PTAB

IPR2017-01504

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 ’843 patent discloses a middleware framework for sharing information in real-time between at least two heterogeneous networks within a distributed system, primarily targeting automotive applications. The system facilitates data exchange between different network types (e.g., Controller Area Network (CAN), FlexRay, or Local Interconnect Network (LIN)) by using a common "bulletin board" shared memory architecture, which decouples the sending and receiving processes.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 2-29, 31-46, and 52-58 are obvious over [Miesterfeld](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2017-01504/doc/1010), [Stewart](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2017-01504/doc/1008), and [Wense](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2017-01504/doc/1009).

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Miesterfeld (Patent 6,141,710), Stewart (a 1992 IEEE paper on real-time software), and Wense (a 2001 paper on automotive networks).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Miesterfeld taught the foundational gateway system, which included two distinct networks (an Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) bus on a CAN protocol and a Vehicle Data Bus (VDB) on a J1850 protocol) that communicate via separate interfaces to a shared memory. To address claim limitations concerning memory access control (e.g., issuing a request, determining availability, retrying upon failure up to a threshold), Petitioner asserted that Stewart disclosed a standard "spin-lock" mechanism for shared memory in a real-time distributed system. Stewart’s method included determining memory availability, retrying access via polling for a specified time, and triggering error handlers upon timeout. To satisfy limitations requiring specific network types like LIN, Petitioner relied on Wense, which described LIN as a well-known, comparable, and cost-effective alternative to the J1850 network for use in conjunction with a primary CAN network in automotive systems.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Miesterfeld and Stewart because adding a known memory arbitration technique like a spin-lock to a shared memory architecture was a predictable and necessary step to prevent data corruption from concurrent access. A POSITA would combine the teachings of Miesterfeld with Wense because Miesterfeld explicitly taught that its system was adaptable to various vehicle data buses, and Wense identified LIN as a known and economically advantageous substitute for the J1850 network, making it an obvious design choice.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued success was predictable because the combination involved applying well-understood memory management techniques to a shared memory system and substituting known, interchangeable network protocols within their intended environment.

Ground 2: Claims 30 and 59 are obvious over Miesterfeld, Stewart, Wense, and [Zhao](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2017-01504/doc/1039).

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Miesterfeld (Patent 6,141,710), Stewart (a 1992 IEEE paper), Wense (a 2001 paper), and Zhao (Application # 2002/0124007).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination asserted in Ground 1, adding Zhao to explicitly teach the use of a third network, as required by claims 30 and 59. Petitioner argued that Zhao disclosed a communication system architecture that was explicitly not limited to two networks and could include "one, three, four, etc." interconnected networks. This teaching directly addressed the claims’ requirements for processing messages into at least two other formats corresponding to second and third network protocols.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Zhao’s teachings because Miesterfeld itself provided an express suggestion to expand its system, stating it could use "any number" of ITS data buses and protocols. Zhao provided a known and straightforward example of a multi-network topology, making it a natural reference for a POSITA seeking to implement Miesterfeld's suggestion for enhanced system flexibility.

Ground 3: Claim 53 is obvious over Miesterfeld, Stewart, Wense, and [Upender](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2017-01504/doc/1038).

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Miesterfeld (Patent 6,141,710), Stewart (a 1992 IEEE paper), Wense (a 2001 paper), and Upender (Patent 5,854,454).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground also built upon the core combination from Ground 1 but added Upender to address the specific limitation that the processed data units from the first and second networks are the "same data units" (claim 53). Petitioner contended that if this limitation were interpreted to require the networks to use the same protocol, Upender taught this concept by disclosing a gateway that bridges two separate CAN networks using the "standard CAN message" format.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued that a POSITA seeking to implement Miesterfeld's general gateway concept for two networks of the same type (e.g., CAN-to-CAN) would naturally have been motivated to consult a reference like Upender, which taught a conventional bridge for that exact purpose. Upender itself noted the broad applicability of its CAN technology to automotive systems, reinforcing the motivation to apply its teachings to the automotive context of Miesterfeld.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • The petition argued that for the purposes of the inter partes review (IPR), only the term "real-time" required explicit construction.
  • Citing the patent's specification as an express definition, Petitioner proposed that "real-time" should be construed to mean: "Any response time that may be measured in milli- or microseconds, and/or is less than one second."

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an IPR and the cancellation of claims 2-46 and 52-59 of the ’843 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.