PTAB

IPR2020-00147

Dataspeed Inc v. Sucxess LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Aftermarket Device for Vehicle Data Bus
  • Brief Description: The ’505 patent describes methods and systems for integrating a retrofit apparatus into a vehicle’s existing Controller Area Network (CAN) data bus. The retrofit apparatus intercepts communications between factory-installed components and can transmit new or modified messages that are indistinguishable from the original messages, enabling added functionality without altering the factory components' programming.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Munoz - Claims 1-13 are obvious over Munoz alone or in view of Negley, SAE, and Bosch.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Munoz (Patent 7,737,831), complemented by the general knowledge of a POSITA as evidenced by Negley (Sensors, Oct. 2000), SAE (SAE Technical Paper 930005), and Bosch (CAN Specification 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's CAN bus. This module is installed between a factory dashboard unit (second apparatus) and a factory roof electronics unit (first apparatus) by disconnecting the original data bus connection and routing all communications through the retrofit module. When its added functionality is disabled, the retrofit module re-transmits the original messages, making them indistinguishable to the factory roof electronics unit. The secondary references (Negley, SAE, Bosch) were cited to establish that a POSITA would have understood the fundamental protocols of CAN bus systems, including the use of message identifiers for routing and filtering, which Munoz’s system would inherently use.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to apply the well-known, standard CAN bus protocols described in Negley, SAE, and Bosch to implement the aftermarket system of Munoz. Using established protocols ensures compatibility and is the most logical and predictable approach for integrating a new device into an existing CAN network.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success because CAN bus technology was mature and its protocols were standardized and widely used in the automotive industry. Implementing the message interception and re-transmission taught by Munoz using standard identifiers was a straightforward application of known principles.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Munoz and Lobaza - Claims 14-16 are obvious over Munoz (in view of Negley, SAE, and Bosch) further in view of Lobaza.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Munoz (Patent 7,737,831), Negley (Sensors, Oct. 2000), SAE (SAE Technical Paper 930005), Bosch (CAN Specification 2.0), and Lobaza (Patent 6,812,832).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds on the Munoz combination from Ground 1 to address claims 14-16, which recite specific safety features. Petitioner asserted that Lobaza explicitly teaches these features—an object sensor, an automatic braking system, and a parking aid system—as components known in the art that communicate over a vehicle’s CAN bus. The challenged patent's specification copied these features verbatim from Lobaza during prosecution.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Lobaza’s known safety systems with Munoz’s retrofit architecture to enhance vehicle safety, a stated goal of Munoz. Integrating Lobaza's pre-impact sensors into Munoz's system would allow the retrofit device to trigger alerts or other actions, which was a simple and obvious improvement.
    • Expectation of Success: Success would be expected because both Munoz and Lobaza describe systems operating on standard CAN buses. Integrating an additional CAN-based sensor module (from Lobaza) into an existing CAN-based retrofit architecture (from Munoz) was a routine task for a POSITA.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Dietz - Claims 1-13 are obvious over Dietz in view of Negley, SAE, and Bosch.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Dietz (Installation Manual for a Multimedia Interface 1280), Negley (Sensors, Oct. 2000), SAE (SAE Technical Paper 930005), and Bosch (CAN Specification 2.0).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Dietz, an installation manual for a commercial retrofit module, teaches all limitations of the claims. Dietz’s module is installed by cutting the OEM CAN bus between a vehicle’s factory components ("Car") and its navigation unit. The module intercepts vehicle motion signals and, when activated, transmits a "spoofed" message (e.g., indicating the car is in "Park") to the navigation unit to allow video playback while the car is moving. When deactivated, the module operates transparently, re-transmitting original messages.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA implementing the Dietz system would naturally use the standard CAN protocols described by Negley, SAE, and Bosch to ensure the spoofed and re-transmitted messages were correctly formatted with the proper identifiers to be accepted by the factory navigation unit.
    • Expectation of Success: As with the Munoz ground, success was highly predictable due to the standardized and well-understood nature of CAN bus communication protocols at the time.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness grounds, including combinations based on Allen (Application # 2007/0016342), which teaches a retrofit interface that emulates OEM bus messages, and further combinations involving Dietz, Lobaza, and Allen.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "data bus" (claims 1, 4, 6, 9-10, 13): Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "a contiguous network providing a communication channel for two or more modules." This construction was argued to be consistent with the specification and prosecution history and reinforces that the claims are directed to standard vehicle network architectures, like CAN bus, which are well-disclosed in the prior art.
  • "responds" (claim 12): Petitioner proposed this term be construed to mean "act on." This construction was based on the fundamental principle of CAN systems where a node (ECU) receives many messages but only "acts on" those with a recognized message identifier, a core concept for the obviousness arguments.

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • Inherent Nature of CAN Bus Protocols: A central technical premise underlying all grounds was that a POSITA would have inherently understood the operation of CAN bus systems. This includes the knowledge that for any retrofit or aftermarket device to function correctly within a factory CAN system, it must transmit messages using the same message identifiers that the targeted factory component is programmed to recognize and accept. This principle makes the claimed "indistinguishable" message a simple and obvious design choice, not an inventive step.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-16 of Patent 10,027,505 as unpatentable.