Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 142-5 Filed 09/01/16 Page 1 of 37 PageID #:
` 4508
`
`EXHIBIT D
`
`
` 4508
`
`EXHIBIT D
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 142-5 Filed 09/01/16 Page 2 of 37 PageID #:
` 4509
`Trials@uspto.gov
`
`Paper No. 12
`571 272 7822
`
`Filed: July 6, 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 IPR2016-00422
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`____________
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, and HUNG H. BUI,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 142-5 Filed 09/01/16 Page 3 of 37 PageID #:
` 4510
`IPR2016-00422
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Background
`A.
`On December 30, 2015, Petitioner filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) to
`institute 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 B2
`(Ex. 1001, “the ’786 patent”). On April 11, 2016, Patent Owner filed a
`Preliminary Response (Paper 9, “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 not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in
`establishing the unpatentability of any claim. Thus, we do not institute an
`inter partes review of any claim of the ’786 patent.
`B.
`Related Matters
`The parties indicate that the ’786 patent was asserted in five
`infringement actions before the United States District Court of the Eastern
`District of Texas and two infringement actions before the United States
`District Court for the District of New Jersey. Pet. 1–2, Paper 5, 1–2. The
`’786 patent also is involved in IPR2016-00421. Related Patent 8,155,342
`B2 is involved in IPR2016-00118, IPR2016-00418, and IPR2016-00419.
`C.
`The ’786 Patent
`The ’786 patent is titled “AUDIO DEVICE INTEGRATION
`SYSTEM.” Ex. 1001 (54). “One or more after-market audio devices, such
`as a CD player, CD changer, MP3 player, satellite receiver, DAB receiver,
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 142-5 Filed 09/01/16 Page 4 of 37 PageID #:
` 4511
`IPR2016-00422
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`or the like, is integrated for use with an existing OEM or after-market car
`stereo system, wherein control commands can be issued at the car stereo and
`responsive data from the audio device can be displayed on the stereo.” Id. at
`Abstr. The ’786 patent describes:
`Control commands generated at the car stereo are received,
`processed, converted into a format recognizable by the audio
`device, and dispatched to the audio device for execution.
`Information from the audio device, including track, disc, song,
`station, time, and other information, is received, processed,
`converted into a format recognizable by the car stereo, and
`dispatched to the car stereo for display thereon.
`Id. Additional auxiliary sources also may be integrated together, and “a user
`can select between the [audio] device or the one or more auxiliary input
`sources by issuing selection commands through the car stereo.” Id. A
`docking station is provided for docking a portable audio or video device for
`integration with the car stereo. Id. Figures 2A–2C are reproduced below:
`
`
`
`Figure 2A illustrates an embodiment integrating a CD player with the car
`stereo; Figure 2B illustrates an embodiment integrating a MP3 player with a
`car stereo; and Figure 2C illustrates an embodiment integrating a satellite or
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 142-5 Filed 09/01/16 Page 5 of 37 PageID #:
` 4512
`IPR2016-00422
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`DAB receiver with a car stereo. Id. at 3:14–23. A more versatile
`embodiment is shown in Figure 1:
`
`
`Figure 1 illustrates an embodiment integrating a CD player, a MP3 player, a
`satellite radio or DAB receiver, and a number of auxiliary input sources with
`a car stereo. Id. at 3:12–13. As shown in the above figures, central to the
`’786 patent is an “interface” positioned between the car stereo and the audio
`device(s) and auxiliary input(s) being integrated.
`
`With regard to Figure 2B, the ’786 patent describes:
`The interface 20 allows data and audio signals to be exchanged
`between the MP3 player 30 and the car radio 10, and processes
`and formats signals accordingly so that instructions and data
`from the radio 10 are processable by the MP3 player 30, and vice
`versa. Operational commands, such as track selection, pause,
`play, stop, fast forward, rewind, and other commands, are entered
`via the control panel buttons 14 of car radio 10, processed by the
`interface 20, and formatted for execution by the MP3 player 30.
`Data from the MP3 player, such as track, time, and song
`information, is received by the interface 20, processed thereby,
`and sent to the radio 10 for display on display 13. Audio from
`MP3 player 30 is selectively forwarded by the interface 20 to the
`radio 10 for playing.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 142-5 Filed 09/01/16 Page 6 of 37 PageID #:
` 4513
`IPR2016-00422
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`Id. at 6:11–24 (emphasis omitted). Similar description is provided with
`respect to Figures 2A and 2C. Id. at 5:49–55, 6:35–43.
`Claims 1, 44, 57, 86, and 92 are independent. Claim 1 is directed to a
`system that connects an after-market audio device as well as one or more
`auxiliary input sources to a car stereo. In particular, it recites a first
`connector electrically connectable to a car stereo, a second connector
`electrically connectable to an after-market device, and a third connector
`electrically connectable to one or more auxiliary input sources. Id. at 21:33–
`38. Claim 1 also recites an interface connected between the first and second
`electrical connectors, and that the interface includes a microcontroller pre-
`programmed to execute:
`a first pre-programmed code portion for remotely controlling the
`after-market audio device using the car stereo by receiving a
`control command from the car stereo through said first
`connector in a format incompatible with the after-market
`audio device, processing the received control command into
`a formatted command compatible with the after-market audio
`device, and transmitting the formatted command to the after-
`market audio device through said second connector for
`execution by the after-market audio device;
`a second pre-programmed code portion for receiving data from
`the after-market audio device through said second connector
`in a format incompatible with the car stereo, processing the
`received data into formatted data compatible with the car
`stereo, and transmitting the formatted data to the car stereo
`through said first connector for display by the car stereo; and
`a third pre-programmed code portion for switching to one or
`more auxiliary input sources connected to said third electrical
`connector.
`Id. at 21:44–64.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 142-5 Filed 09/01/16 Page 7 of 37 PageID #:
` 4514
`IPR2016-00422
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`
`Claim 57 is directed to a system including an interface that connects a
`portable MP3 player to a car stereo. Claim 86 is directed to a system
`including an interface that connects an after-market video device to a car
`stereo. Claim 92 is directed to a system including an interface that connects
`a portable audio device with a car stereo. Claims 57, 86, and 92 are
`reproduced below:
`57. An audio device integration system comprising:
`a first electrical connector connectable to a car stereo;
`a second electrical connector connectable to a portable MP3
`player external to the car stereo
`an interface connected between said first and second electrical
`connectors for transmitting audio from a portable MP3 player
`to a car stereo, said interface including a microcontroller in
`electrical communication with said first and second electrical
`connectors,
`said microcontroller pre-programmed to execute:
`a first pre-programmed code portion for generating a
`device presence signal and transmitting the signal to
`the car stereo to maintain the car stereo in an
`operational state; and
`a second pre-programmed code portion for remotely
`controlling the MP3 player using the car stereo by
`receiving a control command from the car stereo
`through said first electrical connector in a format
`incompatible with the MP3 player, processing the
`control command into a formatted control command
`compatible with the MP3 player, and transmitting
`the formatted control command to the MP3 player
`through said second electrical connector for
`execution by the MP3 player.
`Id. at 26:13–37.
`86. A device for integrating video information for use with a car
`stereo, comprising:
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 142-5 Filed 09/01/16 Page 8 of 37 PageID #:
` 4515
`IPR2016-00422
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`
`a first electrical connector connectable to a car stereo;
`a second electrical connector connectable to an after-market
`video device external to the car stereo;
`an interface connected between said first and second electrical
`connectors for transmitting video information from the after-
`market video device to the car stereo, the interface including
`a microcontroller in electrical communication with said first
`and second electrical connectors, said microcontroller pre-
`programmed to execute:
`a first pre-programmed code portion for generating a
`device presence signal and transmitting the signal to
`the car stereo through said first electrical connector
`to maintain the car stereo in an operational state
`responsive to signals generated by the after-market
`video device.
`Id. at 28:40–56.
`92. An audio device integration system comprising:
`a car stereo;
`a portable audio device external to the car stereo;
`an interface connected between the car stereo and the portable audio
`device, the interface including a microcontroller pre-programmed
`to execute:
`first pre-programmed means for generating a device presence
`signal and transmitting the signal to the car stereo to
`maintain the car stereo in an operational state;
`second pre-programmed means for remotely controlling the
`portable audio device using the car stereo by receiving a
`control command from the car stereo in a format
`incompatible with the portable audio device, processing
`the control command into a formatted control command
`compatible with
`the portable audio device, and
`transmitting the formatted control command to the
`portable audio device for execution thereby; and
`means for transmitting audio from the portable audio device
`to the car stereo.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 142-5 Filed 09/01/16 Page 9 of 37 PageID #:
` 4516
`IPR2016-00422
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`Id. at 29:11–31.
`Claim 44 is directed to an apparatus for docking a portable device for
`integration with a car stereo. Id. at 25:1–2. A docking portion is recited as
`physically mating with the portable device. Id. at 25:5–6. A data port is
`recited as being in communication with the docking portion. Id. at 25:7–8.
`An interface is recited as “connected to said data port and to the car stereo”
`and “channeling audio from the portable device to the car stereo.” Id. at
`25:10–12. Claim 44 recites that the interface includes a microcontroller in
`electrical communication with the car stereo, and with the portable device
`through the data port. Id. at 5:12–14. Claim 44 further recites that the
`microcontroller is:
`pre-programmed to execute first program code for remotely
`controlling the portable device using the car stereo by processing
`control commands generated by the car stereo in a format
`incompatible with the portable device into formatted control
`commands compatible with the portable device, and dispatching
`formatted control commands to the portable device for execution
`thereby.
`Id. at 25:14–22.
`D.
`Evidence Relied Upon
`Petitioner relies on the following references:1
`
`
`
`
`
`1 For certain alleged grounds of unpatentability, Petitioner also relies on
`what it refers to as “known bus technology.” Hereinafter, we refer to that
`material as “KBT.” We understand Petitioner to have presented KBT as
`common knowledge and routine skill within the level of ordinary skill in the
`art that does not require citation of any particular reference.
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 142-5 Filed 09/01/16 Page 10 of 37 PageID #:
` 4517
`IPR2016-00422
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`
`
`Reference
`
`Date
`
`Exhibit
`
`Lau
`
`XR-C5120
`
`XA-C30
`
`Bhogal
`
`International Pub. No. WO
`01/67266 A1
`
`SONY® 3-865-814-11(1)
`Operating Instructions,
`Model No. XR-C5120 /4890
`
`SONY® 9-923-535-11
`Source Selector
`Service Manual XA-C30
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,629,197
`B1
`
`Sept. 13, 2001 Ex. 1003
`
`1999
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`March, 1996
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`Sept. 30, 2003 Ex. 1008
`
`Petitioner also relies on the Declaration of Thomas G. Matheson,
`
`Ph.D. Ex. 1015.
`C.
`The Asserted Grounds
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`Claim(s) Challenged
`Basis
`References
`44, 57, 58, 60, 63, 64, 86, 88,
`90, and 91
`92, 94, and 97
`1, 2, 4–8, 10, 13, 14, 23, 24, 61,
`and 62
`47, 65, 89, and 98
`
`Lau
`
`Lau
`
`Lau, XR-C5120, and XA-
`C30
`Lau and KBT
`Lau, XR-C5120, XA-C30,
`and KBT
`Lau and Bhogal
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`24
`
`44, 57, and 92
`
`
`
`
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 142-5 Filed 09/01/16 Page 11 of 37 PageID #:
` 4518
`IPR2016-00422
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`To establish anticipation, each and every element in a claim, arranged
`as recited in the claim, must be found in a single prior art reference.
`Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008);
`Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir.
`2001). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of
`nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`One seeking to establish obviousness based on more than one reference also
`must articulate sufficient reasoning with rational underpinnings to combine
`teachings. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
`With regard to the level of ordinary skill in the art, we determine that
`no express finding is necessary, on this record, 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).
`A.
`Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
`interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`specification of the patent in which they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, No. 15–446, 2016 WL 3369425, at *12
`(U.S. June 20, 2016) (upholding the use of the broadest reasonable
`interpretation standard as the claim construction standard to be applied in an
`inter partes review proceeding). Consistent with the rule of broadest
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 142-5 Filed 09/01/16 Page 12 of 37 PageID #:
` 4519
`IPR2016-00422
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`reasonable interpretation, claim terms also are given their ordinary and
`customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
`art in the context of the disclosure. See 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 a
`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). However, 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).
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 142-5 Filed 09/01/16 Page 13 of 37 PageID #:
` 4520
`IPR2016-00422
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`
`“interface”
`1.
`Of all challenged claims, claims 1, 44, 57, 86, and 92 are independent,
`
`and each recites an “interface.”
`Claims 1, 57, and 86 require the interface to be connected between a
`first electrical connector and a second electrical connector, where the first
`connector is connectable to a car stereo and the second connector is
`connectable to an after-market audio device (claim 1), a portable MP3 player
`(claim 57), or an after-market video device (claim 86). Claim 92 requires
`the interface to be connected between the car stereo and a portable audio
`device. Claim 44 recites a docking portion that mates with a portable
`device, and an interface that is connected to the car stereo as well as to a data
`port that communicates with the docking portion.
`Also, claim 57 recites that the interface is “for transmitting audio from
`a portable MP3 player to a car stereo”; claim 86 recites that the interface is
`“for transmitting video information from the after-market video device to the
`car stereo”; claim 1 recites that the interface is “for channeling audio signals
`to the car stereo from the after-market audio device”; claim 44 recites an
`interface for “channeling audio from the portable device to the car stereo”;
`and claim 92 recites that the interface includes a microcontroller pre-
`programmed to execute “means for transmitting audio from the portable
`audio device to the car stereo.”
`Petitioner proposes the proper construction of “interface” is “a
`microcontroller that is functionally and structurally separate component
`from the car stereo, which integrates an after-market device with a car
`stereo,” and notes that that is the construction determined by the district
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 142-5 Filed 09/01/16 Page 14 of 37 PageID #:
` 4521
`IPR2016-00422
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`court in related action involving the ’786 patent. Pet. 12–13. For several
`reasons, the proposal is unpersuasive.
`First, as is noted by Patent Owner, even if the interface is deemed
`“functionally and structurally separate” from the car stereo, the proposed
`construction is incomplete in that it omits any requirement of separation or
`distinctness of the interface from the portable or after-market device
`connected thereto. Prelim. Resp. 6–7. Second, the proposed construction is
`too narrow by specifying that the interface “integrates an after-market device
`with a car stereo.” We note that the Specification of the ’786 patent
`provides a special definition for “integration” or “integrated.” Ex. 1001,
`4:47–52. We discern no reason to import limitations into a claim if they are
`unnecessary to accord meaning to the claim.
`Third, the proposed construction is too narrow by requiring the
`interface to be a microcontroller. In the Specification of the ’786 patent, the
`term “interface” is described as including not only a microcontroller but also
`several discrete components, such as resistors, diodes, capacitors, transistors,
`oscillators, amplifiers, and multiplexers, shown in various embodiments of
`Figures 3A, 3B1–3B2, 3C1–3C2, and 3D. Ex. 1101, 9:8–20, 10:19–33,
`11:4–18, 11:59–67. As such, the term “interface” itself is not limited to a
`microcontroller. In that regard, note that if the interface itself is construed as
`a microcontroller, as Petitioner proposes, then the additional claim language
`reciting that the interface includes a microcontroller would serve no
`meaningful purpose.
`With regard to an “interface,” the Specification states:
`Thus, as can be readily appreciated, the interface 20 of the
`present invention allows for the integration of a multitude of
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 142-5 Filed 09/01/16 Page 15 of 37 PageID #:
` 4522
`IPR2016-00422
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`
`devices and inputs with an OEM or after-market car radio or
`stereo.
`Ex. 1001, 5:33–36 (emphasis omitted).
`As mentioned earlier, the interface 20 of the present invention
`allows for a plurality of disparate audio devices to be integrated
`with an existing car radio for use therewith.
`Id. at 6:4–7 (emphasis omitted).
`Data from the MP3 player, such as track, time, and song
`information, is received by the interface 20, processed thereby,
`and sent to the radio 10 for displaying on display 13. Audio from
`the MP3 player 30 is selectively forwarded by the interface 20 to
`the radio 10 for playing.
`Id. at 6:19–24 (emphasis omitted). Thus, the Specification refers to the
`interface receiving information from an audio device and forwarding
`information to the car stereo, and to the interface allowing integration of a
`plurality of disparate audio devices with a car radio.
`
`During prosecution, the Applicants of the ’786 patent distinguished
`U.S. Patent 6,993,615 B2 (“Falcon”),2 in part by arguing that the reference
`failed to disclose an interface connected between a car stereo and an external
`audio source. Ex. 1002, 0267. Specifically, in distinguishing the invention
`from Falcon, Applicants stated: “[Falcon’s graphical user interface] is an
`entirely different concept than the interface of the present invention, which
`includes a physical interface device connected between a car stereo system
`and an external audio source (e.g., a plurality of auxiliary input sources).”
`Id.
`
`
`2 Falcon discloses a portable computing device connectable to a car stereo
`through an interface configurable within the portable computing device.
`Ex. 3001, Abstr.
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 142-5 Filed 09/01/16 Page 16 of 37 PageID #:
` 4523
`IPR2016-00422
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`Construing the term “interface” in light of the Specification, other
`
`language in the claims, as well as the prosecution history noted by
`Petitioner, we determine that—interface is a physical unit that connects one
`device to another and that has a functional and structural identity separate
`from that of both connected devices.
`
`In the specific context of claims 1 and 86, the connected devices are
`the car stereo and an after-market device. In the specific context of claims
`44, 57, and 92, the connected devices are the car stereo and a portable
`device. Each of claims 1, 44, 57, 86, and 92 further requires the interface to
`include a microcontroller.
`B.
`Alleged Anticipation of Claims 44, 57,
`58, 60, 63, 64, 86, 88, 90, and 91 over Lau
`We have reviewed the Petition and the Preliminary Response, and
`
`determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would
`prevail in establishing that any of claims 44, 57, 58, 60, 63, 64, 86, 88, 90,
`and 91 is anticipated by Lau.
`1.
`Lau
`Lau is titled “VEHICLE SOUND SYSTEM,” and states that “there is
`a need for an improved automobile audio system that does not require
`cassettes or compact discs, can be used with reusable media and can play
`music downloaded from a computer or other device.” Ex. 1003 (54), 2:24–
`26. Lau indicates that pre-existing portable solid state music players that
`store music downloadable from a computer are unsatisfactory for use with
`an automobile audio system, i.e., a car stereo. Id. at 3:1–11. For instance, it
`is explained that all of the controls are on the portable player, and thus a
`driver is unable to use the controls of the car stereo to control the music
`player. Id. at 3:12–16.
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 142-5 Filed 09/01/16 Page 17 of 37 PageID #:
` 4524
`IPR2016-00422
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`
`Figure 1 of Lau is reproduced below:
`
`
`Figure 1 illustrates an embodiment of Lau’s vehicle sound system. Id.
`at 5:18. Head unit 104 is a standard automobile head unit and is connected
`to speakers 106, 108, 110, and 112. Id. at 7:17–20. Music server 102 is an
`audio/visual server and emulates a disc changer. Id. at 7:12–14. Lau
`explains that music server 102 is not an actual disc changer but only acts like
`a disc changer would act, based on communications to and from head unit
`104. Id. at 7:14–17. Music server 102 communicates with head unit 104.
`Id. at 7:19. Lau describes that music server 102 may be mounted in the
`trunk of a car and head unit 104 is mounted in the dash board. Id. at 8:21–
`24.
`
`Disk cartridge 120 can be inserted by a user either into music server
`102 or docking station 122 connected to computer 124. Id. at 8:16–21.
`Computer 124 is a standard personal computer and is connected to Internet
`server 130, via Internet 128, for downloading tracks and information about
`tracks, and in one embodiment, tracks are songs. Id. at 8:4–15. After a user
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 142-5 Filed 09/01/16 Page 18 of 37 PageID #:
` 4525
`IPR2016-00422
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`downloads tracks onto disk cartridge 120, disk cartridge 120 is removed
`from docking station 122 and inserted into music server 102, and then the
`user can use head unit 104 to access and play tracks on disk cartridge 120.
`Id. at 8:20–26.
`Claims 57 and 86
`2.
`Determinative of our conclusion with respect to the alleged
`anticipation of claims 57 and 86 by Lau is our construction of the term
`“interface”—interface is a physical unit that connects one device to another
`and that has a functional and structural identity separate from that of both
`connected devices. In the context of claim 57, the two devices connected by
`the interface is the car stereo and a portable MP3 player. In the context of
`claim 86, the two devices connected by the interface is the car stereo and an
`after-market video device. Petitioner relies on different internal parts of
`Lau’s music server 102 to meet the interface of claims 57 and 86, the
`portable MP3 player of claim 57, and the after-market video device of claim
`86. Figure 1 of Lau, as annotated by Petitioner, is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`The annotated figure appears on page 22 of the Petition and illustrates the
`car stereo and interface of claims 57 and 86, the portable MP3 player of
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 142-5 Filed 09/01/16 Page 19 of 37 PageID #:
` 4526
`IPR2016-00422
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`claim 57, and the after-market video device of claim 86. Petitioner asserts:
`“Lau’s ‘head unit 104’ includes a car stereo. See, Lau, Abstract, 2:51-53;
`Ex. 1015 at ¶ 87. In Lau, the ‘interface’ (identified as microcontroller 320
`and glue logic 330) is located within Lau’s music server 102.” Pet. 22.
`Petitioner further asserts: “This ‘interface’ is connected to circuitry
`dedicated to processing stored content for playback (processor 302 and
`associated components) that corresponds to the claimed external device (or
`‘after-market device,’ as recited in claim 86).” Id.
`
`Figure 6 of Lau, as annotated by Petitioner, illustrates the internal
`structure of Lau’s music server 102, and is reproduced below:
`
`
`The annotated figure appears on page 22 of the Petition and illustrates the
`parts regarded by Petitioner as the “interface” in blue and surrounded by
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 142-5 Filed 09/01/16 Page 20 of 37 PageID #:
` 4527
`IPR2016-00422
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`dashed lines, and the parts regarded by Petitioner as the portable or after-
`market device in green and surrounded by dashed lines. We are
`unpersuaded by Petitioner’s identification of the part colored blue in the
`above-reproduced illustration to meet the requirement of the interface in
`claims 57 and 86.
`First, there is insufficient showing of separate structural identity
`between the alleged “interface” and the portion colored green by Petitioner
`in the same illustration and alleged as by Petitioner as the external device.
`Both blue and green portions are component parts within Lau’s music server
`102. It would be incorrect to regard them as having separate structural
`identities. Petitioner has not adequately explained what accords these
`portions separate structural identities, e.g., separate supporting frames,
`independent housing, etc. Also, Petitioner has not identified any description
`within Lau that refers to the combination of parts labeled in blue as
`collectively constituting a unit of any kind, or that refers to the combination
`of parts labeled in green as collectively constituting a unit of any kind.
`Thus, the separate structural identity requirement between the alleged
`interface and a portable MP3 player (claim 57) or an after-market video
`device (claim 86) is not met.
`Second, there also is insufficient showing of separate functional
`identity between the alleged “interface” colored in blue and the portion
`colored green by Petitioner and alleged as the external device. Portions of
`Lau are reproduced below, which refute any assertion that controller 320 and
`glue logic 330 colored in blue, and processor 302 colored in green, have
`separate functional identities:
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 142-5 Filed 09/01/16 Page 21 of 37 PageID #:
` 4528
`IPR2016-00422
`Patent 7,489,786 B2
`
`
`Glue logic 330 is reprogrammable. For example, glue
`logic 330 can be an FPGA or a PLD (as well as other suitable
`reprogrammable logic devices). Glue logic 330 is connected to
`and programmed by processor 302. Glue logic 330 provides
`latches, inverters and other glue logic that is specific for each
`head unit and used to make communication from controller 320
`compatible with the particular head unit.
`Ex. 1003, 13:5–9.
`
`The flash memory internal to controller 320 stores
`firmware to program controller 320 to interface with the
`appropriate head unit. If music server 102 is initially set up to
`communicate with a first head unit and the user subsequently
`installs music server 102 into a different automobile with a
`different head unit, controller 320 can be reprogrammed to
`communicate with the new head unit by changing the firmware
`in the internal flash memory of controller 320.
`Id. at 14:13–18.
`As discussed above, a portion of the internal flash memory of
`controller [320] is used to store the firmware (interface program
`code) for programming controller 320 to communicate with head
`unit 104. In step 548, controller 320 requests that processor 302
`access hard disk drive 178 and read the firmware version number
`stored in the /microcontroller config directory. In step 550,
`controller 320 receives the firmware version number from
`processor 302.
`Id. at 15:13–18.
`
`If in step 552 controller 320 determines that there is a
`firmware update on hard disk drive 178, then the method
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
