Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 133-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 1 of 40 PageID #:
` 3432
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2
`
`
`
`
` 3432
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 133-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 2 of 40 PageID #:
` 3433
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 13
`
`
`
` Entered: July 8, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BLITZSAFE TEXAS, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00418
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, and HUNG H. BUI,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 133-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 3 of 40 PageID #:
` 3434
`
`IPR2016-00418
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`On December 30, 2015, Petitioner, Toyota Motor Corporation, filed a
`Petition requesting an inter partes review of claims 49–57, 62–64, 66, 68,
`70, 71, 73–80, 94, 95, 97, 99–103, 106, 109–111, 113, 115, and 120 of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,342 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’342 patent”). Paper 1
`(“Pet.”). Patent Owner, Blitzsafe Texas, LLC, filed a Preliminary Response
`on April 11, 2016. Paper 10 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that “the
`information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the
`claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Having considered
`both the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner
`has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in
`establishing the unpatentability of claims 49–57, 62–64, 66, 68, 70, 71, 73–
`80, 94, 95, 97, 99–103, 106, 109–111, 113, 115, and 120 of the ’342 patent.
`Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of those claims.
`
`A. Related Matters
`
`The ’342 patent is involved in the following litigations: (1) Blitzsafe
`Texas, LLC v. Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., 2-15-cv-01276 (E.D. Tex. July 16,
`2015), (2) Blitzsafe Texas, LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp., 2-15-cv-01277 (E.D.
`Tex. July 16, 2015), (3) Blitzsafe Texas, LLC v. Volkswagen Group of Am.,
`Inc., 2-15-cv-01278 (E.D. Tex. July 16, 2015), (4) Blitzsafe Texas, LLC v.
`Hyundai Motor Co., 2-15-cv-01275 (E.D. Tex. July 16, 2015), (5) Blitzsafe
`Texas, LLC v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd., 2-15-cv-01274 (E.D. Tex. July 16,
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 133-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 4 of 40 PageID #:
` 3435
`
`IPR2016-00418
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`2015), (6) Marlowe Patent Holdings LLC v. Dice Elects., LLC,, 3-10-cv-
`01199 (D.N.J.), and (7) Marlowe Patent Holdings LLC v. Ford Motor Co.,
`3-10-cv-07044 (D.N.J.). Pet. 1–2. The ’342 patent is also involved in
`IPR2016-00118 and IPR2016-00418. Related Patent 7,489,786 B2 is
`involved in IPR2016-00421 and IPR2016-00422.
`
`B. The ’342 Patent
`
`The ’342 patent relates to a multimedia device integration system that
`allows a plurality of “after-market” portable devices to be integrated into an
`existing car audio/video (stereo) system, via an “integration subsystem,”
`while allowing information to be displayed on, and control to be provided
`from, the car audio/video system. See Ex. 1001, 2:44–54; Abstract.
`Examples of these portable devices include CD players, CD changers, digital
`media devices (e.g., MP3 players, Apple iPod, WMV players, portable
`media centers, and other devices), satellite receivers, DAB receivers,
`auxiliary input sources, video devices (e.g., DVD players), cellular
`telephones, or any combination thereof. Id.
`The ’342 patent claims are directed to several embodiments where
`wireless integration is provided between a car audio/video system and a
`portable device, via an integration subsystem. Ex. 1001, 33:43–46. For
`example, Figure 18 shows an integration subsystem positioned within a
`portable device, and Figure 19 shows an integration subsystem positioned
`within a car audio/video system. Figures 18–19 are reproduced below.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 133-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 5 of 40 PageID #:
` 3436
`
`IPR2016-00418
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figures 18 and 19 of the ’342 patent show integration subsystems 932 and
`1032 positioned, respectively, within portable device 924 or within car
`audio/video system 1010.
`
`As shown in Figure 18, integration subsystem 932 positioned within
`portable device 924 allows information (data and control signals) to be
`exchanged between portable device 924 and car audio/video system 910, and
`processes and formats data accordingly so that instructions and data from car
`audio/video system 910 are processed by portable device 924, and vice
`versa. See id. at 33:43–35:62, Fig. 18. Similarly, as shown in Figure 19,
`integration subsystem 1032 positioned within car audio/video system 1010
`allows information (data and control signals) to be exchanged between
`4
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 133-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 6 of 40 PageID #:
` 3437
`
`IPR2016-00418
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`portable device 1024 and car audio/video system 1010, and processes and
`formats data accordingly so that instructions and data from car audio/video
`system 1010 are processed by portable device 1024, and vice versa. See id.
`at 33:43–35:62, Fig. 19.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`
`Of the challenged claims, claims 49, 73, 97, and 120 are independent.
`Claims 50–57, 62–64, 66, 68, 70, and 71 depend, directly or indirectly, from
`claim 49.
`Claim 49, reproduced below, is illustrative.
`49. A multimedia device integration system, comprising:
`an integration subsystem in communication with a car
`audio/video system; and
`a first wireless interface in communication with said
`integration subsystem, said first wireless interface establishing a
`wireless communication link with a second wireless interface in
`communication with a portable device external to the car
`audio/video system,
`wherein said integration subsystem obtains, using said
`wireless communication link, information about an audio file
`stored on the portable device, transmits the information to the car
`audio/video system for subsequent display of the information on
`a display of the car audio/video system, instructs the portable
`device to play the audio file in response to a user selecting the
`audio file using controls of the car audio/video system, and
`receives audio generated by the portable device over said
`wireless communication link for playing on the car audio/video
`system.
`Ex. 1001, 42:29–47.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 133-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 7 of 40 PageID #:
` 3438
`
`IPR2016-00418
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`Claim 73 is substantially identical to claim 49, except that the audio
`
`file is “received by” instead of “stored on” the portable device. Id. at 44:4–
`23. Claim 97 is similar to claim 49, but further defines that the “audio
`generated by the portable device” corresponds to “an audio file played by
`the portable device” and adds that the car stereo control commands are in a
`format incompatible with the portable device, and are re-formatted for
`purposes of compatibility. Id. at 45:45–63. Likewise, claim 120 is similar
`to claim 49, but further defines that the “audio generated by the portable
`device” corresponds to “an audio file played by the portable device” and
`adds that the data from the portable device is in a format incompatible with
`the car audio/video device, and is then re-formatted for purposes of
`compatibility. Id. at 46:63–47:18.
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`
`
`Petitioner relies upon the following prior art references:
`Reference
`Date
`
`Exhibit
`
`Clayton
`
`US 2006/0181963 A1
`
`Aug. 17, 2006 Ex. 1002
`
`Clayton
`Provisional
`
`U.S. Provisional Application
`No. 60/651,963
`
`Feb. 11, 2005 Ex. 1003
`
`Berry
`
`US 6,559,773 B1
`
`May 6, 2003
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`Marlowe
`
`US 2003/0215102 A1
`
`Nov. 20, 2003 Ex. 1005
`
`Gioscia
`
`Petitioner also relies on the Declaration of Dr. Thomas Matheson. Ex.
`
`Jul. 16, 2002
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`US 6,421,305 B1
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 133-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 8 of 40 PageID #:
` 3439
`
`IPR2016-00418
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`1016.
`
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 49–57, 62–64, 66, 68, 70, 71, 73–80, 94,
`95, 97, 99–103, 106, 109–111, 113, 115, and 120 of the ’342 patent under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a) on the following grounds:
`
`Challenged Claims
`Claims 49–55, 57, 62–
`64, 71, 73–80, 95, 97,
`99–103, 109–111, and
`120
`
`Claims 49–57, 62–64,
`66, 70, 71, 73–80, 94,
`95, 97, 99–103, 106,
`109–111, 113, and 120
`
`Claims 68 and 115
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`§ 103(a) Clayton and Berry
`
`§ 103(a) Clayton, Berry, and Marlowe
`
`§ 103(a) Clayton, Berry, Marlowe, and
`Gioscia
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also In re Cuozzo
`Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1275–1279 (Fed. Cir. 2015), aff’d
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, No. 15-446, 2016 WL 3369425, at *12
`(U.S. June 20, 2016). Under the rule of broadest reasonable interpretation,
`claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be
`7
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 133-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 9 of 40 PageID #:
` 3440
`
`IPR2016-00418
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire
`disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`2007).
`“Claims are not interpreted in a vacuum, but are part of and are read
`in light of the specification.” Slimfold Mfg. Co. v. Kinkead Indus., Inc.,
`810 F.2d 1113, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Although it is improper to read a
`limitation from the specification into the claims, In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d
`1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993), the claims still must be read in view of the
`specification of which they are a part. Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys.,
`Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`If a limitation of an embodiment described in the specification is not
`necessary to give meaning to a claim term, it would be “extraneous” and
`should not be read into the claim. See Hoganas AB v. Dresser Indus., Inc.,
`9 F.3d 948, 950 (Fed. Cir. 1993); E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips
`Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d 1430, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 1988). If the applicants for
`patent desire to be their own lexicographer, the purported definition must be
`set forth in either the specification or prosecution history. See CCS Fitness,
`Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Such a
`definition must be set forth with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and
`precision. See Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d
`1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir.
`1994). Only terms which are in controversy need to be construed, and only
`to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Wellman, Inc. v.
`Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Vivid Techs.,
`Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`8
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 133-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 10 of 40 PageID #:
` 3441
`
`IPR2016-00418
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`
`
`Petitioner proposes constructions for three claim terms: (1)
`“integration subsystem,” (2) “car audio/video system” and (3) “device
`presence signal.” Pet. 9–15. The terms (1) “integration subsystem” and (2)
`“car audio/video system” are recited in all challenged claims, whereas the
`term “device presence signal” is recited only in challenged claims 56 and
`106.
`
`1. “Integration subsystem”
`Each of independent claims 49, 73, 97, and 120 recites an “integration
`subsystem.” Ex. 1001, 42:30, 44:5, 45:50, 47:1.
`Petitioner argues because the term “subsystem” is used
`interchangeably in the ’342 patent with the term “module,” “integration
`subsystem” must be considered as a “means-plus-function” (MPF) element
`that must be construed under 35 U.S.C. § 112, 6th paragraph. See
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`Pet. 10–15. When the claimed “integration subsystem” is construed as a
`“means-plus-function” limitation, Petitioner argues “the claimed ‘integration
`subsystem’ does not have sufficient corresponding structure disclosed in the
`Specification of the ’342 patent, and is therefore indefinite under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 112, 2nd paragraph.” Id. at 13. According to Petitioner, the flowchart of
`Figure 24 of the ’342 patent is considered as a “one-step algorithm” and, as
`such, “does not constitute sufficient corresponding structure for a computer-
`implemented function recited in a claim.” Id. at 10–13.
`Petitioner, relying on Dr. Matheson’s testimony (Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 84–86),
`then proposes that the term “integration subsystem” means “a
`9
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 133-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 11 of 40 PageID #:
` 3442
`
`IPR2016-00418
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`microcontroller or processor provided within the portable device or the car
`audio/video system and programmed to perform the method of FIG. 24.” Id.
`at 14–15 (citing Ex. 1016 ¶ 86). The method of Figure 24 of the ’342 patent
`is reproduced below:
`
`Figure 24 of the ’342 patent shows a method for wirelessly integrating a
`portable device for use with a car audio/video system.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 133-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 12 of 40 PageID #:
` 3443
`
`IPR2016-00418
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`
`As shown in Figure 24, that method comprises determining a car
`audio/video system type and a portable device type at steps 1454–1456;
`loading a protocol conversion software block at step 1458; processing data
`from the portable device using the protocol conversion software block at
`step 1460 for transmission to the car audio/video system, via wireless link at
`step 1466; and processing command from the car audio/video system using
`the protocol conversion software block for transmission to the portable
`device at step 1470. Ex. 1001, 38:9–67. Thus, method of Figure 24 of the
`’342 patent further requires the conversion of command/data using a
`protocol conversion software block corresponding to a determined car
`audio/video system type and a determined portable device type for format
`compatibility. For purposes of this decision, we refer to that requirement as
`the “command/data format conversion” limitation.
`Patent Owner does not propose a construction, but responds that the
`term “integration subsystem” does not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 as argued
`by Petitioner. Prelim. Resp. 6. According to Patent Owner, the claims do
`not recite a “module” or a nonce term, and there is no authority for the
`proposition that the term “integration subsystem” must be considered a
`nonce term. Id. at 6–10. According to Patent Owner,
`Petitioner’s conclusion that the term “integration subsystem” is
`indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112 ¶ 2 is incorrect because (1) the
`alleged functions of
`the
`integration subsystem are not
`“computer-implemented” and thus do not require an algorithm;
`(2) even if the functions required an algorithm, Figure 24 is
`sufficient; and (3) Petitioner ignores the voluminous algorithms
`and source code provided in the ’342 Patent specification that
`provide sufficient structure.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 133-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 13 of 40 PageID #:
` 3444
`
`IPR2016-00418
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`
`
`Id. at 10–17.
`We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not sufficiently shown
`that the term “integration subsystem” should be construed as a mean-plus-
`function recitation. As such, we decline to consider the term “integration
`subsystem” as a means-plus-function recitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6
`and Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1349. We also note that Petitioner may not, in
`an an inter partes review, assert a ground of unpatentability based on
`indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2. See 35 U.S.C. § 311(b).
`Turning now to Petitioner’s proposed construction of the term
`“integration subsystem,” that proposal is unpersuasive for several reasons.
`First, the proposed construction is too narrow by requiring the “integration
`subsystem” to be a microcontroller or processor programmed to perform the
`method of Figure 24 of the ’342 patent. In the Specification of the ’342
`patent, the term “integration subsystem” is described as follows:
`[t]he integration subsystem 932 contains circuitry similar to the
`circuitry disclosed in the various embodiments of the present
`invention discussed herein, and could include a PIC16F872 or
`PIC16F873 microcontroller manufactured by Microchip, Inc.
`and programmed in accordance with the flowchart discussed
`below with respect to FIG. 24.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 34:63–66 (emphasis added).
`
`According to the ’342 patent’s Specification, the “circuitry similar to
`the circuitry disclosed in the various embodiments of the present invention”
`refers to various “integration” circuit embodiments shown in Figures 3A,
`3B1–3B2, 3C1–3C2, and 3D, including not only a microcontroller or
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 133-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 14 of 40 PageID #:
` 3445
`
`IPR2016-00418
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`processor but also several discrete components, such as resistors, diodes,
`capacitors, transistors, oscillators, amplifiers, and multiplexers for
`performing various “integration” functions. Ex. 1001, 12:55–16:29. In
`addition, the “integration subsystem” can also include: (1) “conversion
`circuitry (e.g., using the video format conversion chips discussed above with
`respect to FIG. 12a) for converting video information generated by the
`portable device 924 for display on the display 918 of the car system 910
`(e.g., by converting composite video signals to red, green, and blue (RGB)
`video signals, or vice versa)”; (2) “[t]he voice recognition subsystem 1336[,
`which] could comprise the HM2007 speech recognition processor
`manufactured by Hualon Microelectric Corporation, the VRP6679 speech
`recognition processor manufactured by Oki, Inc., or any other suitable
`speech recognition processor”; and (3) “[t]he speech synthesizer 1338[,
`which] could include the RC 8650 or RC 8660 speech synthesis chipsets
`manufactured by RC Systems, Inc., or any other suitable speech
`synthesizer.” Id. at 34:48–54, 36:53–58, 37:30–55, Fig. 23. Further, “the
`voice recognition subsystem 1336 and the speech synthesizer 1338 could
`[also] be formed on a single integrated circuit forming part of the integration
`subsystem 1332.” Id. at 37:48–51, Fig. 23.
`
`Thus, the term “integration subsystem” itself is not limited to a
`microcontroller or processor, nor is it limited to the functions described in
`the flowchart shown in Figure 24 of the ’342 patent. In that regard, we note
`that if the term “integration subsystem” is construed as a microcontroller or
`processor programmed to perform the method of Figure 24 of the ’342
`patent, as Petitioner proposes, then the additional functions of the claimed
`13
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 133-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 15 of 40 PageID #:
` 3446
`
`IPR2016-00418
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`“integration subsystem” recited in the challenged claims would serve no
`meaningful purpose.
`Second, we note that a proper construction of “integration subsystem”
`must serve the purpose of “integration” as described in the ’342 patent’s
`Specification and must be a “subsystem” — subordinate to another system.
`In the Specification of the ’342 patent, the term “integration” is expressly
`defined as follows:
`As used herein, the term “integration” or “integrated” is intended
`to mean [1] connecting one or more external devices or inputs to
`an existing car stereo or video system via an interface, [2]
`processing and handling
`signals, audio, and/or video
`information, [3] allowing a user to control the [external] devices
`via the car stereo or video system, and [4] displaying data from
`the devices on the car stereo or video system.
`Ex. 1001, 8:64–9:3 (emphasis added) (brackets added).
`When the specification of a patent contains a “special definition given
`to a claim term by the patentee,” that definition controls interpretation of the
`term as it is used in the claim. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`The term “integration subsystem” is used in the ’342 patent in relation
`to wireless integration embodiments between an existing car audio/video
`system and a portable device, shown in Figures 18–24. Ex. 1001, 33:43–
`38:67, Figs. 18–24. In particular, the ’342 patent’s Specification describes
`the “integration subsystem” as being positioned within the portable device,
`shown in Figure 18, or within the car audio/video system, shown in Figure
`19. Ex. 1001, 34:9–13, 35:23–28; Figs. 18–19.
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 133-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 16 of 40 PageID #:
` 3447
`
`IPR2016-00418
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`Based on the special definition of the term “integration” provided by
`
`the ’342 patent and other language in the claims, we construe the term
`“integration subsystem” as meaning:
`A subsystem to perform at least: (1) connecting one or more
`portable devices or inputs to the car audio/video system via an
`interface, (2) processing and handling signals, audio, and/or
`video information, (3) allowing a user to control the one or more
`portable devices via the car audio/video system, and (4)
`displaying data from the one or more portable devices on the car
`audio/video system.
`
`2. “Car audio/video system”
`Independent claims 49 and 73 also require the “integration
`subsystem” in communication with a “car audio/video system.” Ex. 1001,
`42:30–31, 44:5–6. Similarly, independent claims 97 and 120 require the
`“integration subsystem” in communication with a wireless communication
`link between a “car audio/video system” and a portable device. Ex. 1001,
`45:46–51, 46:65–47:2.
`Petitioner proposes as the proper construction of “car audio/video
`system” “a car audio system, a car video system, or a car audio and video
`system.” Pet. 15. According to the ’342 patent’s Specification, the term
`“car audio/video system” is described as a car audio or a car video system.
`1001, 8:38–46. In addition,
`the terms “car stereo” and “car radio” are used interchangeably
`and are intended to include all presently existing car stereos,
`radios, video systems, such as physical devices that are present
`at any location within a vehicle, in addition to software and/or
`graphically- or display-driven receiver.
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 133-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 17 of 40 PageID #:
` 3448
`
`IPR2016-00418
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`Ex. 1001, 9:21–25.
`Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed construction.
`Prelim. Resp. 7. For purposes of this decision, we adopt Petitioner’s
`construction of the “car audio/video system” as “a car audio system, a car
`video system, or a car audio and video system.”
`3. “Device presence signal”
`Each of dependent claims 56 and 106 further requires the “integration
`subsystem generates a device presence signal and transmits the device
`presence signal to the car audio/video system to maintain the car audio/video
`system in a state responsive to the portable device.” Ex. 1001, 43:5–9,
`36:20–24.
`Petitioner proposes that the term “device presence signal” be
`construed the way it has been construed by the district court in related
`actions involving the great-grandparent of the ’342 patent, U.S. Patent
`7,489,786 (“the ’786 patent”), i.e., “transmission of a continuous signal
`indicating an audio device is present.” Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1007, 14–17).
`Patent Owner does not propose a construction. For two reasons, we do not
`adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction.
`First, the proposed construction is too narrow because (1) the
`continuous transmission is not necessary to accord meaning to the term, and
`(2) the presence of a specific type of device is not required. Nothing in the
`claims require the recited signal to be continuous. Likewise, the “device
`presence signal” need not be limited to an audio device presence signal.
`According to the Specification of the ’342 patent:
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 133-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 18 of 40 PageID #:
` 3449
`
`IPR2016-00418
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`
`the [device presence] signal need not be limited to a CD player
`device presence signal, but rather, could be any type of device
`presence signal (e.g., MP3 player device presence signal, satellite
`receiver presence signal, video device presence signal, cellular
`telephone presence signal, or any other type of device presence
`signal).
`
`Ex. 1001, 18:52–58 (emphasis added).
`In other words, if a portable device is a CD player/changer, then the
`“device presence signal” is a signal indicating that a CD player/changer is
`present. Ex. 1001, 16:40–58. However, if a portable device is a video
`player, then the “device presence signal” is a signal indicating that a video
`player is present. Ex. 1001, 18:51–58.
`Second, in claims 56 and 106, the device presence signal is generated
`and transmitted by the “integration subsystem” to the car audio/video system
`so as to maintain the car audio/video system in a state responsive to the
`portable device. In the context of these claims, the portable device the
`presence of which is signaled by the “integration subsystem” is that portable
`device which connects to the “integration subsystem” to communicate with
`the car audio/video system.
`On the record before us, we construe “device presence signal” as “a
`signal indicating that a portable device is connected to the car audio/video
`system through the integration subsystem.”
`
`B. Legal Standard for 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`Having considered the meaning of the claims, we turn next to whether
`claims 49–57, 62–64, 66, 68, 70, 71, 73-80, 94, 95, 97, 99–103, 106, 109–
`111, 113, 115, and 120 of the ‘342 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`17
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 133-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 19 of 40 PageID #:
` 3450
`
`IPR2016-00418
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`§ 103(a) in view of the prior art submitted by Petitioner. Obviousness is
`determined on the basis of underlying factual inquiries, including: (1) the
`scope and content of the prior art; (2) differences between the claimed
`subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and
`(4) secondary considerations of nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere
`Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). A patent claim is unpatentable under 35
`U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the
`prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious
`at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the
`art to which said subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
`U.S. 398, 406 (2007) (emphasis added). However, a conclusion of
`obviousness “cannot be sustained with mere conclusory statements; instead,
`there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
`support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988
`(Fed. Cir. 2006).
`For this decision, we determine that no express finding on the level of
`ordinary skill in the art is necessary, and that the level of ordinary skill in the
`art is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau,
`261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579
`(Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).
`
`C. Alleged Obviousness of Claims 49–55, 57, 62–64, 71, 73–80, 95, 97,
`99–103, 109–111, and 120 based on Clayton and Berry
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 49–55, 57, 62–64, 71, 73–80, 95, 97,
`99–103, 109–111, and 120 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 133-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 20 of 40 PageID #:
` 3451
`
`IPR2016-00418
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`obvious over the combination of Clayton and Berry. Pet. 24–50. To support
`its contention, Petitioner provides a claim chart and detailed explanations as
`to how the prior art meets each claim limitation. Id. at 29–50. Petitioner
`also relies upon a Declaration of Dr. Thomas Matheson, who has been
`retained as an expert witness by Petitioner for the instant proceeding.
`Ex. 1016.
`
`(1) Clayton: Exhibit 1002
`Clayton1 discloses an audio/video integration system, shown in
`Figures 2–4 and 6, that provides wireless integration between car
`audio/video system 143 and portable device 142 such as a cellular phone
`and/or an MP3 player, via a wireless adapter 173. Ex. 1002 ¶ 50, Figs. 2–4,
`6, Abstract; see, e.g., Ex. 1003 at 3, 5, 12, 16, 139, 259, 333–340, 485.
`Clayton’s Figure 3 is reproduced below.
`
`
`1 Clayton (Ex. 1002) was published on August 17, 2006, has a filing date of
`December 8, 2005 and, as such, can only qualify as prior art for purposes of
`pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). As § 102(e) prior art, evidence of prior
`conception and diligent reduction to practice can be submitted to antedate
`the earliest filing date of the Clayton reference, including its provisional
`applications (Ex. 1003), which Patent Owner has reserved the right to do.
`Prelim. Resp. 20.
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 133-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 21 of 40 PageID #:
` 3452
`
`IPR2016-00418
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`
`
`Clayton’s Figure 3 shows an audio/video integration system including an
`integration subsystem in the form of wireless adapter 173 to provide wireless
`integration between car audio/video system 143 and portable device 142.
`
`As shown in Figure 3 of Clayton, portable device 142 stores content
`received from (1) a content provider, via Internet and cellular network, or (2)
`personal computer, via a wired connection or a wireless proximity network
`(shown in Figure 2). Ex. 1002 ¶ 46. Portable device 142 can be controlled
`by functional controls on its own user interface 152, functional controls on
`user interface 153 of car audio/video system 143, or both (shown in Figure
`2). Ex. 1002 ¶ 63, Fig. 2.
`According to Clayton,
`[c]ontent may include: media such as audio, video, text;
`multimedia that includes two or more of audio, video and text;
`or other types of data. Examples of content include but are not
`limited to media files, such as MP3 files, other types of audio
`files, video files, textual music play lists, and other types of files.
`
`Ex. 1002 ¶ 14 (emphasis added).
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 133-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 22 of 40 PageID #:
` 3453
`
`IPR2016-00418
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`
`Content (audio) can be played back at or generated by portable device
`142, via user interface 152 or 153 (shown in Figure 2), i.e., selection of a
`preset channel, to rewind, fast forward, pause, play, etc., and can also be sent
`from portable device 142 to car audio/video system 143, via wireless
`interface 148, as “streaming audio.” Id. ¶¶ 49, 52, 63, 66–67, Fig. 3.
`Wireless adaptor 173 can be separate from car audio/video system
`143, but can also be a part of or integrated within car audio/video system
`143. Id. ¶¶ 52–53. Such wireless adapter 173 enables communications
`between portable device 142 and car audio/video system 143, including, for
`example: (1) connecting portable device 142 or inputs to car audio/video
`system 143, via an interface (id. ¶¶ 52, 54, 61, 66); (2) processing and
`handling signals, audio, and/or video information (id. ¶¶ 55, 58); (3)
`allowing a user to control portable device 142, via car audio/video system
`143 (id. ¶¶ 52, 63, 66–67, 70); and (4) displaying data from portable device
`143 on a display of car audio/video system 143 (id. ¶¶ 52, 56, 63, 66–67, 70,
`73).
`
`Clayton’s Figure 4, which shows the detail of wireless adapter 173, is
`reproduced below.
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 133-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 23 of 40 PageID #:
` 3454
`
`IPR2016-00418
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`
`
`Clayton’s Figure 4 shows an example embodiment of wireless adapter
`173 to provide wireless integration between car audio/vide
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
