Stragent, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 1, 2021

IPR2021-00728 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 1, 2021)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 14
571-272-7822 Date: October 1, 2021

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC and BMW of NORTH AMERICA, LLC,
Petitioner,
v.
STRAGENT, LLC,
Patent Owner.

IPR2021-00728
Patent 10,002,036 B2

Before LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.

PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION
Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
35 U.S.C. § 314

I. INTRODUCTION
Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and BMW of North America, LLC
(collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a Petition for inter partes review of
claims 84–101, 109–120, 122–125, and 127 of U.S. Patent No. 10,002,036
B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’036 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Stragent, LLC (“Patent
IPR2021-00728
Patent 10,002,036 B2

2
Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Upon
our authorization, Petitioner filed a Reply directed to discretionary denial
issues under 35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a) and 325(d), and Patent Owner filed a Sur-
Reply. Papers 12, 13.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a), we have authority to
institute an inter partes review if “the information presented in the
petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood
that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims
challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). After considering the
Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we conclude
the information presented does not show there is a reasonable likelihood that
Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of
claims 84–101, 109–120, 122–125, and 127 of the ’036 patent.
Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.
II. BACKGROUND
A. Real Parties-in-Interest
Petitioner identifies the following real parties-in-interest: Daimler
AG, Daimler North America Corp., Mercedes-Benz, LLC, Mercedes-Benz
Vans, LLC, Daimler Trucks North America LLC, Mercedes-Benz U.S.
International, Inc., BMW of North America, LLC, BMW Manufacturing
Co., LLC, and Bayerische Motoren Werke, AG. Pet. 79. Patent Owner
identifies itself as the real party-in-interest. Paper 5, 1 (Patent Owner’s
Mandatory Notices).
B. Related Matters
The parties identify three district court proceedings involving the
’036 patent: Stragent, LLC v. BMW of North America, LLC, and BMW
IPR2021-00728
Patent 10,002,036 B2

3
Manufacturing Co., LLC, No. 1:10-cv-00510-LPS (D. Del.); Stragent, LLC
v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, No. 1:10-cv-00511-LPS (D. Del.); and
Stragent, LLC v. Volvo Car North America, LLC, No. 1:10-cv-00512-LPS
(D. Del.). Pet. 81–82; Paper 5, 2.
Petitioner filed five other petitions challenging claims of the
’036 patent: IPR2021-00425, IPR2021-00426, IPR2021-00427,
IPR2021-00726, and IPR2021-00727. See Pet. 82; Paper 5, 2–3. The Board
denied institution of inter partes review in IPR2021-00425, IPR2021-00426,
and IPR2021-00427. See, e.g., BMW of N. Am., LLC and Mercedes-Benz
USA, LLC v. Stragent, LLC, IPR2021-00425, Paper 14 (PTAB July 19,
2021). Petitioner’s request for rehearing and request for Precedential
Opinion Panel review of those decisions remain pending. See, e.g., BMW of
N. Am., LLC and Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Stragent, LLC, IPR2021-
00425, Papers 15, 16.
The ’036 patent is related to U.S. Patent No. 8,209,705 B2 (“the
’705 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 8,566,843 B2 (“the ’843 patent”) through
a chain of continuations. Ex. 1001, code (63). The parties identify several
previous inter partes reviews involving the ’705 patent and ’843 patent:
IPR2017-00457, IPR2017-00458, IPR2017-00676, IPR2017-00677,
IPR2017-01502 through -01504, and IPR2017-01519 through -01522.
Pet. 81; Paper 5, 2. In those proceedings, the Board determined that all
claims of the ’705 patent and ’843 patent were unpatentable. See Pet. 81.
C. Overview of the ’036 Patent
The ’036 patent “relates to the field of distributed control and
monitoring systems,” which “may optionally apply to electronic vehicle
communication and control systems, real-time monitoring systems,
industrial automation and control systems, as well as any other desired
IPR2021-00728
Patent 10,002,036 B2

4
system.” Ex. 1001, 1:24–30. In particular, the ’036 patent describes an
automotive electronic control unit (ECU) that uses a storage resource to
facilitate data sharing between two networks utilizing different network
protocols. Id. at code (57), 3:22–28, 3:34–43.
D. Illustrative Claim
Although this Petition does not challenge independent claims 1
and 102 or dependent claims 106–108, 121, and 126 directly, Petitioner
analyzes their limitations because each of challenged claims 84–101,
109–120, 122–125, and 127 depends directly or indirectly from one or more
of those claims. See Pet. 20 n.7.1 Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject
matter of the challenged claims:
1. An apparatus, comprising:
[1.1] an automotive electronic control unit including a non-
transitory memory storage comprising instructions, and at
least one hardware processor in hardwired
communication with the memory storage, wherein the at
least one hardware processor executes the instructions to:
[1.2] identify information associated with a message
received utilizing a Flexray network protocol
associated with a Flexray network;
[1.3] issue a storage resource request in connection with
a storage resource of the automotive electronic
control unit and determine whether the storage
resource is available for storing the information;
[1.4] determine whether a threshold has been reached in
association with the storage resource request;
[1.5] in the event the storage resource is not available and
the threshold associated with the storage resource
request has not been reached, issue another storage

1 The petition in IPR2021-00726 directly challenges independent claims 1
and 102.
IPR2021-00728
Patent 10,002,036 B2

5
resource request in connection with the storage
resource;
[1.6] in the event the storage resource is not available and
the threshold associated with the storage resource
request has been reached, send a notification;
[1.7] in the event the storage resource is available, store
the information utilizing the storage resource; and
[1.8] share the information in less than one millisecond
utilizing a Controller Area Network protocol
associated with a Controller Area Network, the
automotive electronic control unit remaining in
hardwired communication with the Flexray
network and the Controller Area Network, and
including:
[1.9] a first interface for interfacing with the
Flexray network, the first interface including
a first interface-related data link layer
component that uses Flexray network-
related data link layer header bits and a first
interface-related network layer component
that uses Flexray network-related network
layer header bits; and
[1.10] a second interface for interfacing with the
Controller Area Network, the second
interface including a second interface-
related data link layer component that uses
Controller Area Network-related data link
layer header bits and a second interface-
related network layer component that uses
Controller Area Network-related network
layer header bits.
Ex. 1001, 12:37–13:15 (with numbering added by Petitioner).
IPR2021-00728
Patent 10,002,036 B2

6
E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
Petitioner asserts that claims 84–101, 109–120, 122–125, and 127 are
unpatentable based on the following grounds (Pet. 14):
Claim(s) Challenged 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
84, 85, 89, 101, 106–108,
125, 127 103(a)
2 Miesterfeld,
3 Wense,4 OSEK-
COM,5 OSEK-NM6
86–88, 99, 100, 118–120 103(a) Miesterfeld, Wense, OSEK-COM, OSEK-NM, OSEK-OS7
90–97, 109–116 103(a)
Miesterfeld, Wense, OSEK-
COM, OSEK-NM, OSEK-OS,
OSEK-Binding8
98, 117 103(a)
Miesterfeld, Wense, OSEK-
COM, OSEK-NM, OSEK-
FTCom,9 OSEK-OS
122 103(a)
Miesterfeld, Wense, OSEK-
COM, OSEK-NM, OSEK-
FTCom

2 The ’036 patent claims priority through a chain of continuations to an
application that was filed before the effective date of the Leahy-Smith
America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”)
amendments to 35 U.S.C. § 103. Therefore, we refer to the pre-AIA version
of § 103.
3 U.S. Patent No. 6,141,710, issued Oct. 31, 2000 (Ex. 1050, “Miesterfeld”).
4 H.-C. von der Wense and A. J. Pohlmeyer, “Building Automotive LIN
Applications,” Advanced Microsystems for Automotive Applications,
280–292, © 2001 (Ex. 1045, “Wense”).
5 OSEK/VDX Communication Specification, Ver. 2.2.2 (Dec. 18, 2000)
(Ex. 1008, “OSEK-COM”).
6 OSEK/VDX Network Management: Concept and Application Programing
Interface, Ver. 2.51 (May 31, 2000) (Ex. 1007, “OSEK-NM”).
7 OSEK/VDX Operating System, Ver. 2.2 (Sept. 10, 2001) (Ex. 1010,
“OSEK-OS”). Petitioner mistakenly identifies Exhibit 1010 as Ver. 2.1
rev. 1 (Nov. 13, 2000), which we treat as typographical error. See Pet. ix.
8 OSEK/VDX Binding Specification, Ver. 1.3 (Sept. 17, 2001) (Ex. 1006,
“OSEK-Binding”).
9 OSEK/VDX Fault-Tolerant Communication, Ver. 1.0 (Nov. 13, 2000)
(Ex. 1009, “OSEK-FTCom”).
IPR2021-00728
Patent 10,002,036 B2

7
Claim(s) Challenged 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
123, 124 103(a)
Miesterfeld, Wense, OSEK-
COM, OSEK-NM, OSEK-
FTCom, OSEK-Binding

III. DISCUSSION
A. Principles of Law
A claim is unpatentable under § 103(a) if the differences between the
claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a
whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of
obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations,
including (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences
between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary
skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective indicia of
non-obviousness.10 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
Citing the Declaration of Dr. Vijay K. Madisetti, Petitioner contends
that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would
have had “at least . . . a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer
engineering, or a related engineering discipline and at least two years of
industry experience in the field of distributed computing or automotive
engineering, or equivalent experience, education, or both.” Pet. 12 (citing

10 With respect to the fourth Graham factor, the parties do not present
arguments or evidence regarding objective indicia of non-obviousness.
Therefore, the obviousness analysis in this Decision is based on the first
three Graham factors.
IPR2021-00728
Patent 10,002,036 B2

8
Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 58–59). Patent Owner and its declarant generally agree with
Petitioner’s proposed definition. Prelim. Resp. 14–15 (citing Ex. 2001
¶¶ 15–17 (Declaration of Dr. Michael Smith)).
For purposes of this Decision, with the exception of the open-ended
phrase “at least,” which expands the range of experience indefinitely without
an upper bound, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary
skill in the art because it is consistent with the ’036 patent and the asserted
prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
C. Claim Construction
In this inter partes review, we apply the same claim construction
standard that would be used in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b).
37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2020). In applying this standard, we generally give
claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood
by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and in the
context of the entire patent disclosure. See id.; Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
415 F.3d 1303, 1312–14 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
The parties address the construction of various claim terms.
Pet. 12–13; Prelim. Resp. 15–33. For purposes of this Decision, we need not
construe any claim terms expressly. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan
Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that
only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent
necessary to resolve the controversy (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. &
Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).
D. Asserted Obviousness over Miesterfeld, Wense, OSEK-COM,
and OSEK-NM
Petitioner contends that claims 84, 85, 89, 101, 106–108, 125, and 127
are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Miesterfeld,
IPR2021-00728
Patent 10,002,036 B2

9
Wense, OSEK-COM, and OSEK-NM. Pet. 20–58. Petitioner relies on the
declaration testimony of Dr. Madisetti in support of its showing. Id. (citing
Ex. 1004). Patent Owner opposes and relies on the declaration testimony of
Dr. Smith. Prelim. Resp. 47–92 (citing Ex. 2001). For the reasons
discussed below, we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated a
reasonable likelihood it would prevail in showing that claims 84, 85, 89,
101, 106–108, 125, and 127 are unpatentable on this asserted ground.
1. Overview of Prior Art References
Miesterfeld discloses a “gateway for enabling the exchange of data
between a vehicle data bus (VDB) and an intelligent transportation system
(ITS) data bus.” Ex. 1050, code (57). Miesterfeld’s gateway “includes a
memory accessible by both a VDB interface and an ITS data bus interface so
that data and commands may be shared between each respective bus through
the shared memory.” Id.
Wense describes the Local Interconnect Network (LIN)
communication system for use in automotive electronic systems and
generally compares the features of LIN with those of other automotive
communication networks, including the Controller Area Network (CAN)
and Flexray. Ex. 1045, 10–11.
OSEK-COM and OSEK-NM are among several documents that
describe various aspects of the OSEK/VDX “industry standard for an open-
ended architecture for distributed control units in vehicles.” Ex. 1010, 2.
OSEK-COM provides a standardized interface for communication services.
Ex. 1008, 11. OSEK-NM defines a set of node-monitoring services.
Ex. 1007, 7.
IPR2021-00728
Patent 10,002,036 B2

10
2. Analysis
Petitioner begins its analysis with the limitations of independent
claim 1 because some of the challenged claims depend directly or indirectly
from it. Pet. 20 n.7; see id. at 20–48. We likewise begin our discussion by
considering the parties’ arguments with respect to claim 1.
Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus that, as set forth in limitation [1.1],
comprises “an automotive electronic control unit including a non-transitory
memory storage comprising instructions, and at least one hardware
processor in hardwired communication with the memory storage, wherein
the at least one hardware processor executes the instructions to” perform the
operations recited in limitations [1.2]–[1.8]. Ex. 1001, 12:37–67. Petitioner
argues that Miesterfeld discloses limitation [1.1] and provides the following
annotated version of Miesterfeld’s Figure 2 to illustrate its mapping:

Pet. 23. Figure 2, annotated by Petitioner above, is a block diagram of one
embodiment of Miesterfeld’s ITS gateway 40. Ex. 1050, 2:51–53, 3:50–51.
Miesterfeld explains that data exchange between VDB 48 and ITS data
bus 56 occurs through gateway 40, which comprises VDB transceiver 60,
IPR2021-00728
Patent 10,002,036 B2

11
VDB interface 62, ITS data bus interface 58, and serial peripheral interface
random access memory (SPI RAM) 64. Id. at 3:59–64. “SPI bus 66
interconnects VDB interface 62 and ITS data bus interface 58 with SPI
RAM 64.” Id. at 3:65–67.
Beginning its analysis of limitation [1.1] with “an automotive [ECU]
including a non-transitory memory storage comprising instructions,”
Petitioner asserts that the “Board has already found that Miesterfeld
discloses a ‘system’ that includes a ‘processor’ and ‘memory,’ and that the
processor is ‘operable to process vehicle data to control at least one vehicle
related function,’ and that it uses ‘software.[’]” Pet. 21 (citing Daimler AG
v. Stragent, LLC, IPR2017-00458, Paper 31, 51 (PTAB June 13, 2018)
(Final Written Decision) (“FWD-458”)). Petitioner argues that Miesterfeld’s
ITS gateway is an automotive ECU “because it is in a vehicle, which
controls information sharing between electronic control devices on the
vehicle data bus VDB and the ITS data bus for the purpose of monitoring
and controlling vehicle functions.” Id. at 21–22 (citing Ex. 1050, 1:13–40,
2:66–3:49; Ex. 1004 ¶ 80). Petitioner also argues that “Miesterfeld discloses
‘a gateway including memory [non-transitory] which the vehicle data bus
and the intelligent transportation system data bus may each access in order
to exchange data between the respective buses.’” Id. at 22 (quoting
Ex. 1050, 1:7–10) (alteration in Petition).
Regarding a “hardware processor in hardwired communication with
the memory storage,” Petitioner asserts that the Board has already found that
“Miesterfeld discloses a processor because it discloses a ‘vehicle controller
operable to process vehicle data to control at least one vehicle function.’”
Id. (quoting FWD-458, 51) (emphasis omitted). Petitioner argues that the
VDB interface in Miesterfeld’s gateway is a processor (e.g., a HIP7030A2
IPR2021-00728
Patent 10,002,036 B2

12
processor). Id. (citing Ex. 1050, 5:1–3). Petitioner also argues that
Miesterfeld’s ITS data bus interface is a processor because it enables data
exchange between memory and the ITS data bus, and a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have readily understood that the ITS data bus interface
performs the same functions as the VDB interface. Id. (citing Ex. 1050,
3:20–25; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 82–85). Petitioner further argues that Miesterfeld’s
processor (i.e., VDB interface 62 or ITS data bus interface 58) is in
hardwired communication with the memory storage (i.e., SPI RAM 64) via
SPI bus 66, as shown above in Petitioner’s annotated Figure 2. Id. at 22–23
(citing Ex. 1050, 3:65–67).
For the recitation that “the hardware processor executes the
instructions” stored in the memory storage, Petitioner contends that
“Miesterfeld’s processor executes instructions stored in the SPI RAM.”
Id. at 23. Specifically, Petitioner argues, “the VDB/ITS interface reads
command requests stored into SPI RAM 64 and based on those command
requests, queues an ‘appropriate’ message for transmission.” Id. (citing
Ex. 1050, 7:17–26 (“VDB interface 62 processes command requests written
to SPI RAM 64 by ITS data bus interface 58 for transmission onto
VDB 48.”), 8:36–42 (“VDB interface 62 prepares the appropriate VDB
message for transmission.”)).
Claim 1 further requires the hardware processor to execute the
instructions stored in the memory storage to perform the operations recited
in limitations [1.2]–[1.8]. Most of these limitations (i.e., [1.3]–[1.7]) relate
to determining the availability of a storage resource of the automotive ECU
for storing information received from one network (i.e., a Flexray network)
to be shared with a second network (i.e., CAN) and storing the information
if the storage resource is available. See Ex. 1001, 12:43–67. Petitioner
IPR2021-00728
Patent 10,002,036 B2

13
primarily relies on the flow chart in Figure 4 of Miesterfeld for teaching
limitations [1.3]–[1.7], adding OSEK-NM and OSEK-COM for teaching a
threshold in association with a storage resource request as recited in
limitations [1.4]–[1.6]. Pet. 29–41. As Miesterfeld explains, Figure 4
depicts “the sequence for ITS data bus interface 62 reading/writing from/to
SPI RAM 64,” which includes testing certain signal lines to determine
whether SPI RAM 64 is available. Ex. 1050, 6:31–7:8.
In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner argues, among other
things, that the Petition fails to demonstrate that the cited prior art teaches an
automotive ECU including a non-transitory memory storage comprising
instructions that a hardware processor executes, as recited in limitation [1.1],
to perform the operations recited in limitations [1.2]–[1.8]. Prelim.
Resp. 48–58. Patent Owner contends that the commands stored in
Miesterfeld’s SPI RAM 64, which Petitioner asserts are the claimed
“instructions” in a “non-transitory memory storage,” are not instructions that
are executed by the processor to carry out the steps in Figure 4 that
Petitioner alleges correspond to the operations recited in limitations
[1.2]–[1.8]. Id. at 48–55.
We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner does not show
sufficiently, for purposes of instituting an inter partes review, that
Miesterfeld, in combination with the other references, teaches or suggests
limitation [1.1] together with limitations [1.2]–[1.8] in the manner claimed.
Petitioner asserts that Miesterfeld’s SPI RAM 64, shown in Figure 2,
corresponds to the claimed “non-transitory memory storage” and that
“command requests” written to SPI RAM 64 by either the VDB interface or
ITS data bus interface are “instructions” stored in the non-transitory memory
storage and executed by the processor (i.e., either the VDB interface or ITS
IPR2021-00728
Patent 10,002,036 B2

14
data bus interface) when it queues a message for transmission. Pet. 22–23
(citing Ex. 1050, 7:17–26, 8:36–42). However, the passages in Miesterfeld
cited by Petitioner describe VDB interface 62 processing a command that
was written by ITS data bus interface 58 to SPI RAM 64 for transmission
onto the VDB 48 via VDB interface 62. See, e.g., Ex. 1050, 7:17–21. The
commands processed in this way are commands that are exchanged between
the ITS data bus and the VDB via their respective interfaces connected to
shared memory (i.e., SPI RAM 64). See, e.g., id. at code (57) (“The gateway
includes a memory accessible by both a VDB interface and an ITS data bus
interface so that data and commands may be shared between each respective
bus through the shared memory.”). They are not commands or instructions
executed by a processor to carry out the steps in the flow chart of Figure 4,
which Petitioner maps to the operations recited in limitations [1.3]–[1.7].
In other words, for the claimed “instructions,” Petitioner points only
to commands that, like other data, are exchanged between the ITS data bus
and the VDB; Petitioner does not point to any “instructions” stored in a
“non-transitory memory storage” that are executed by a processor to perform
the storage operations in limitations [1.3]–[1.7], as required by the claim
language. Nor does Petitioner otherwise argue that it would have been
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to store such instructions in a
non-transitory memory storage. See Pet. 23.
Furthermore, Petitioner’s reliance on the Final Written Decision in
IPR2017-00458, an earlier case involving a different patent, does not bolster
its argument here. Finding that Miesterfeld discloses a “system” that
includes a “processor” and “memory,” and the processor uses “software,”
falls short of establishing that Miesterfeld teaches an automotive ECU
including a non-transitory memory storage including instructions executed
IPR2021-00728
Patent 10,002,036 B2

15
by a hardware processor to carry out certain functions, as claim 1 of the
’036 patent specifically requires.
For at least these reasons, based on the record before us, Petitioner
does not make an adequate showing, for purposes of instituting an inter
partes review, that the combination of Miesterfeld, Wense, OSEK-COM,
and OSEK-NM teaches or suggests all the limitations of claim 1. For the
same reasons, Petitioner does not adequately show that the asserted prior art
teaches or suggests all the limitations of independent claim 102, which
recites limitations similar to those in claim 1. See Pet. 52–53 (referring back
to claim 1 analysis); Ex. 1001, 18:43–19:22. Claims 84, 85, 89, 101,
106–108, 125, and 127 depend from either claim 1 or claim 102. See
Pet. 48–52, 54–58. Therefore, we conclude the information presented does
not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in
establishing that claims 84, 85, 89, 101, 106–108, 125, and 127 of the
’036 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over
the combination of Miesterfeld, Wense, OSEK-COM, and OSEK-NM.
E. Remaining Obviousness Grounds
Petitioner further challenges claims 86–88, 90–100, 109–120, and
122–124 by adding the teachings of one or more of OSEK-OS, OSEK-
Binding, and OSEK-FTCom to those of the references discussed above.
Pet. 69–84. Petitioner relies on OSEK-OS, OSEK-Binding, and OSEK-
FTCom only for teaching limitations of dependent claims, not for teaching
the subject matter of independent claims 1 and 102, and therefore these
additional references do not remedy the deficiencies addressed above with
respect to claim 1. Id. Thus, for the same reasons discussed above, the
information presented does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that
Petitioner would prevail in showing that claims 86–88, 90–100, 109–120,
IPR2021-00728
Patent 10,002,036 B2

16
and 122–124 are unpatentable as obvious over the asserted combinations of
references.
IV. CONCLUSION
After considering the parties’ evidence and arguments, we determine
that the information presented does not show a reasonable likelihood that
Petitioner would prevail in establishing that at least one of claims 84–101,
109–120, 122–125, and 127 of the ’036 patent is unpatentable on the
grounds asserted in the Petition.
V. ORDER
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and no inter partes review is
instituted.

IPR2021-00728
Patent 10,002,036 B2

17
FOR PETITIONER:

James M. Glass
Brett N. Watkins
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
jimglass@quinnemanuel.com
brettwatkins@quinnemanuel.com

Lionel Lavenue
David C. Reese
Cory Bell
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
lionel.lavenue@finnegan.com
david.reese@finnegan.com
cory.bell@finnegan.com

FOR PATENT OWNER:

G. Andrew Gordon
ANDREW GORDON LAW FIRM, LLC
andrew@agordonlawfirm.com