Exhibit
`
`2003
`
`
`
`

`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COJ\11\·IERCE
`United States Patent and Trndemnrk Ornrc
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 223 13·1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`FILING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`A TIORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`CONFIRMATION NO.
`
`95/000,398
`
`09/23/2008
`
`6513058
`
`RGRX-6-1007
`
`3059
`
`01/26/2011
`7590
`25315
`BLACK LOWE & GRAHAM, PLLC
`701 FIFTH AVENUE
`SUITE 4800
`SEATTLE, W A 98104
`
`EXAMINER
`
`KISS, ERIC B
`
`ART UNIT
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`3992
`
`MAIL DATE
`
`01/26/2011
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`PAPER
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`DO NOT USE IN PALM PRINTER
`
`THIRD PARTY REQUESTER'S CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS
`PATRICK W. RASCHE
`ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP
`ONE METROPOLITAN SQUARE, SUITE 2600
`ST. LOUIS, MO 63102-2740
`
`Commissioner for Putents
`United States Pate.nts and Trademark Omce
`P.O.Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`Date:
`Lv'J~uik~fQ>
`
`Transmittal of Communication to Third Party Requester
`Inter Partes Reexamination
`REEXAMINATION CONTROL NO. : 95000398
`PATENT NO.: 6513058
`TECHNOLOGY CENTER : 3999
`ART UNIT: 3992
`
`Enclosed is a copy of the latest communication from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office in the above identified Reexamination proceeding. 37 CFR 1.903.
`
`Prior to the filing of a Notice of Appeal, each time the patent owner responds to this
`communication, the third party requester of the inter partes reexamination may once file
`written comments within a period of 30 days from the date of service of the patent owner's
`response. This 30-day time period is statutory (35 U.S.C. 314(b)(2)), and, as such, it cannot
`be extended. See also 37 CFR 1.947.
`
`If an ex parte reexamination has been merged with the inter partes reexamination, no
`responsive submission by any ex parte third party requester is permitted.
`
`All correspondence relating to this inter partes reexamination proceeding should be directed
`to the Central Reexamination Unit at the mail, FAX, or hand-carry addresses given at the end
`of the communication enclosed with this transmittal.
`
`PTO.L-2070(Rev.07-04)
`
`

`
`Right of Appeal Notice
`(37 CFR 1.953)
`
`Control No.
`
`95/000,398
`Examiner
`
`Patent Under Reexamination
`
`6513058
`Art Unit
`
`3992
`ERIC B. KISS
`-- The MAILING DATE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address. --
`
`Responsive to the communication(s) filed by:
`Patent Owner on 12 October 2010
`Third Party(ies) on __
`
`Patent owner and/or third party requester(s) may file a notice of appeal with respect to any adverse decision
`with payment of the fee set forth in 37 CFR 41.20(b)(1) within one-month or thirty-days (whichever is
`longer). See MPEP 2671. In addition, a party may file a notice of cross appeal and pay the 37 CFR
`41.20(b)(1) fee within fourteen days of service of an opposing party's timely filed notice of appeal. See
`MPEP 2672.
`
`All correspondence relating to this inter partes reexamination proceeding should be directed to the Central
`Reexamination Unit at the mail, FAX, or hand-carry addresses given at the end of this Office action.
`
`If no party timely files a notice of appeal, prosecution on the merits of this reexamination proceeding will be
`concluded, and the Director of the USPTO will proceed to issue and publish a certificate under 37 CFR 1.997 in
`accordance with this Office action.
`
`The proposed amendment filed __
`
`D will be entered
`
`D will not be entered*
`
`*Reasons for non-entry are given in the body of this notice.
`
`1 a. [8J Claims 1-5 are subject to reexamination.
`1 b. D Claims __ are not subject to reexamination.
`2. D Claims __ have been cancelled.
`[8J Claims 1-5 are confirmed. [Unamended patent claims].
`3.
`4. D Claims __ are patentable. [Amended or new claims].
`5. D Claims __ are rejected.
`6. D Claims __ are objected to.
`7. D The drawings filed on __ Dare acceptable. Dare not acceptable.
`8. D The drawing correction request filed on
`is D approved. D disapproved.
`9. D Acknowledgment is made of the claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-( d) or (f). The certified copy
`has:
`D been received.
`D been filed in Application/Control No. __ .
`10. D Other __
`
`D not been received.
`
`Attachments
`1. D Notice of References Cited by Examiner, PT0-892
`[8J Information Disclosure Citation, PTO/SB/08
`2.
`3. o __
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-2066 (08-06)
`
`Right of Appeal Notice (37 CFR 1.953)
`
`Part of Paper No. 20110124
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 95/000,398
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 2
`
`RIGHT OF APPEAL NOTICE
`
`An Action Closing Prosecution (ACP), rejecting claims 1-5 of U.S. Pat. 6,513,058, was
`
`mailed September 22,2010. The patent owner filed written comments on October 12,2010. No
`
`comments from the third party requester have been received.
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 95/000,398
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 3
`
`I.
`
`INFORMATION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
`
`Regarding IDS submissions, MPEP 2656 recites the following: "Where patents,
`
`publications, and other such items of information are submitted by a party (patent owner or
`
`requester) in compliance with the requirements of the rules, the requisite degree of consideration
`
`to be given to such information will be nonnally limited by the degree to which the party filing
`
`the information citation has explained the content and relevance of the information."
`
`The initials of the examiner placed adjacent to the citations on the PT0-1449 or
`
`PTO/SB/08A and 08B or its equivalent mean that the information has been considered by the ·
`
`examiner to the extent noted above.
`
`The IDSs filed October 6 and November 10,2010, and January 18,2011, have been
`
`given due consideration. However, that which are not either prior art patents or prior art printed
`
`publications have been crossed out so as not to appear reprinted on the reexamination certificate.
`
`Additionally, no copy has been received ofthe Popovic reference (721 pages) cited in the
`
`October 6, 2010, IDS.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ACTION CLOSING PROSECUTION
`
`In the Action Closing Prosecution (ACP), the examiner withdrew the following
`
`previously-adopted rejections:
`
`Claims
`1-5
`1-5
`1-5
`1-5
`1-5
`
`Statutory Basis
`35 u.s.c. § 103
`35 u.s.c. § 102
`§ 102
`§ 102
`§ 103
`
`Prior Art
`Ability 1 and Ability 2
`SOSAS
`King
`Petzold
`Windows NT
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 95/000,398
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 4
`
`The examiner maintained the rejection of claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
`
`anticipated by Sorensen. (ACP at 12-18 and 24.)
`
`III.
`
`SCOPE OF RECONSIDERATION
`
`A.
`
`Arguments and Evidence Considered
`
`In addition to the arguments and evidence considered in the ACP, (see ACP at 7), the
`
`examiner has considered the patent owners comments in response to the ACP, filed October 12,
`
`2010, and has reweighed the evidence in view of the newly presented comments. To the extent
`
`that the patent owner's comments cite the declarations of Richard A. Mathias, Richard J. Malina,
`
`and No sa Omoigui, only the redacted versions of these declarations, filed February 19, 2010,
`
`have been considered.
`
`B.
`
`Arguments and Evidence Not Considered
`
`The arguments and evidence indicated as "not considered" in the ACP, (see ACP at 7-8),
`
`have not been considered in this action. Likewise, as indicated in the ACP, (see id. at 8), the
`
`patent owner's characterization of the conclusions reached in a different reexamination
`
`proceeding have not been considered.
`
`IV.
`
`RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
`
`A.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`During reexamination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
`
`with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. In re
`
`Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). It would be error to apply the same mode of claim
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 95/000,398
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 5
`
`interpretation that is used by courts in litigation. In reAm. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d
`
`1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In reexamination, the PTO is not bound by a Markman Order
`
`issued in an earlier litigation to which the PTO was not a party. In re Texas Holdings Corp., 498
`
`F.3d 1290, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (holding that issue preclusion did not apply, even when the
`
`District Court issued an order of dismissal with prejudice following a pre-trial settlement
`
`between the parties).
`
`The patent owner's claim construction arguments, (Comments after ACP at 4-8), have
`
`been considered and are persuasive. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with
`
`the specification, the examiner interprets "component function", "component code", "driver
`
`function", and "driver code" as follows:
`
`"component functions"
`
`Hardware independent functions that correspond to operations performed on or by
`
`a motion control device and are associated with at least some of the driver
`
`functions.
`
`"component code"
`
`Code that associates component functions with driver functions
`
`"driver functions"
`
`Hardware independent functions that are associated with motion control
`
`operations
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 95/000,398
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`"driver code"
`
`Page 6
`
`Hardware dependent code that dictates how to generate control commands for
`
`controlling the motion control device associated therewith to perform the motion
`
`control operations associated with at least some of the driver functions.
`
`B.
`
`Claims 1-5 in view of Sorensen
`
`Upon consideration of the patent owner's arguments, the examiner agrees that there are
`
`significant technical differences between the claimed invention and the system disclosed by
`
`Sorensen. Specifically, the examiner agrees with the patent owner's arguments in subsections i
`
`through vii on pages 16-23 of the Comments after ACP, finding that Sorensen fails to disclose
`
`the "component functions", "component code", "driver functions", and "driver code", arranged
`
`as in each of claims 1-5 of the '058 patent.
`
`The rejection of claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Sorensen is
`
`withdrawn.
`
`V.
`
`CONFIRMED CLAIMS
`
`All of the previously-adopted rejections have now been withdrawn. Claims 1-5 are
`
`confirmed for the reasons stated above.
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 95/000,398
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 7
`
`VI.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`This is a RIGHT OF APPEAL NOTICE (RAN); see MPEP § 2673.02 and§ 2674. The
`
`decision in this Office action as to the patentability or unpatentability of any original patent
`
`claim, any proposed amended claim and any new claim in this proceeding is a FINAL
`
`DECISION.
`
`No amendment can be made in response to the Right of Appeal Notice in an inter partes
`
`reexamination. 37 CFR 1.953(c). Further, no affidavit or other evidence can be submitted in an
`
`inter partes reexamination proceeding after the right of appeal notice, except as provided in 3 7
`
`CFR 1.981 or as permitted by 37 CFR 41.77(b)(l). 37 CFR 1.116([).
`
`Each party has a thirty-day or one-month time period, whichever is longer, to file a
`
`notice of appeal. The patent owner may appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences
`
`with respect to any decision adverse to the patentability of any original or proposed amended or
`
`new claim of the patent by filing a notice of appeal and paying the fee set forth in 3 7 CFR
`
`41.20(b)(l). The third party requester may appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and
`
`Interferences with respect to any decision favorable to the patentability of any original or
`
`proposed amended or new claim of the patent by filing a notice of appeal and paying the fee set
`
`forth in 3 7 CFR 41.20(b )( 1 ).
`
`In addition, a patent owner who has not filed a notice of appeal may file a notice of cross
`
`appeal within fourteen days of service of a third party requester's timely filed notice of appeal
`
`and pay the fee set forth in 3 7 CFR 41.20(b )( 1 ). A third party requester who has not filed a
`
`notice of appeal may file a notice of cross appeal within fourteen days of service of a patent
`
`owner's timely filed notice of appeal and pay the fee set forth in 3 7 CFR 41.20(b )( 1 ).
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 95/000,398
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 8
`
`Any appeal in this proceeding must identify the claim(s) appealed, and must be signed by
`
`the patent owner (for a patent owner appeal) or the third party requester (for a third party
`
`requester appeal), or their duly authorized attorney or agent.
`
`Any party that does not file a timely notice of appeal or a timely notice of cross appeal
`
`will lose the right to appeal from any decision adverse to that party, but will not lose the right to
`
`file a respondent brief and fee where it is appropriate for that party to do so. If no party files a
`
`timely appeal, the reexamination prosecution will be terminated, and the Director will proceed to
`
`issue and publish a certificate under 37 CFR 1.997 in accordance with this Office action.
`
`All correspondence relating to this inter partes reexamination proceeding should be
`
`directed:
`
`By Mail to: Mail Stop Inte'r Partes Reexam
`Attn: Central Reexamination Unit
`Commissioner of Patents
`United States Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`By FAX to:
`
`(571) 273-9900
`Central Reexamination Unit
`
`By hand:
`
`Customer Service Window
`Randolph Building
`401 Dulany St.
`Alexandria, VA 22314
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`examiner, or as to the status of this proceeding, should be directed to the Central Reexamination
`Unit at telephone number (571) 272-7705.
`
`/Eric B. Kiss/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
`
`Conferees:
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`CENTRAL REEXAMINATION UNIT
`
`Reexamination Control No.:
`
`95/000,398
`
`Attorney Docket No. RGRX-6-1 007
`
`Filing Date: September 23, 2008
`
`Group Ali Unit:
`
`3992
`
`Patent in Reexamination: 6,513,058
`
`Examiner:
`
`Eric B. Kiss
`
`Mail Stop Inter Partes ReExam
`CENTRAL REEXAMINATION UNIT
`Office of Patent Legal Administration
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`PATENT OWNER'S COMMENTS IN RESPONSE TO THE ACTION CLOSING PROSECUTION
`
`Commissioner for Patents:
`
`This paper is responsive to the Action Closing Prosecution mailed September 22,2010.
`
`On October 4t\ 2010, in related co-pending Ex Parte ReExamination Control No. 90/009,282
`Examiner Eric Kiss correctly concluded that the sole remaining reference Sorenson lacked at
`least the claimed "component functions," "driver functions" and "software drivers." Each of
`those same limitations are claimed here. While the claims of this 95/000,398 patent are patentably
`distinct from those of90/009,282, these claims do share substantial common specification and several
`common claim elements which are absent from all references cited against both. Therefore for all the
`same reasons identified by the Examiner in 90/009,282, all remaining rejections in this case
`should also be withdrawn, and a Notice of Intent to Issue a Re-Examination Certificate should
`also issue here.
`
`For completeness of this record and specific application to these claims, the arguments
`supporting the Examiner's conclusion are repeated below.
`
`25315
`
`CUSTOMER NUMBER
`
`BL!\C:J< LO\XiJ: & CR:\llr\,\1
`~
`
`:'ill l'ilth Avcl1llc'. S11:1c· iKIJO
`:-;..._'.!ltl<.:, \\.'<l'>hiii~\~)Jl (}:-;]() ... !
`.'06 .. \81 . .\5011 • J1: 2.()(dRI .. \)ill
`
`

`
`I. ARGUMENT
`
`6,513,058 ("058") relates to a specific discipline within industrial automation known as "motion
`control." Within "motion control", the '058 relates to motion control software, and more particularly,
`to facilitating the creation of hardware-independent motion control software, specifically by means of
`a universal interface or "middleware" software platfonn. This universal "middleware" software
`interface or platform simultaneously enables both: (a) application programmers to write generic
`motion control software applications without needing to know even the identity of the machine tool
`that will execute the program; and (b) machine tool manufacturers' ability to create machines capable
`of executing motion control operations based on software applications that were programmed for
`other machines, or software applications that do not yet even exist. This dual capability of the '058
`middleware software platfom1 is nowhere taught in the prior art and is essential in an industry where
`hardware innovations advance at a dramatically different rate than do software innovations. 1
`
`Motion control often involves software-driven fine motor control over motorized mechanical devices.
`These devices typically include motors, drives, and/or other moving assemblies. Representative
`applications include factory robots that paint automobiles on an assembly line; precision cutting and
`bending equipment that forms aerospace components; and robotically controlled lasers that cut tissue
`in microscopic surgical procedures. There are numerous "motion control operations" used to operate
`motion control devices, including those that result in the acquisition of information from a motion
`control device. For example, one motion control operation is determining the cunent position of a
`motor. (6:60-63 ("GET POSITION"), col. 16:3 ("querying the system for the cunent position.")).
`Based on control commands issued by the software system, a motion "controller"2 collects real time
`information relating to a mechanical device (e.g., the position of a motor) and returns this infom1ation
`to the software system. This is an example of a "read" operation. The controller also receives from the
`software system "control commands" dictating the motion control device's future activities (e.g.,
`instructing a pmiicular motor to move). ('058 patent, col. 6:60-67 (e.g., "MOVE RELATIVE" and
`"CONTOUR MOVE"), col. 16:2 ("moving to a specific location")). This is an exmnple of a "write"
`operation.
`
`One fundamental desire of motion control industry customers has been interoperability among
`different motion control devices because such interoperability would offer centralized monitoring and
`control over an entire factory operation through a single software system. For example, an automobile
`manufacturing plant would prefer to use a single software application program to integrate seamlessly
`and control a variety of motion control devices made by different manufacturers. But, in practice, this
`
`1 The installed base of application programs may be as valuable as the hardware used to implement these programs.
`Thus, it is desirable not to have to change the installed base of application programs when hardware is changed, regardless
`of innovations in hardware and software tools. Mathias~~ 47-49.
`2 '058, l :25-28 ("The basic components of a motion control device are a controller and a mechanical system. The
`mechanical system translates signals generated by the controller into movement of an object.")
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`
`j
`
`goal has been elusive. Mechanical devices typically use
`different controllers
`that understand only
`their own
`hardware-specific
`or
`vendor-specific
`commands.
`Specifically, each hardware controller understands and can
`communicate with only
`the control commands
`that
`correspond to the basic "read" and "write" functions that it
`perfonns, such as "reading" a current motor position or
`"writing" a desired target motor position. Because motion
`controllers do not share a uniform computer "language" or
`set of computer-generated control commands, hist01ically software system application programs have
`been tailored to particular controllers on a factory floor, requiring different application programs for
`different motion control devices. (See the schematic on the right).
`
`l\.fntion
`Cun1.tu~
`D•:rlc~ .n
`
`Jl.'lotion
`C{lnlru~
`Durin~ #2
`
`)..o!n rion
`Cuntrol
`De,·in.• N.)
`
`To solve these and other problems, the motion control industry attempted to develop standards and
`uniform codes requiring all hardware controllers to use the same computer language and control
`commands. The inventors of the '058-Dave Brown and Jay Clark--correctly recognized that a
`unifom1 standard was unlikely to be adopted by the industry. They solved the problem in a very
`different way.
`
`A. The '058 Invention
`
`Over 15 years ago3
`, Brown and Clark conceived of an alternative approach that allowed for
`interoperability under a single application program despite the different "languages" and control
`commands utilized by different motion controllers. Their epiphany stermned from their recognition
`that, although motion controllers use different, controller-dependent command codes, they generally
`implement many of the same, controller independent, motion
`control operations
`(i.e., GET POSITION and MOVE
`RELATIVE). The inventors conceived and developed a unique
`software architecture in which an intennediate software layer (the
`"motion control component") and a set of controller-specific
`software drivers (software modules used to translate instructions)
`work together to convert controller independent motion control
`operations
`from
`the application program
`into controller
`dependent control commands that can be understood by a
`selected motion control device. When the operator of an
`application program requests a desired motion control operation,
`
`'
`
`J C:ontrol
`
`Cn·ntTol
`Drnrit'8 ;:;:3
`
`3 Earliest Priority Date for the '058 is May 30, 1995.
`
`-2-
`
`i
`Co-ntrol
`.
`, CumJiUnt~nt I
`
`'"1
`
`1
`
`1
`
`

`
`the inventors' software system transparently converts that request into the specific commands
`appropriate for the selected motion controller. (See schematics above).
`
`In one example, shown in Figure 2 of the RGB patents, multiple discrete software layers interact with
`one another. (See drawing at right, which has been modified to clarify layering). The application layer
`("application program") offers various motion control operations through hardware independent
`"component functions" that can be "called" on the motion control component software layer having
`the component functions with component code (the intennediate software layer). The motion control
`component, in turn, associates those component functions
`with corresponding abstract driver functions in the different
`layer"). The drivers
`include
`software drivers ("driver
`hardware dependent driver code corresponding to
`the
`different driver functions for generating the appropriate
`control commands. The driver ftmctions are exposed by
`software drivers for use by the motion control component.
`Thus, once the appropriate driver for the hardware controller
`is selected, the operator can interact with the hardware
`controller by using the application software that calls
`hardware independent component functions from within the
`application progran1, without regard
`to
`the hardware-
`dependent control command codes. Brown and Clark
`rejected conventional wisdom and elegantly solved the long-
`standing problem of hardware incompatibility among motion control devices.
`
`RGB Patents, Fig. 2
`(~Iodified)
`
`.-lpplict.:"J.tion Laye''
`
`To further exploit the inherent flexibility of their software architecture, Brown and Clark sought to
`optimize the exchange of information between the application program and the selected motion
`control device. They conceived of software that offers multiple protocols for communicating
`command codes and response data. The code defining these protocols and facilitating these exchanges
`is embodied in software known as "streams." These streams include "transmit stream code" that
`specifies the protocol for transmitting control commands from the computer to the hardware
`controllers and "response stream code" that specifies the protocol for transferring response data from
`the hardware controller to the computer.
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`
`B. Broadest Reasonable Construction of "Component Functions" & "Driver Functions" -
`Distinct & Hardware Independent
`
`The Patent Owner respectfully submits that the Requester, and consequently the Examiner,
`misconstrued claim limitations in applying the cited prior mi references to the instant claims.
`Specifically the claims recite the steps of defining a core set of core driver [~unctions, where each core
`driver [~unction identifies one of the primitive operations; defining an extended set of extended driver
`functions, where each extended driver function identifies one of the non-primitive operations; and
`defining a set of component functions. As one skilled in the art understands, these limitations
`explicitly define these distinct groups of functions in two separate and distinct layers: (1) a group of
`driver functions comprising both core driver functions and extended driver functions; and (2) a group
`of component functions. '058, 7:2-4, 7:15-17. The claimed interaction between component functions
`and driver functions is implemented by two separate and distinct interfaces. These two interfaces are a
`service provider interface ("SPI") which comprises the driver functions used by the Software Drivers
`and an application programming interface ("API") comprising a set of component functions. 7:2-4,
`7:15-17, Appendix A m1d Appendix B. While the API (comprising component ft.mctions) on the one
`hand, and the SPI (comprising driver fl.mctions) on the other hand, are each unique, separate and
`distinct, they are related to one another by the component code:
`
`The overall sofiware model implemented by the software program 22 thus
`contains an API comprising component functions and an SPI comprising
`driver functions, with the API being related to the SPI by component code
`associated -vvith the component fimctions. '058 7:26-30. (emphasis added).
`
`This separation of the "component f-unctions" from "driver functions" is central to the purpose and
`fl.mction of the invention:
`
`The present invention relates to motion control systems and, more particularly, to interface
`software that facilitates the creation of hardware independent motion control software. '058
`1:18-21
`
`Given the set of motion control operations as defined above, the software system designer
`next defines a service provider interface (SPI) comprising a number of driver functions.
`'058 7:1-4
`
`-4-
`
`

`
`The software system designer next defines an application programming interface (API)
`comprising a set of component functions. '058 7:15-17
`
`Another more specific object of the present invention is to ... allow motion control drivers to
`c01rununicate with hardware in a hardware independent manner. '058 3:52, 58 -59.
`
`Using the system 22, the application program 26 is developed such that it contains no code
`that is specific to any one of the exemplary hardware controllers 16. In the nonnal case, the
`application program 26, and thus the user 24 that created the program 26, is completely
`isolated from the motion control devices 20. The user 24 thus need know nothing about the
`hardware specific command language or communication protocol associated with each of
`these devices 20; it may even be possible that the command language of one or more of the
`hardware controllers 16 was not defined at the time the application program 26 was created.
`The software system 22 comprises a combination of elements that allow the application
`program 26 to be completely isolated from the hardware controllers. '058 6:13-27
`
`Therefore, one of skill in the art reading the specification as a whole easily understands that the
`claimed "component functions" and the claimed "driver fimctions" are both: (a) hardware in(cid:173)
`dependent4; and (b) necessarily separate and distinct from each another, such that they could not be
`equated or conflated. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (The scope of the
`claims is detennined not solely on the basis of claim language, but on giving claims their broadest
`reasonable construction in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill
`in the art). To construe the claimed "component functions" and the claimed "driver functions" as
`hardware .4-ependent or, worse yet, as identical to one another, renders much of the specification non(cid:173)
`sensical or meaningless.
`
`For example, the ability to emulate unsupported driver functions without manipulating the component
`functions allows for the software system to work with any motion control device no matter its
`configuration, without rewriting the application program, the component functions, or the driver
`functions. As explained below, this distinction requires that component functions and driver functions
`be separate constructs, that both be separately located in different layers, and that both be construed as
`hardware independent.
`
`The tem1 "component function" appears nearly two-dozen times and is both explicitly and implicitly
`defined in the '058 Patent's specification. Irdeto Access, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp., 383 F.3d
`1295, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("Even when guidance is not provided in explicit definitional format, the
`specification may define claim tenns by implication such that the meaning may be found in or
`ascertained by a reading of the patent documents."). In every use of the term, the specification
`clearly distinguishes high-level hardware independent component functions from more specific,
`hardware-dependent software drivers. E.g. '058 at 7:51-52; see also Bell At!. Network Servs., Inc. v.
`
`4 Or more precisely, controller-independent.
`
`- 5-
`
`

`
`Covad Commc'ns Group, 262 F.3d 1258, 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ("when a patentee uses a claim term
`throughout the entire patent specification, in a manner consistent with only a single meaning, he
`has defined that tenn 'by implication"' (emphasis added)).
`
`A "component function" must be interpreted to mean a hardware independent instruction that
`corresponds to an operation perfonned on or by a motion control device. Such a definition finds
`unanimous support in the specification, and, in light of any reading of the specification, no broader
`meaning is possible. }lystrom v. TREX Co., Inc., 424 F.3d 1136, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (It is improper
`to read the tem1 to encompass a broader definition than taught by the specification simply because it
`may be found in a dictionary, treatise, or other extrinsic source). That a component function cannot be
`anything but hardware independent is clear throughout the specification. For example:
`
`The overall software model implemented by the so.fiware program 22 thus contains an API
`comprising component fimctions and an SP I comprising driver.fimctions, ... '058 7:26-28
`
`The software system 22 comprises a c01nbination of elements that allow the application program
`26 to be completely isolated .from the hardware controllers I 6.
`'058 6:25-27
`
`The Requester and Examiner fail to provide a workable, altemative definition of the term "component
`f-unction" and in fact do not provide any consistent construction of that term at all. In one of the
`specification's first uses of the term, "component function" is described as being separate and apart
`from the driver functions, "the software program 22 thus contains an API comprising component
`functions and an SPI comprising driver functions, with the API being related to the SPI by component
`code associated with the component functions." 7:26-30, emphasis added. Later the high-level
`application program is said to comprise "a sequence of component functions arranged to define the
`motion control operations necessary to control a motion control device to move an object in a desired
`manner." Jd at 7:54-58. Thus, component fLmctions are high-level instructions that for example,
`describe the path along which the object ultimately moves. The specification makes it clear that
`component code is used by the "motion control component" to relate component functions to driver
`functions. Jd at 8:52-56 ("The motion control component module 35 is the portion of the software
`system 22 that relates the component functions to the driver functions."). As such, the component
`fLmctions are available on the motion control component and exposed to the application program.
`
`'058 distinguishes and disparages (in the background of the invention) the very type of system that the
`Examiner relies on as evidence of unpatentability. For example, "factory automation applications
`allow any number of I/0 devices to be used in a given system,