PTAB

IPR2017-01503

Daimler AG v. Stragent LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System, Method and Computer Program Product For Sharing Information In a Distributed Framework
  • Brief Description: The ’843 patent describes software for sharing information in real-time within a distributed system. The system interfaces at least two distinct networks, such as Controller Area Network (CAN), FlexRay, or Local Interconnect Network (LIN), using a common "bulletin board" shared memory architecture, primarily for applications in vehicle communication and control systems.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Posadas, Stewart, and Wense - Claims 2-29, 31-46, and 52-58 are obvious over Posadas in view of Stewart and Wense.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Posadas (a May 2000 publication on sensor fusion), Stewart (a July 1992 publication on real-time software modules), and Wense (a 2001 publication on automotive LIN applications).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Posadas disclosed the core architecture of the challenged claims, including a real-time system with two heterogeneous networks (a CAN bus and an Ethernet bus) that share information using a "blackboard" shared memory. However, Posadas did not explicitly disclose certain memory access and network-type limitations. Petitioner asserted that Stewart supplied the missing memory-related limitations, teaching a system that determines memory availability using a "test-and-set" operation, retries access if the resource is unavailable up to a "maximum wait time" (the claimed threshold), and sends a "time-out error" notification upon failure. Wense was cited to teach the specific network types required by the claims, disclosing the use of LIN and FlexRay networks in combination with, or as subnets to, a primary CAN network in automotive systems.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Posadas with Stewart because both references are in the same field of real-time distributed control systems and address data exchange via shared memory. Adding Stewart's well-known memory arbitration techniques to Posadas's system was argued to be a predictable and simple design choice to improve robustness. A POSITA would combine the resulting system with Wense because the robotics field of Posadas often leverages mature technologies from the automotive industry. Wense explicitly teaches integrating LIN and FlexRay with CAN, making it an obvious choice to substitute Posadas's Ethernet network with the specific network types recited in the claims to create a more modern automotive communication system.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because combining these known elements—a base distributed architecture, standard memory management techniques, and well-established network protocols—would have predictably resulted in an operable system with the claimed features.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Posadas, Stewart, Wense, and Zhao - Claims 30 and 59 are obvious over Posadas, Stewart, Wense, and Zhao.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Posadas, Stewart, Wense, and Zhao (Application # 2002/0124007).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination in Ground 1 to address the limitations of claims 30 and 59, which require processing messages for a third network protocol distinct from the first two. Petitioner argued that the primary combination of Posadas, Stewart, and Wense taught all limitations except for the third network. Zhao was introduced to remedy this deficiency, as it explicitly discloses a network topology supporting multiple networks, stating the system is not limited to two networks and "may include any number of network servers, e.g., one, three, four, etc."
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation to add a third network was allegedly provided by Posadas itself, which teaches that its system can be used with various networks including CAN, Ethernet, "and so on," expressly suggesting expandability. Zhao provided a POSITA with a known template for implementing a system with more than two networks, making the addition of a third network a minor and trivial design modification.
    • Expectation of Success: Given Posadas's explicit teaching of expandability and Zhao's disclosure of a multi-network architecture, a POSITA would have expected to successfully integrate a third network into the system of Posadas.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Posadas, Stewart, Wense, and Upender - Claims 52 and 53 are obvious over Posadas, Stewart, Wense, and Upender.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Posadas, Stewart, Wense, and Upender (Patent 5,854,454).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed claims 52 and 53, which require that processed data units from the first and second networks have the "same format" or are the "same data units." Petitioner argued that while Posadas teaches interfacing heterogeneous networks (CAN and Ethernet), Upender explicitly discloses a CAN-to-CAN bridge architecture for an elevator control system. Upender teaches that its system supports communication between nodes capable of transmitting the "same message types" using "standard CAN hardware and message protocols."
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to apply Upender's teachings to the Posadas architecture to create a system for interfacing two identical networks (e.g., CAN-to-CAN). In such a scenario, the data units would inherently be the same or have the same format. This was presented as a simple design choice, as Upender notes that CAN technology has been extended to many industrial control applications beyond its automotive origins.
    • Expectation of Success: Applying the known concept of a homogeneous network bridge (from Upender) to the general distributed framework of Posadas would have been a straightforward task with a high expectation of success.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that for the purposes of the IPR, the term "real-time" required construction based on its explicit definition in the ’843 patent specification: "any response time that may be measured in milli- or microseconds, and/or is less than one second."
  • This construction was critical to Petitioner's arguments, as it allowed them to characterize the system in Posadas—which demonstrates response times well under one second—as a "real-time" system that falls within the scope of the claims, despite other language in Posadas distinguishing between "hard" and "soft" real-time constraints.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 2-46 and 52-59 of the ’843 patent as unpatentable.