PTAB

IPR2017-00458

Daimler AG v. Stragent LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System, Method and Computer Program Product For Sharing Information In a Distributed Framework
  • Brief Description: The ’705 patent describes middleware for sharing information between at least two heterogeneous networks (e.g., CAN, FlexRay, LIN) in a distributed system, such as a vehicle. The system uses a gateway with distinct interfaces for each network to process network-specific messages and store the extracted data in a common "bulletin board" shared memory for real-time access.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Posadas, Stewart, and Wense - Claims 1-7 and 20 are obvious over Posadas in view of Stewart and Wense.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Posadas (a May 2000 publication on communications for sensor fusion), Stewart (a July 1992 paper on real-time software modules), and Wense (a 2001 paper on automotive LIN applications).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Posadas disclosed the core architecture of independent claim 1. Posadas taught a real-time system for an autonomous robot that used two different networks (a CAN bus and an Ethernet bus) to share information via a shared "blackboard" memory, which functions as the claimed "bulletin board." The system included a gateway ("ISCCAN") with distinct interfaces that translated messages between the network-specific protocols (CAN frames, IP frames) and a common format for storage. While Posadas taught the basic framework, Petitioner asserted it did not explicitly disclose the memory arbitration limitations (e.g., checking availability, re-requesting, timeouts). For these, Petitioner relied on Stewart, which taught a framework for real-time distributed systems using a shared global memory and disclosed memory management techniques like "spin-locks," polling with retries, timeouts ("maximum wait time"), and error handling to manage concurrent access. Finally, to meet the claim limitation requiring the second network to be LIN or FlexRay (instead of Ethernet as in Posadas), Petitioner cited Wense, which described using LIN and FlexRay as well-known networks in automotive systems, often in conjunction with CAN.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Posadas and Stewart because both addressed real-time distributed control systems using shared memory. Implementing Stewart’s well-known memory arbitration techniques in Posadas’s shared memory system was argued to be a predictable solution to the known problem of managing concurrent data access. A POSITA would combine the resulting system with Wense because Posadas itself noted that CAN, an automotive protocol, was widely used in robotics. Wense taught the advantages of using LIN or FlexRay in automotive systems. Therefore, substituting Posadas’s generic Ethernet network with the specific automotive networks taught by Wense (LIN or FlexRay) would have been a simple, obvious design choice to adapt the Posadas system for an automotive application, a field explicitly contemplated by the ’705 patent.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended that success was predictable, as the combination merely involved applying a standard memory management solution (Stewart) to a shared memory architecture (Posadas) and substituting one well-known network type (Ethernet) with other well-known, suitable network types (LIN/FlexRay from Wense) for their intended purpose.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Miesterfeld, Stewart, and Wense - Claims 1-7 and 20 are obvious over Miesterfeld in view of Stewart and Wense.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Miesterfeld (Patent 6,141,710), Stewart (a July 1992 paper), and Wense (a 2001 paper).
  • Core Argument for this Ground: This ground was presented as an alternative to Ground 1, using a U.S. patent as the primary reference.
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Miesterfeld disclosed a data sharing gateway system for a vehicle that connected two different networks—an Intelligent Transportation data bus (ITS bus), disclosed to be a CAN network, and a Vehicle Data Bus (VDB bus), disclosed to be a J1850 network. The system used a shared memory to exchange data between the two networks via dedicated interfaces. Miesterfeld taught checking memory availability before writing. Similar to Ground 1, Petitioner relied on Stewart to supply the more detailed memory management limitations not found in Miesterfeld, such as re-requesting access after a timeout. Petitioner again used Wense to teach the replacement of the second network (J1850 in Miesterfeld) with a claimed network type (LIN or FlexRay).
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Miesterfeld and Stewart for the same reasons as in Ground 1: to implement well-known, robust memory access arbitration in a shared memory system. A POSITA would have been motivated to modify Miesterfeld with the teachings of Wense because Miesterfeld expressly stated its system could be adapted for various vehicle data bus structures. Wense demonstrated that LIN was a known and comparable alternative to the J1850 network, with substantial overlap in application and cost-effectiveness. Replacing the dated J1850 network with the more modern LIN network would have been an obvious and simple design choice for a POSITA seeking to improve or update the system described in Miesterfeld.
    • Expectation of Success: Success would have been expected because the combination involved routine engineering choices: enhancing a system with conventional memory management techniques and substituting an older network protocol with a known, suitable alternative for predictable benefits.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner submitted that only the term “real-time” required explicit construction.
  • Based on the ’705 patent’s specification, Petitioner proposed the construction: “Any response time that may be measured in milli- or microseconds, and/or is less than one second.” This construction was argued to be controlling as the patentee acted as their own lexicographer.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-7 and 20 of the ’705 patent as unpatentable.