PTAB

IPR2017-01502

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 a software system for sharing information between at least two heterogeneous networks, such as those found in vehicles (e.g., Controller Area Network (CAN), Local Interconnect Network (LIN), or FlexRay). The system uses a common "bulletin board" shared memory to facilitate real-time data exchange and integration between the networks.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Posadas, Stewart, and Wense - Claims 8-19 are obvious over Posadas in view of Stewart and Wense.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Posadas (a 2000 publication on communications for robotic systems), Stewart (a 1992 paper on real-time software modules), and Wense (a 2001 paper on automotive networks).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Posadas taught the core architecture of the challenged claims. Posadas disclosed a real-time communications system for an industrial robot using two distinct networks—a CAN bus and an Ethernet bus—that share information via a "blackboard" shared memory, which Petitioner equated to the claimed "bulletin board." To address memory-related limitations absent in Posadas, Petitioner cited Stewart. Stewart allegedly disclosed determining memory availability using a "test-and-set (TAS)" spin-lock operation, handling timeouts with a "maximum wait time," retrying requests, and sending error notifications. Finally, Petitioner asserted Wense taught the interchangeability of various automotive networks. Wense described using LIN and FlexRay as subnets to a primary CAN network, rendering it obvious to substitute the Ethernet network in Posadas with the LIN or FlexRay networks required by the ’705 patent claims.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Posadas and Stewart because they are in the same field of real-time distributed control systems, address the common problem of integrating modules, and use a similar shared memory architecture. Stewart's memory access arbitration techniques were presented as well-known solutions to a fundamental problem in any shared-memory system like that in Posadas. A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Wense because Posadas itself noted that CAN, though developed for the automotive industry, was widely used in robotics. Wense explicitly taught integrating LIN or FlexRay with CAN in the automotive context, making it a simple and logical design choice to apply this known combination to the Posadas system.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued success would have been predictable. Combining Stewart's standard memory management techniques with Posadas's architecture was a routine application of known principles. Likewise, replacing Posadas's Ethernet network with a LIN or FlexRay network as taught by Wense was a straightforward substitution of one known network type for another, with no technical hurdles that would lead to an unpredictable result.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Miesterfeld, Stewart, and Wense - Claims 8-19 are obvious over Miesterfeld in view of Stewart and Wense.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Miesterfeld (Patent 6,141,710), Stewart (a 1992 paper on real-time software modules), and Wense (a 2001 paper on automotive networks).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: As an alternative primary reference, Petitioner asserted Miesterfeld disclosed a gateway system for sharing information between a vehicle data bus (VDB) and an intelligent transportation system (ITS) data bus. Miesterfeld taught using a shared memory with "mailboxes" for data exchange between two different networks, where the ITS bus could be a CAN network. This established the fundamental two-network, shared-memory architecture. As in Ground 1, Stewart was cited to supply the specific memory management limitations, including determining memory availability, handling timeouts, and implementing a retry mechanism ("polling time"). Wense was again cited to demonstrate the obviousness of using a LIN network, arguing a POSITA would have replaced Miesterfeld's specified J1850 network with the more modern LIN network taught by Wense.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation to combine Miesterfeld and Stewart was based on their shared focus on real-time distributed control systems using shared memory, making Stewart's memory arbitration techniques a natural and obvious solution to implement in Miesterfeld's system. The motivation to combine this with Wense stemmed from Miesterfeld's own disclosure that it was not limited to the J1850 protocol. Wense was presented as teaching that LIN was a comparable and often superior alternative to J1850 for use in automotive systems alongside CAN, providing a clear reason to make the substitution.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner claimed the combination would have yielded predictable results. Adding Stewart's well-understood memory arbitration techniques to Miesterfeld's gateway was a standard engineering task. Furthermore, substituting the J1850 network for the LIN network described in Wense was a simple design choice aimed at modernizing the system, with a high and predictable likelihood of success.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that the term "real-time," which appeared in all challenged claims, required construction based on the patent's explicit definition in the specification.
  • The proposed construction was: "Any response time that may be measured in milli- or microseconds, and/or is less than one second." Petitioner asserted this construction was critical for the invalidity arguments, as it brought the performance and response times disclosed in prior art references like Posadas (which documented response times in milliseconds) squarely within the scope of the claims.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 8-19 of Patent 8,209,705 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.