has over 400,000 members
`
`worldwide.
`
`13
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 16 of 62
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher K. Wilson Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,953,816
`
`POSITA in the relevant time frame would have frequently reviewed IEEE
`
`publications and attended IEEE conferences for
`
`information on relevant
`
`technologies, such as vehicle communications systems.
`
`4. Witkowski
`
`40. An overview of Witkowski is provided in the Petition, which I have
`
`reviewed, had input into, and adopt herein by reference.
`
`B. Wired Audio Source
`
`41.
`
`I have been informed that, if the preamble of a claim recites only an
`
`intended purpose of the claim, it may not be a limitation. Further, if terms recited in
`
`the preamble of a claim are not recited in the body of the claim, the preamble may
`
`not be a limitation of the claim.
`
`42.
`
`To the extent that the preamble is a limitation of the claim, in my
`
`opinion, Berry alone or in view of Ohmura renders obvious a wired audio device.
`
`43. A POSITA would have understood that Berry’s embedded CD player
`
`or AM/FM radio were wired. To this day, “embedded” devices (essentially those
`
`included in the vehicle purchase) are connected by wires rather than wirelessly, and
`
`this has been the standard since the first car radios in the 1930’s. In my experience,
`
`a POSITA would have understood that using wires was a conventional way to
`
`connect an in-vehicle audio system to, for example, a CD player, MD player, and
`
`multiple speakers in the vehicle. EX1005, 3:15-25, 7:60-8:4, Fig. 1 (see lines
`
`14
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 17 of 62
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher K. Wilson Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,953,816
`
`connecting audio apparatus 100 to, for example, speakers 28, CD drive 31 and MD
`
`drive 32); EX1007, 1935, 1937-1938, Fig. 2. In addition, a POSITA would have
`
`understood the terminology “car-embedded devices” to refer to the devices that are
`
`wired in the vehicle, such as DVD players and navigation units. EX1007, 1937-1938,
`
`Fig. 2.
`
`44. To the extent that MicroPairing argues that a wired connection is not
`
`taught by Berry, it would have been obvious to a POSITA to use a wired CD player
`
`and/or AM/FM radio in the embedded system. This is true in view of Berry alone
`
`for the same reasons explained above and below. First, it would have been obvious
`
`to make those two things wired in view of the teachings of Berry and also because
`
`this was a known method of connecting embedded audio sources in a vehicle that
`
`leads to predictable results. Using a wired connection method for embedded audio
`
`sources would have been a beneficial because the location of cables for original
`
`audio systems installed in vehicles may be considered in the car cabin design stage.
`
`EX1005, 3:15-40. For example, based on my experience, it would have been
`
`desirable to provide wired connections to factory installed CD players and radios.
`
`The wiring of these types of audio devices would have been considered at the car
`
`cabin design stage. In contrast, a POSITA would have understood that it is more
`
`problematic to have wired connections for aftermarket products that were not
`
`considered in the initial design stage. Id., 3:15-40.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 18 of 62
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher K. Wilson Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,953,816
`
`
`45. Furthermore, a POSITA would have understood that wire-based
`
`connections for embedded devices offer advantages regarding cost, bandwidth, and
`
`reliability. EX1007, 1935. For example, wire-based connections limit sources for
`
`interference for the devices using Bluetooth connections. Id., 1938. In addition, a
`
`POSITA would have recognized that it would have been beneficial to wire the audio
`
`source to a battery in the vehicle for power. This would prevent the audio sources
`
`from needing to be charged separately. Id. Thus, a POSITA would have a reasonable
`
`expectation of success at least because it was conventional to use wires to connect
`
`embedded audio systems. Id., 1935, 1937-1938, Fig. 2.
`
`C.
`
`Logic Circuit
`
`46.
`
`I have been informed that, if the preamble of a claim recites only an
`
`intended purpose of the claim, it may not be a limitation. Further, if terms recited in
`
`the preamble of a claim are not recited in the body of the claim, the preamble may
`
`not be a limitation of the claim.
`
`47. Berry discloses that its system includes HMI controller 34 for
`
`controlling the graphical display screen, monitoring key inputs, accepting input from
`
`voice recognition (VR) unit 33, and interfacing with devices on a dynamic local
`
`network 36. Id., 3:19-31. A POSITA would have understood that HMI controller
`
`includes a logic circuit, which is defined as “[a]n electronic circuit that processes
`
`information by performing a logical operation on it.” EX1021, 289. A POSITA
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 19 of 62
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher K. Wilson Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,953,816
`
`would have understood that a “controller” includes a computing element and, as
`
`such, contains logic elements configured in a logic circuit. For example, HMI
`
`controller 34 must process information, such as user inputs, and perform a logical
`
`operation on that information in order to communicate and control various remote
`
`audio devices.
`
`D. Multiple Speakers
`
`48.
`
`I have been informed that, if the preamble of a claim recites only an
`
`intended purpose of the claim, it may not be a limitation. Further, if terms recited in
`
`the preamble of a claim are not recited in the body of the claim, the preamble may
`
`not be a limitation of the claim.
`
`49. To the extent that the preamble is a limitation of the claim, in my
`
`opinion, Berry alone or in view of Ohmura renders obvious multiple speakers.
`
`50. Based on my experience, Berry discloses, or at least renders obvious to
`
`a POSITA, that control panel/display subsystem 10 includes multiple speakers.
`
`Although Berry does not explicitly describe speakers, Berry discloses that control
`
`panel/display subsystem 10 includes volume control. EX1004, 2:64-66. In addition,
`
`Berry describes having “standard embedded features” of vehicle network devices
`
`such as embedded audio systems such as, for example, a CD player or AM/FM radio.
`
`Id., 2:43-59. Berry also describes its system as being configured to connect
`
`wirelessly to audio systems such as, for example, an MP3 player and cellular phone.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 20 of 62
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher K. Wilson Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,953,816
`
`Id., 2:43-59, 3:6-18, 3:51-54, 6:19-23. A POSITA would have understood that it was
`
`standard for vehicles to have multiple speakers to play the audio from the embedded
`
`and connected devices. As early as the 1980s, vehicles began to feature “multi-
`
`speaker stereo systems, with individual speakers outfitted on the driver side,
`
`passenger side, and rear deck, allowing for the sensation of surround sound”
`
`(EX1022, 5) and by the priority date of the ’816 patent this was standard practice. In
`
`fact, even the 1979 Ford Pinto had the option of having multiple speakers. EX1023,
`
`13. A major impetus for multiple speakers was the broadcast of FM stereo starting
`
`in 1961, which utilizes multiple speakers to provide the stereo effect. EX1024. In
`
`my experience, by the late 1990s, it was common practice to have multiple speakers
`
`in vehicles. Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA that the “standard
`
`embedded features” would include multiple speakers. Id.
`
`51.
`
`Furthermore, to the extent MicroPairing argues that Berry does not
`
`disclose or render obvious including multiple speakers, it would have been obvious
`
`to a POSITA to have included multiple speakers in view of the teachings of Ohmura.
`
`Ohmura describes that a “conventional audio system [] generally comprises a main
`
`unit that controls reproduction of musical pieces (contents) connected to a plurality
`
`of speakers via cables.” EX1005, 3:15-21. As shown in annotated Figure 1 below,
`
`Ohmura describes speakers 28 (purple) positioned at four different locations within
`
`the vehicle. Id., 4:10-12, 4:52-53, 5:12-13, 7:39-47, 7:60-8:19, Fig. 1.
`
`18
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 21 of 62
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher K. Wilson Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,953,816
`
`
`
`
`52. The references are analogous art to the ’816 patent (and each other), as
`
`each discloses in-vehicle control systems for connecting to wireless audio devices.
`
`EX1001, Abstract; EX1004, Abstract, 3:40-4:9; EX1005, Abstract. Each reference
`
`seeks to solve the same problem of driver frustration at not being able