blacr@foster.com
`
`Registration No.: 40514
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________________
`
`ABB, INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ROY-G-BIV CORPORATION
`
`Patent Owner
`
`_____________________________
`
`Trial No.: IPR2013-0062 (Pursuant to Joinder with IPR2013-00282)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,516,236B1
`
`MOTION CONTROL SYSTEMS
`
`_____________________________
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION UNDER 37 CFR § 42.53
`
`BY DAVID B. STEWART, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`Registration No.: 40514
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________________
`
`ABB, INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ROY-G-BIV CORPORATION
`
`Patent Owner
`
`_____________________________
`
`Trial No.: IPR2013-0062 (Pursuant to Joinder with IPR2013-00282)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,516,236B1
`
`MOTION CONTROL SYSTEMS
`
`_____________________________
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION UNDER 37 CFR § 42.53
`
`BY DAVID B. STEWART, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`Introduction......................................................................................................1
`
`II. DDAG and Brockschmidt Do Not Teach the Limitations of Claims 5-
`6 .......................................................................................................................2
`
`III. A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Would Not Have Combined
`Brockschmidt with Gertz as Alleged...............................................................4
`
`IV. A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Would Not Have Combined
`DDAG with Gertz as Alleged..........................................................................6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`1. My name is David Bernard Stewart. I have personal knowledge of the
`
`facts contained in this Declaration, am of legal age, and am otherwise competent to
`
`testify. I have been retained as an expert by Roy-G-Biv Corporation (“Patent
`
`Owner”) in connection with Inter Partes Review IPR2013-00282 (hereafter “IPR”)
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,516,236B1 (hereafter the “Patent” or “the ’236 Patent”).
`
`2. Because this IPR2013-00282 has been joined with IPR2013-00062,
`
`this Supplemental Declaration incorporates by reference my previous Declaration
`
`dated July 18, 2013 filed in IPR2013-00062 as Exhibit 2010, and further
`
`supplements that declaration with respect to two of the new references relied upon
`
`in IPR2013-00282.
`
`3.
`
`In connection with my analysis, I have also reviewed: (a) Device
`
`Driver Adaptation Guide / Microsoft® Windows® Version 3.1 (“The DDAG
`
`Reference” or “DDAG”); and (b) Kraig Brockschmidt, Inside OLE 2 (“The
`
`Brockschmidt Reference” or “Brockschmidt”).
`
`4.
`
`I have also reviewed the Petition filed in IPR2013-00282 (“Petition”).
`
`The Petition relies upon the Gertz Reference, the Stewart Reference, the Morrow
`
`Reference, the DDAG Reference, and the Brockschmidt Reference with respect to
`
`Claims 5 and 6. This Supplemental Declaration will address the DDAG and
`
`1
`
`
`
`Brockschmidt References only, and the combination of those references with
`
`Gertz. For discussion of the Gertz, Stewart, and Morrow References, please see
`
`the copy of my declaration previously filed July 18, 2013 as Exhibit 2010.
`
`II. DDAG and Brockschmidt Do Not Teach the Limitations of Claims 5-6
`5. Claim 5 recites, inter alia, “an extended function pointer table that
`
`maps the non-supported extended driver functions to the combination of core
`
`driver functions employed to emulate the non-supported extended functions”; and
`
`(2) “the motion control component generates the control commands further based
`
`on the contents of the extended function pointer table.” ‘236 Patent at Exhibit 1001
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`6. The Petition relies upon
`
`the combination of
`
`the DDAG and
`
`Brockschmidt References as allegedly teaching a function pointer table that maps
`
`the non-supported extended driver functions to the combination of core driver
`
`functions employed to emulate the non-supported extended functions, as claimed.
`
`This is incorrect and the Petition does not identify any evidence that these
`
`references teach the specific function pointer table recited in Claim 5. Indeed, the
`
`Petition does not even assert that either the DDAG or Brockschmidt References
`
`teach “non-supported extended driver functions,” or a “combination of core driver
`
`functions” or “non-supported extended functions” anywhere in the References.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Thus, the function pointer table in Brockschmidt, even if modified with the alleged
`
`disclosure in DDAG, cannot possibly “map” these functions (which are not taught
`
`in either reference) to one another.
`
`7. Moreover, the emphasized claim language above from Claim 5 recites
`
`features of the claimed function pointer table that provide functionality in the
`
`overall claimed system that is not accomplished by anything disclosed or suggested
`
`in either DDAG or Brockschmidt.
`
`8.
`
`In particular, Claim 5 does not merely add a limitation reciting a
`
`function pointer table generally. Rather, it recites a function pointer table that
`
`performs a specific kind of emulation as recited in the claim. The claim recites a
`
`specific mapping that the function pointer table performs. The Petition does not
`
`provide any plausible argument that DDAG or Brockschmidt teach such a function
`
`pointer table; instead, the Petition simply ignores the claimed attributes of the
`
`function pointer table.
`
`9. Claim 5 also recites that “the motion control component generates the
`
`control commands further based on the contents of the extended function pointer
`
`table.” The Petition does not allege that the DDAG or Brockschmidt References
`
`teach a motion control component, much less that the generation of control
`
`3
`
`
`
`commands is based upon the function pointer table in the DDAG or Brockschmidt
`
`References.
`
`10. Claim 6 recites “pointers for the non-supported extended driver
`
`functions point to the combination of core driver functions that emulate the non-
`
`supported extended functions.” The Petition identifies no teaching in the DDAG
`
`or Brockschmidt References, or for that matter in the Gertz, Stewart or Morrow
`
`References, that core driver functions may be combined in order to emulate the
`
`non-supported extended functions. Accordingly, even if one assumed improperly
`
`that the pointers in the function table in the DDAG or Brockschmidt References
`
`corresponded to “non-supported extended driver functions,” nothing suggests that
`
`those pointers would “point to the combination of core driver functions that
`
`emulate the non-supported extended functions.”
`
`III. A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Would Not Have Combined
`Brockschmidt with Gertz as Alleged
`11. The Brockschmidt Reference discloses a function pointer table used in
`
`an object-oriented design, and more specifically the component object model of
`
`OLE2 within a Windows-based operating system.
`
`12. The Brockschmidt Reference provides no guidance for using function
`
`pointers in the context of core driver functions and extended driver functions as
`
`4
`
`
`
`recited in Claim 5 of the ‘236 Patent. This is not surprising given that OLE2 did
`
`not have any concept of distinguishing between core versus extended functions.
`
`OLE2 instead used function pointers as the basis for implementing interface
`
`members.
`
`13. As stated in Chapter 3 of the Brockschmidt Reference on page 61, “as
`
`shown in Figure 3.2, an interface is a group of semantically-related functions that
`
`are publicly accessible to the user of a Windows Object. An object’s interface can
`
`really be viewed as only the function table part of an object in memory.”
`
`14. To a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) prior to the ‘236
`
`Patent, it would have been unclear how an interface for a Windows Object would
`
`even relate to the concept of using a function pointer table to “map the non-
`
`supported extended driver functions to the combination of core driver functions
`
`employed to emulate the non-supported extended functions” and to “the motion
`
`control component generates the control commands further based on the contents
`
`of the extended function pointer table” as stated in Claims 5 and 6 of the ‘236
`
`Patent.
`
`15. Furthermore, because Gertz does not teach functions like those recited
`
`in Claims 5 and 6 of the ‘236 Patent, there is no logical method of combining
`
`5
`
`
`
`Gertz, whose output is strictly based on defining configuration files, with an object
`
`model like the Brockschmidt Reference that is based on defining code and
`
`functions. As a result, there is no obvious way to combine Brockschmidt’s use of
`
`function pointer tables with the teachings of Gertz.
`
`IV. A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Would Not Have Combined
`DDAG with Gertz as Alleged
`16. DDAG relates to a Windows-based graphics device interface called
`
`GDI.
`
`17. DDAG discloses the use of callback functions to provide support for
`
`integrating multiple displays into a generalized graphics display interface (GDI)
`
`application.
`
`18. Furthermore, DDAG pre-defines the callback function names, with
`
`names such as InkReady and Keyboard-Event and has no concept of core versus
`
`extended functions as claimed in the ‘236 Patent, and thus it also does not teach the
`
`use of functions in the context of those concepts.
`
`19. Since Gertz does not teach the claimed functions, there is no logical
`
`method of combining Gertz—whose output is strictly based on defining
`
`configuration files—with a windows device driver model (DDAG) that is function-
`
`based.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`20. I further declare that all statements made herein of my own knowledge
`
`are true and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be
`
`true, and further that these statements were made with the knowledge that willful
`
`false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or
`
`both, under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code, and that such
`
`willful false statements may jeopardize the validity of the application or any patent
`
`issued thereon.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Executed this 30th day of August, 2013 at Carnation, Washington.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_______________________________
`David B. Stewart, Ph.D.
`
`7
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
