PTAB

IPR2020-00116

Dataspeed Inc v. Sucxess LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Vehicle Data Bus Retrofit System and Method
  • Brief Description: The ’671 patent discloses methods and systems for integrating a retrofit apparatus into a vehicle’s existing Controller Area Network (CAN) bus. The technology involves electrically disconnecting the data bus between two factory-installed devices and inserting the retrofit apparatus to intercept, modify, or pass through messages communicated between them.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-15 and 19 are obvious over Munoz alone or in view of Negley, SAE, and Bosch.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Munoz (Patent 7,737,831), Negley (“Getting Control Through CAN,” a 2000 article), SAE (a 1993 technical paper on CAN gateways), and Bosch (“CAN Specification, Version 2.0”).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Munoz discloses a method of adding a retrofit roof control module to a vehicle that seamlessly integrates with factory systems. The installation taught by Munoz involves terminating the original data connection between a factory dashboard unit and a factory roof electronics unit, forcing all communication to pass through the retrofit module. This retrofit module connects to the original bus and adds a second data bus to the factory roof electronics, thereby teaching the core method of claims 1 and 10. Petitioner contended that when the retrofit module’s added functionality is disabled, it must pass the original messages from the dashboard to the roof electronics in an indistinguishable manner to maintain factory functionality, thus meeting limitations regarding transmitting a "second message" that mimics a "first message."
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted that a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would have been motivated to supplement Munoz’s teachings with the common knowledge of CAN bus protocols detailed in Negley, SAE, and Bosch. These secondary references establish that standard CAN bus operation relies on message identifiers for filtering and acceptance by network nodes (ECUs). To ensure that a message sent from the retrofit device would be accepted and acted upon by a factory-installed ECU, a POSITA would have found it obvious to use the same message identifier as the original message, a fundamental principle of CAN system design.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because using established, standardized CAN protocols and message identifiers is the conventional and intended method for ensuring interoperability between devices on a vehicle network.

Ground 2: Claims 1-15 and 19 are obvious over Dietz in view of Negley, SAE, and Bosch.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Dietz (an installation manual for a multimedia interface), Negley, SAE, and Bosch.

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Dietz, an installation manual for a retrofit multimedia module, explicitly teaches the claimed method. Dietz instructs an installer to "cut through" the vehicle's OEM CAN bus connecting a navigation unit (first apparatus) and other vehicle systems (second apparatus). The retrofit Dietz module is then wired in between these two disconnected points, creating a second data bus. The purpose of the Dietz module is to enable video playback while the vehicle is moving by intercepting messages indicating vehicle motion and transmitting a "spoofed" message to the navigation unit indicating the vehicle is stationary (e.g., in "Park"). Petitioner contended this directly teaches transmitting a second message that is indistinguishable from the first (from the perspective of the receiving navigation unit).
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation to apply the standard CAN bus principles from Negley, SAE, and Bosch to the system in Dietz is inherent. To successfully "spoof" a message, the retrofit device must format it according to the CAN specification, including using the correct message identifier that the navigation unit is programmed to recognize for vehicle motion signals. This ensures seamless integration and avoids reconfiguring the factory navigation unit.
    • Expectation of Success: Success would have been expected because the entire purpose of the Dietz product was to manipulate standard CAN bus messages, a task that relies on the predictable and well-documented nature of the CAN protocol.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges (Grounds 2 and 4) against dependent claims 16-18 based on the Munoz and Dietz combinations, respectively, further in view of Lobaza (Patent 6,812,832). Lobaza was introduced to teach the specific subject matter of claims 16-18, which relate to object sensors, automatic braking systems, and parking aid systems, as these features were admittedly known in the art and copied from Lobaza during the prosecution of the ’671 patent.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "data bus" (claims 1, 4, 6, 9-10, 13-15, 19): Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "a contiguous network providing a communication channel for two or more modules." This construction emphasizes that a discontinuity, such as the cut taught in the prior art, defines the limit of a data bus, supporting the argument that installing the retrofit device creates a new, separate "second data bus."
  • "adding a second data bus" (claim 1) / "wherein the second data bus is added...during a retrofit" (claim 19): Petitioner proposed this phrase be construed as "adding a communication channel." This construction is critical because it argues that the claimed step does not necessarily require adding new physical wiring but can be satisfied by rewiring existing connections to create a new communication path, a method explicitly shown in the prior art references.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-19 of Patent 9,871,671 as unpatentable.