Patenting Protein Therapeutics:
`Before the Patent
`In the Shadow of Uncertainty
`Trial and Appeal
`Board
`
`4th Protein Discovery and Therapeutics
`
`Global Technology Community
`
`ABB v. RGB
`Paradise Point Resort & Spa
`IPR2013-00062/00282
`San Diego, CA
`October 19-21, 2011
`IPR2013-00074/00286
`
`Trial Hearing
`
`January 23, 2014
`
`Petitioner ABB
`
`

`

`Grounds for Trial
`
`• Gertz, Stewart and Morrow
`– ’236 Claims 1-4, 8-10
`– ’557 Claims 16-25, 27, and 28
`• Gertz, Stewart, Morrow, DDAG and Brockschmidt
`– 236 Claims 5-6
`• Gertz, Stewart, Morrow, DDAG and HP86
`– 236 Claim 7
`• Gertz, Stewart, Morrow, Brockschmidt, and Architect
`– 557 Claims 26, 29, 30, and 46-59
`
`2
`
`Petitioner ABB
`
`

`

`RGB’s Central Arguments
`
`• Gertz does not teach “executable” functions
`– “Component functions”
`– “Component code”
`– “[Core/Extended] Driver functions”
`• “Primitive Operations” not in Gertz*
`• “Function Pointer Table” is “special”
`• “control command destination is a file”
`• Gertz / Morrow are not prior art
`• Unable to combine Gertz/Stewart/Morrow/etc.
`
`PO Responses and PO Supp. Responses
`*RGB does not challenge that Morrow teaches trajectory primitives
`
`3
`
`Petitioner ABB
`
`

`

`Disputed Claim Terms
`
`• “Primitive / Non-primitive Operations”
`
`• “Component Functions”
`
`• “Component Code”
`
`• “Driver Function”
`
`• “Core Driver Function”
`
`4
`
`Petitioner ABB
`
`

`

`Claim Construction
`
`• ABB: “Broadest reasonable interpretation”
`– Proposed constructions adopted by Board except
`for “primitive operation” and “core driver function.”
`Paper 23.
`• RGB attempts to narrow by citing “Joint Claim
`Construction Statement.”
`– No legal authority to support narrowing.
`– Intrinsic evidence does not support narrower
`construction of terms.
`– Dr. Stewart relies on JCCS, not BRI.
`
`5
`
`Petitioner ABB
`
`

`

`Primitive Operations
`
`• PTAB: “An operation necessary for motion control
`and that cannot be simulated using a combination of
`other motion control operations.” Paper #23
`• District Ct: “Motion control operations that cannot
`be simulated using a combination of other motion
`control operations.” (ABB Reply 8-9).
`• But, White v. Dunbar: Claims are not a “nose-of-wax”
`interpreted broadly for infringement but narrowly
`to avoid prior art.
`– ABB sought to narrow DC construction per Board.
`– RGB opposed.
`– Court rejected ABB’s request in Oct. (ABB Reply at 8).
`
`6
`
`Petitioner ABB
`
`

`

`Non-Primitive Operations
`
`• District Ct: “Motion control operations that can
`be simulated using a combination of other
`motion control operations.” (ABB Reply 8).
`
`• Result: Every motion control operation is
`primitive or non-primitive. (Id., Markman
`Transcript, Ex. 1040 at 92:9-11 below
`– MR. CHORUSH: Okay. Under your construction, we
`agree that all motion control operations would fall
`into one of the two bins.).
`
`7
`
`Petitioner ABB
`
`

`

`Component Code
`
`• PTAB construction is broader
`– PTAB: Computer code which associates at least
`some of the component functions with at least
`some of the driver functions.
`
`– District Ct: Software code in the motion control
`component that associates at least some of the
`component functions with at least some of the
`driver functions.
`
`8
`
`Petitioner ABB
`
`

`

`Component Function
`
`• PTAB: “Hardware-independent functions
`that are capable of defining a motion
`sequence.”
`
`• District Ct: “A hardware independent
`function that corresponds to a motion
`control operation”
`
`9
`
`Petitioner ABB
`
`

`

`Subject Matter: ’236/’557 Patents
`
`• “The present invention relates to motion
`control systems and, more particularly, to
`interface software that facilitates the creation
`of hardware independent motion control
`software. ’236 Patent, col. 1:13-15.
`• “The WOSA model has no relation to motion
`control devices” (col. 2:66-67)
`– However, RGB now relies upon “WOSA/XMC”
`specifications disclosed July 18, 2013 in an attempt
`to assert prior invention. (PO Resp., Ex. 2010-1, 2)
`
`10
`
`Petitioner ABB
`
`

`

`CMU Architecture Provides Multi-layer Independence
`
`• Onika/Chimera
`intertwined
`• Top: Hardware
`independent iconic
`programming language.
`• Middle
`– Hardware independent
`actions/jobs/subsystems
`– Hardware independent
`configurations/control
`tasks
`• Bottom: device drivers
`
`11
`
`Petitioner ABB
`
`

`

`Gertz, Stewart, and Morrow
`Provide the Same Solution
`
`• Inter-related work at CMU Advanced
`Manipulators Lab coordinated by Dr. Pradeep
`Khosla. (Pet. 44; Gertz, 22-23; Stewart 13-14;
`Morrow 1).
`– Intended to reduce application
`development/maintenance costs for robotic
`manipulators (motion control systems).
`– Solution: Multi-layer middleware implementation
`separating application development from MCD
`driver interfaces
`– References do not teach away
`
`12
`
`Petitioner ABB
`
`

`

`’236 / ’557 Patent Claims Are Obvious
`
`• Middleware interfaces providing hardware
`independence were common prior to 1995.
`– Reduce software development costs
`– Ease hardware/software replacement
`– Increased reliability
`• DDAG (Introduction)
`• Windows Open Service Architecture,
`– Admitted by ’236 Patent 2:55-57
`• RGB Patents offer no unexpected benefits
`
`13
`
`Petitioner ABB
`
`

`

`Gertz and Morrow are Prior Art
`
`• Gertz: Nov. 22, 1994 (PO Resp. at 6).
`
`• Morrow: Jan. 1, 1995 (PO Resp. at 6).
`– ------------------------
`
`• RGB alleges:
`– Conception from Jul. 24, 1994
`
`– Diligence from Nov. 22, 1994
`
`14
`
`Petitioner ABB
`
`

`

`Conception
`
`• “Conception requires proof that every element
`of the claims was known to the inventor along
`with a definite and permanent idea how to
`implement that did not require undue
`experimentation by ordinary artisans.” (ABB
`Reply at 3).
`• RGB did not account for elements of the claims
`in the 282/286 IPRs. (ABB Reply 1-3).
`• Surreply does not assert that every claim
`element is present in (or has been mapped to)
`the WOSA/XMC docs.
`
`15
`
`Petitioner ABB
`
`

`

`RGB’s “Evidence” for Prior Invention
`
`•
`
`•
`
`• Brown Declarations
`Inventor’s own documents
`– “Time records” are not corroborated by any third party.
`– “Specifications” are not corroborated as to date/content by any third party.
`– Brown v. Barbacid, 276 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed Cir. 2002) (“[A]n inventor's
`own unwitnessed documentation does not corroborate an inventor's
`testimony about inventive facts.”). (Reply at 2).
`Surreply does not cure defects
`– Refers to “documents” that are not in evidence.
`• Date, Content, Authenticity all are unproven.
`• Can’t prove the existence or content of documents merely by reference.
`In re NTP, 654 F.3d 1279, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (40+ documents don’t prove
`existence/content of “version 0”)
`– RGB’s newly cited documents originated with the inventor
`(e.g. “Company History” submitted to Patent Office in Nov. 2008 only proves that it
`existed in Nov. 2008).
`
`•
`
`•
`
`16
`
`Petitioner ABB
`
`

`

`Lack of Corroboration
`
`•
`
`•
`
`–
`
`Brown’s documents are unwitnessed by a testifying third party:
`“[t]here is neither evidence contemporaneous in time with Dr. Chen's notebook entries nor evidence
`independent of any of the inventors (Chen and Farina) which corroborates Dr. Chen's testimony concerning the
`alleged actual reductions to practice." Id. at 74. As noted by the Board, no witness who signed any of Dr. Chen's or
`any other involved researchers' notebooks testified in this proceeding, and all of the information within those
`notebooks therefore remains uncorroborated. Id. at 77.
`
`–
`
`As to Chen's alternative theory of conception coupled with diligence toward reduction to practice, the Board
`found "an even greater paucity of detail with respect to the underlying facts." Id. at 81….The Board concluded
`that, while Chen was undoubtedly "actively engaged in synthesizing derivatives of taxol in the critical time
`period," his proofs do not allow for "identification of exactly what was prepared...”
`
`–
`
`Shui-Hui Chen v. Bouchard, 347 F.3d 1299, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
`
`–
`
`Corroborating evidence must be independent of anything originating from the inventor.
`The inventor, however, must provide independent corroborating evidence in addition to his own statements and
`documents. See Lacotte v. Thomas, 758 F.2d 611, 613, 225 USPQ 633, 634 (Fed.Cir.1985). Such evidence "may
`consist of testimony of a witness, other than an inventor, to the actual reduction to practice or it may consist of
`evidence of surrounding facts and circumstances independent of information received from the inventor." Reese
`v. Hurst v. Wiewiorowski, 661 F.2d 1222, 1225, 211 USPQ 936, 940 (CCPA 1981). See also Lacotte v. Thomas, 758
`F.2d at 613, 225 USPQ at 634 (citing Reese); 37 C.F.R. § 1.608(b). "The purpose of the rule requiring
`corroboration is to prevent fraud." Berry v. Webb, 412 F.2d 261, 267, 56 CCPA 1272, 162 USPQ 170, 174 (1969).
`
`– Hahn v. Wong, 892 F.2d 1028, 1032 (Fed. Cir.1989) cited by Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Teva Pharma. USA, Inc.,
`566 F.3d 989 (Fed. Circ. 2009).
`
`ABB Reply 1-3.
`
`17
`
`Petitioner ABB
`
`

`

`Brown Declarations: Self-serving/speculative
`
`• District Court
`– Discounted prior testimony of Brown as “self-
`serving” (ABB Reply at 8).
`– RGB Interrogatory Resp. contradicts Brown as to
`236 Patent, claim 10. (ABB Reply 3).
`• IPR Declarations
`– Include activities disclaimed on cross-exam
`– Time often based on uncorroborated “estimations”
`and speculation from events in 1994-95.
`• In re NTP, 654 F.3d 1279, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
`– Activities are non-specific and not tied to claims.
`
`18
`
`Petitioner ABB
`
`

`

`“WOSA/XMC” documents
`
`•
`
`• No competent corroboration of date/origin by 3rd party.
`“[Marhurkar] is directed to the technical content of a document, not to
`the date or origin of the document. The law requires sufficient proof
`for the date and identity of a physical exhibit offered to show
`conception.“ Garmin Int'l Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Tech. LLC, IPR2012-00001, Paper 59 at 23,
`(PTAB, Nov. 13, 2013) (applying Price v. Symsek, 988 F.2d 1187, 1192-1194 (Fed. Cir. 1993)).
`
`– RGB has not proven that these specific documents existed (as now
`presented) prior to the application date.
`– No non-inventor testified to receiving these documents at any time prior to
`the application date.
`– No evidence that the documents submitted here were communicated to
`any person prior to application date.
`– Documents contradict ’236 Patent Specification
`• MoveAbsolute is “core” and necessary for all drivers. Ex. 2010-1, p. 18
`• MoveRelative is emulated by calling other operations where drivers don’t provide
`direct support. Ex. 2010-1, p. 19-20
`
`19
`
`Petitioner ABB
`
`

`

`Brown’s “Time Records”
`
`• Bulk time entries
`– As much as 25.75 hours in a day
`
`• Counting unrelated projects
`– WOSA/Neural Networks
`
`– WOSA/Fuzzy Logic
`
`• Unexplained breaks
`
`20
`
`Petitioner ABB
`
`

`

`Lack of Diligence: Time Speculative
`
`• No corroboration of record itself* or the time
`worked , especially where multiple tasks in a
`single entry.
`– Q: How did you go about deriving that figure from
`your time records?
`– A: …days that had a mix I used my experience and
`estimated the time for XMC work.
`– Q: So, you don’t actually have a specific
`contemporaneous record breaking out the time for
`each individual task[?].
`– A: No.
`• Cross of David Brown, Ex. 1129 at 34:1-9
`
`*Reply at 2, Brown Dep. at 19:17-20:10; 20:24-21:8; 72:15-73:5
`21
`
`Petitioner ABB
`
`

`

`Lack of Diligence
`
`• No corroboration that tasks were necessary
`(or even relevant) to the claims
`– Numerous entries for “reading mail/email” but
`no evidence tying these entries to claims.
`• Q: Now, you said it was possible that these emails
`were related to XMC. Did you actually go back and
`look at what emails you reviewed on that date?
`
`• Brown: No.
`
`Excerpt from Ex. 1129, 78: 2-21
`
`22
`
`Petitioner ABB
`
`

`

`Some “XMC” Tasks Are Not Relevant To RTP
`
`• No corroboration of relevance to RTP
`– Writing “User Guide” for non-existent product
`– Creating a “logo”
`
`23
`
`Petitioner ABB
`
`

`

`RGB’s Surreply Cases Confirm “Independent
`Corroboration” Requirement
`
`–
`
`–
`
`Linear Tech. Corp. v. Impala Linear Corp., 379 F3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
`Summary Judgment affirmed that no reasonable juror could find prior invention despite third party
`testimony supporting alleged inventor.
`Brown v. Barbacid, 436 F3d 1376 (Fed Cir 2006)
`Independent witnesses for both conception and diligence: Dr. Casey and Debra Morgan (scientist)
`Ohio Willow Wood Co. v Alps South LLC, 735 F3d 1333 (Fed. Cir., 2013)
`– Testimony of three non-inventor prosthetists in addition to patent application, and other exhibits
`In re Jolly, 308 F3d 1217 (Fed. Cir. 2002)
`Conception corroborated by inventor’s supervisor (Davis)
`– Diligence corroborated by three other witnesses
`“Hence as in Bosies, if there is no evidence in record that all elements of the count resided in the
`inventor’s mind, a noninventor’s testimony cannot supply the missing pieces.”
`Sandt Tech. v Resco Metal & Plastics, 264 F3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
`Prior abandoned patent application and testimony of former (non-inventor) employee
`– NB: RGB’s intepretation of Sandt was rejected in Martek Biosciences Corp. v Nutrinova, Inc., 579 F3d
`1363, 1376 (Fed Cir 2009) (citing corroboration by independent disinterest persons.)
`
`–
`
`–
`
`–
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Dispositive Fact: RGB has not shown that all elements of all claims are present in the WOSA/XMC
`documents, nor has it presented any third party testimony to corroborate Brown’s testimony and
`the date/origin/content of these documents.
`
`24
`
`Petitioner ABB
`
`

`

`Scott v. Koyama, 281 F.3. 1243(2002)
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Case cited by RGB Resp. at 7.
`Inventor worked every day for the 17 day diligence period.
`Identified activities that are not “diligence” in prior cases
`– “commercial activity” (e.g., licensing deals, trademark logos, etc.)
`– “raising money”
`• Further:
`– “Scott bore the burden of showing conception in the United States before
`Koyama's Japanese filing date, plus either actual reduction to practice in
`the United States before Koyama's Japanese filing date, or diligence in the
`United States to Scott's United Kingdom filing date as constructive
`reduction to practice.”
`– “A conception date by Scott in the United States before March 13, 1990,
`was conceded, based on Scott's evidence that a full description of the
`process of the count was contained in written materials disclosed to
`persons at ICI Americas, ICI's subsidiary in Wilmington, Delaware.
`
`25
`
`Petitioner ABB
`
`

`

`RGB’s Claim Arguments (All claims)
`
`•
`
`•
`
`“Component Function”
`“Component Code”
`“[Core] Driver Function”
`• Neither Court nor PTAB have narrowed terms to executable object code (i.e.,
`machine language instructions).
`– PTAB, ‘074 Decision at 11 (emphasis added): Patent Owner responds that neither Morrow nor
`Stewart discloses core driver functions because they rely on “port based objects,” which are not
`actually functions because they rely on shared memory for communication. Prelim. Resp. 49-50.
`Patent Owner also argues that Morrow lacks driver functions and instead discloses only robot-
`specific commands. Prelim. Resp. 49-50. This argument is not persuasive. Petitioner relies on
`Gertz (not Morrow or Stewart) for the disclosure of core driver functions. Gertz describes
`control tasks, which are functions associated with motion operations. See Gertz § 3.3. We
`are persuaded that there is a reasonable likelihood that the combination of Morrow’s trajectory
`primitives and Gertz’s disclosure of functions that are associated with motion operations would
`have made the claimed “primitive operations” and “core driver functions” obvious to a person of
`ordinary skill. We also find persuasive Petitioner’s reasoning that the remaining limitations of
`independent claim 16 and dependent claims 17-25, 27, and 28 are disclosed by Gertz and
`Stewart. See Pet. 44-57.
`
`•
`
`26
`
`Petitioner ABB
`
`

`

`Key Dispute: Executable Object Code?
`
`• Assume that “machine language / object code” is executable.
`– “Machine language / object code” not in the BRI of any term.
`– Moreover, “hardware independent function” cannot refer to
`executable object code / machine language instructions as these
`are processor dependent.
`
`• Gertz describes the Onika VPE as having an executable language:
`– “This VPE is targeted towards both the control-level programmer
`and the application-level programmer; specifically, the code
`generated by the control-level programmer is used as the building-
`blocks of the language used by the application-level programmer.
`The VPE is defined as having the following characteristics: • Code
`is created, simulated, and executed all within the same
`program-environment…” Gertz, p. 29-30.
`
`27
`
`Petitioner ABB
`
`

`

`PTAB: “Component Functions” are “hardware-
`independent functions”
`
`• Gertz teaches:
`– “With the exception of the code which directly
`communicates to the physical system, all other
`code primitives would be generic and usable
`with any system….” (Gertz § 1.2; § 4.5.3; § 5.8.3).
`
`Pet. 22
`28
`
`Petitioner ABB
`
`

`

`“Component Function”
`“capable of defining a motion sequence.”
`
`•
`
`• Gertz, Fig. 1, p. 42 “iconic programs (actions)”
`“[a] control subsystem is a collection of actions which are
`executed one at a time, and can be assembled by a user.” Gertz, §
`3.2.9
`“[a]ctions can be viewed as ‘steps’ towards achieving some goal;
`e.g., ‘move to peg’, ‘close the gripper’, ‘follow the input of
`joystick’, etc. Actions are assembled in sequential order in order
`to create goal- oriented control subsystems….” Gertz, § 3.2.8.
`
`•
`
`Pet. 22
`29
`
`Petitioner ABB
`
`

`

`“Component Code”
`
`• PTAB: Computer code which associates at least some of the component
`functions with at least some of the driver functions.
`• Action R is associated with Configuration R through “configuration
`controller.” Configuration R contains one or more control tasks (driver
`functions).(Gertz, § 3.2; § 4)
`
`Pet. 23
`30
`
`Petitioner ABB
`
`

`

`“Driver Function” – “Hardware independent functions that are separate and distinct
`from the component functions”
`
`• Hardware independent functions:
`– “With the exception of the code which directly communicates to the physical system, all
`other code primitives would be generic and usable with any system….” (Gertz § 1.2; §
`4.5.3; § 5.8.3).
`
`•
`
`“Control Tasks” are separate
`and distinct from “Actions”
`(component functions)
`
`Pet. 11-12, 21 (also 18-22 generally)
`31
`
`Petitioner ABB
`
`

`

`[Core/ Extended] Driver Function
`
`• PTAB: Core driver function: software associated with
`one of the primitive operations (Paper 23).
`• Court: Core driver function: A driver function associated
`with one of the primitive motion control operations
`• Court: Extended driver function: A driver function
`associated with one of the non-primitive motion control
`operations
`
`• Common Thread: Only an “association” is required, the
`mechanism of association is not limited by the claim.
`
`Markman eliminates “necessary for motion control”
`32
`
`Petitioner ABB
`
`

`

`Driver Function
`
`• Gertz/Stewart use “control tasks/modules”
`interchangeably.
`– Tasks represent instructions to perform some
`motion control operation, such as “read data
`from trackball” or “perform forward
`kinematics.” (Gertz, § 3.3).
`
`• Morrow teaches “trajectory primitives “(as
`well as “sensor primitives.”)
`
`33
`
`Petitioner ABB
`
`

`

`Stewart’s “control modules” confirm Gertz / Morrow
`
`• Control Modules
`– Trajectory generators
`– 6DOF “Get Position” (by
`sensor or vision)
`– “Zero” –cannot be
`decomposed
`• Cf. 236 Patent
`“GetPosition” allegedly
`primitive operation
`
`Reply 11, Ex. 1032, ¶ 91
`34
`
`Petitioner ABB
`
`

`

`282 and 286 IPR: Dependent Claims
`
`• Claim Limitations
`– Function pointer table
`– Writing control commands to a file
`
`• Trivial or inherent features
`• Little or zero modification required
`
`35
`
`Petitioner ABB
`
`

`

`’236 Claims 5-6; ’557 Claims 26, 29, 30, 46-59
`“function pointer table” inherent in C++ implementation
`
`282 Pet. Ex. 1027, RGB Contentions, Claim 5, p. 40.
`286 Pet. Ex. 1049, Claim 29, p. 57, Ex. 1050 RGB Contention, Claim 46, p. 44
`
`Brockschmidt, 29 (‘282 Pet. 26, 57, ‘286 Pet. 29, 57)
`
`36
`
`Petitioner ABB
`
`

`

`’236 Claims 5-6: emulating extended functions
`
`• DDAG teaches emulating functions that are
`not natively supported by a driver with
`other functions.
`
`• Stewart teaches that PBOs can be
`implemented in C++, thus the accused
`“function pointer tables” are present, when
`DDAG’s emulation is combined with Stewart
`
`37
`
`Petitioner ABB
`
`

`

`’236 Claim 7
`
`• ’286 Decision at 8-10
`• DDAG/HP86 teaches unit conversion and
`mapping in absolute coordinates (even
`when Relative movement commands are
`used).
`– Undisputed
`• Motivation to combine with HP86
`– Undisputed
`
`38
`
`Petitioner ABB
`
`

`

`557 Patent, Claims 26 and 56
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Claim 26 (depends on claims 16 and 23)
`Claim 56 (depends on claims 46 and 53)
`• Gertz teaches outputting “control commands” to a device, whether is it as
`physical device or a simulator. (Gertz, § 1.3, Fig. 1). (282 Pet. 34-35)
`• Architect teaches the concept of saving control commands to a file. (282 Pet.
`29, 35; 286 Pet. 29, 35, 57).
`• Modification of the CMU systems to save control commands in a file would
`have been the simple application of a known technique with predictable
`results. (Id.)
`Stewart : mapped against the device driver element of claims 16/46
`– “UNIX-based RTOS support a device driver concept, where all devices are treated as
`files, and the generic C interface routines open(), read(), write(), close(), and ioctl() are
`used to access all functions of the device.” (Stewart, § 7.1).
`– “We have designed reconfigurable I/O device drivers (abbreviated IOD) for
`multiprocessor reconfigurable systems, in which a device driver can execute on any RTPU
`on the system, based on the needs of the application. Instead of being initialized at bootup
`time, a device driver is initialized only when a task requires its use, and on the processor
`which owns the task.” (Stewart, § 7.2).
`
`•
`
`39
`
`Petitioner ABB
`
`

`

`Motivation to Combine Gertz/Stewart/Morrow
`
`• KSR: The references themselves present the motivation
`to combine.
`• Gertz / Stewart / Morrow are the product of a research
`team working under Dr. Pradeep Khosla at CMU’s
`Advanced Manipulators Lab. (Pet. 44; Gertz, 22-23;
`Stewart 13-14; Morrow 1).
`Intended to reduce application development and
`maintenance costs for robotic manipulators (motion
`control systems).
`• Solution: Multi-layer middleware implementation
`separating application development from MCD driver
`interfaces
`
`•
`
`Pet. 44
`
`40
`
`Petitioner ABB
`
`

`

`Motivation to Combine Gertz/Stewart/Morrow
`
`• Dr. Stewart does not articulate legal basis
`– Opinion suggests that “physical combination” was
`required, but he lacks motion control expertise.
`• (Ex. 1032, ¶ 15; 1104 at 6:6-10; 84:5-85:1)
`
`– Left CMU in May 1994, thus, never saw Sandia
`demo of Onika/Chimera or Morrow’s Thesis work.
`
`– Facts refute Dr. Stewart: Dr. Voyles (disinterested
`witness) suggested that Morrow use
`Onika/Chimera at CMU.
`
`Reply 14.
`
`41
`
`Petitioner ABB
`
`

`

`Motivation to Combine Brockschmidt
`
`• Onika/Chimera framework
`naturally implemented in
`C++
`– “When using an object-
`oriented programming
`language such as C++ for
`implementation, the init
`component is the constructor
`method of the object.” Stewart
`48
`
`– Gertz at 142
`
`282 Pet. Ex. 1027, RGB Contentions, Claim 5, p. 40.
`286 Pet. Ex. 1049, Claim 29, p. 57, Ex. 1050 RGB Contention, Claim 46, p. 44
`
`42
`
`Petitioner ABB
`
`

`

`Motivation to Combine Architect
`
`• Gertz teaches writing control commands to a variety of MCDs as
`well as a simulator. (Gertz, § 1.3, § 4.5.3, § 6.3.2)
`
`• Architect teaches the concept of storing control commands in a
`file for later use. (Architect 14)
`
`•
`
`In Unix (the operating system used by Gertz/Stewart) , device
`drivers treat all devices as files. Modifying Gertz/Stewart to write
`control command is therefore trivial.
`“We have designed reconfigurable I/O device drivers (abbreviated IOD) for multiprocessor
`reconfigurable systems, in which a device driver can execute on any RTPU on the system, based on the
`needs of the application. Instead of being initialized at bootup time, a device driver is initialized only
`when a task requires its use, and on the processor which owns the task.” (Stewart, § 7.2).
`
`–
`
`–
`
`“UNIX-based RTOS support a device driver concept, where all devices are treated as files, and the
`generic C interface routines open(), read(), write(), close(), and ioctl() are used to access all functions of
`the device.” (Stewart, § 7.1).
`
`074 Pet 29-30, 41, 42, 49, 54
`286 Pet. 29.
`
`43
`
`Petitioner ABB
`
`

`

`Dr. Stewart’s Analysis Debunked
`
`• Reply at 8-11.
`• Didn’t read highly relevant sections of the cited
`art. (Ex. 1104 at 14:1-15:11; 16:6-17:5; Gertz
`at 52).
`– Asserts opinions based on his assertion how
`Onika/Chimera allegedly worked, rather than the
`express teaching of the references
`• Legal standards considered: Unknown.
`– Ex. 1104 at 17:20-20:23
`• Claim Construction Used: Primarily JCCS, not
`BRI. (PO Resp. at 19; Ex. 2011, ¶ 43)
`
`44
`
`Petitioner ABB
`
`

`

`Drs. Voyles / Papanikolopolous
`
`• Respected experts in motion control
`
`• Each founded a robotics company
`
`• Factually refute Stewart’s credibility (Reply 11)
`– Stewart lacks motion control expertise
`• (Ex. 1032, ¶ 15; 1104 at 6:6-10; 84:5-85:1)
`
`– Stewart not academically rigorous
`• Papanikolopolous tried to help Stewart at UMD
`
`• Stewart still failed to publish sound academic papers
`
`45
`
`Petitioner ABB
`
`