ATTORNEY REFERENCE NO.: 8954-89860-05
`FILED VIA PRPS ON: May 17, 2013
`
`Filed on behalf of ABB Inc.
`
`By: Richard D. Mc Leod (Reg. No. 46,921)
`rick.mcleod@klarquist.com
`Michael D. Jones (Reg. No. 41,879)
`michael.jones@klarquist.com
`Klarquist Sparkman LLP
`One World Trade Center, Suite 1600
`121 S.W. Salmon Street
`Portland, Oregon 97204
`Telephone: (503) 595-5300
`Facsimile: (503) 595-5301
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`ABB INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ROY-G-BIV CORPORATION
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`
`Patent 6,516,236 B1
`
`____________
`
`SECOND PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF CLAIMS 1-10 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,516,236 B1
`
`

`

`ATTORNEY REFERENCE NO.: 8954-89860-05
`FILED VIA PRPS ON: May 17, 2013
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 3
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND OF THE TECHNOLOGY AND PATENT ....................... 3
`
`A.
`
`Summary of the Patented System ......................................................... 3
`
`B. Middleware: Microsoft Windows & WOSA ....................................... 7
`
`C.
`
`“Motion Control Devices” (“MCDs”) .................................................. 8
`
`D.
`
`The Confluence of WOSA and “Motion Control Devices” .................. 8
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ..........................................................................10
`
`A. A System for Generating a Sequence of Control Commands .............10
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Primitive and Non-Primitive Operations ............................................11
`
`Core and Extended Driver Functions ..................................................15
`
`D. A Set of Component Functions ...........................................................15
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Component Code .................................................................................15
`
`A Set of Software Drivers and a Selected Software Driver ................15
`
`G. Application Program ...........................................................................16
`
`H. Motion Control Component ................................................................16
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`Driver Code for Implementing All of the Core Driver Functions
`and at Least Some of the Extended Driver Functions (Claims 2-6) ...16
`
`Non-Supported Extended Driver Functions and Combinations of
`Core Driver Functions (Claims 4-6) ...................................................17
`
`K.
`
`Pointer Table and Pointers (Claims 5-6) .............................................17
`
`L. Means for Determining and Converting Units (Claim 7) ...................17
`
`M.
`
`Plurality of Destinations, Plurality of Streams, and Stream Control
`Means for Communicating Control Commands (Claim 8) .................18
`
`i
`
`

`

`ATTORNEY REFERENCE NO.: 8954-89860-05
`FILED VIA PRPS ON: May 17, 2013
`
`N.
`
`Response Data, Response Stream Code (Claim 9) .............................18
`
`O.
`
`Command Format Template, Response Format Template,
`Means for Generating, Means for Parsing (Claim 10) ........................19
`
`IV. THE PRIOR ART ..........................................................................................20
`
`A.
`
`The Gertz Thesis .................................................................................20
`
`B.
`
`Stewart and Morrow ............................................................................22
`
`C. Microsoft’s WOSA/XFS Specifications .............................................23
`
`D.
`
`LabVIEW and Motion Toolbox ..........................................................24
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`DDAG and Brockschmidt ...................................................................25
`
`HP86 ....................................................................................................27
`
`G. Yared, Wright, and WinSEM ..............................................................27
`
`V. GERTZ, STEWART, MORROW, DDAG, AND
`BROCKSCHMIDT RENDER CLAIMS 5-6 OBVIOUS. ............................29
`
`A. A System for Generating a Sequence of Control Commands .............29
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Primitive and Non-Primitive Operations ............................................29
`
`Core and Extended Driver Functions ..................................................30
`
`D. A Set of Component Functions ...........................................................31
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Component Code .................................................................................31
`
`A Set of Software Drivers and a Selected Software Driver ................32
`
`G. Application Program ...........................................................................32
`
`H. Motion Control Component ................................................................33
`
`I.
`
`Driver Code for Implementing All of the Core Driver
`Functions and at Least Some of the Extended Driver Functions ........33
`
`ii
`
`

`

`ATTORNEY REFERENCE NO.: 8954-89860-05
`FILED VIA PRPS ON: May 17, 2013
`
`J.
`
`Non-Supported Extended Driver Functions
`and Combinations of Core Driver Functions ......................................34
`
`K.
`
`Pointer Table and Pointers (Claims 5-6) .............................................34
`
`VI. GERTZ, STEWART, MORROW, DDAG,
`AND HP86 RENDER CLAIM 7 OBVIOUS. ...............................................35
`
`A. Driver Unit System, Application Unit System
`and Means for Determining and Converting (Claim 7) ......................35
`
`VII. WOSA/XFS, LABVIEW, MOTION TOOLBOX, DDAG,
`AND BROCKSCHMIDT RENDER CLAIMS 1-10 OBVIOUS. ................35
`
`A. A System for Generating a Sequence of Control Commands .............36
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Primitive and Non-Primitive Operations ............................................36
`
`Core and Extended Driver Functions ..................................................38
`
`D. A Set of Component Functions ...........................................................38
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Component Code .................................................................................38
`
`A Set of Software Drivers and a Selected Software Driver ................39
`
`G. Application Program ...........................................................................39
`
`H. Motion Control Component ................................................................40
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`Driver Code for Implementing All of the Core Driver Functions
` and at Least Some of the Extended Driver Functions ........................40
`
`Non-Supported Extended Driver Functions and
`Combinations of Core Driver Functions .............................................41
`
`K.
`
`Pointer Table and Pointers (Claims 5-6) .............................................42
`
`L.
`
`M.
`
`Driver Unit System, Application Unit System and
`Means for Determining and Converting .............................................42
`
`Plurality of Destinations, Plurality of Streams, and Stream
`Control Means for Communicating Control Commands ....................43
`
`iii
`
`

`

`ATTORNEY REFERENCE NO.: 8954-89860-05
`FILED VIA PRPS ON: May 17, 2013
`
`N.
`
`Response Data, Response Stream Code ..............................................43
`
`O.
`
`Command Format Template, Response Format
`Template, Means for Generating, Means for Parsing .........................44
`
`VIII. GERTZ, YARED, DDAG, AND
`BROCKSCHMIDT RENDER OBVIOUS CLAIMS 1-10. ..........................44
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Plurality of Destinations, Plurality of Streams, and Stream
`Control Means for Communicating Control Commands (Claim 8) ...45
`
`Response Data, Response Stream Code (Claim 9) .............................46
`
`Command Format Template, Response Format
`Template, Means for Generating, Means for Parsing (Claim 10) .......46
`
`IX. WOSA/XFS, YARED, DDAG, AND
`BROCKSCHMIDT RENDER OBVIOUS CLAIMS 1-10. ..........................47
`
`X. GERTZ, WRIGHT, DDAG, AND
`BROCKSCHMIDT RENDER OBVIOUS CLAIMS 1-10. ..........................47
`
`XI. WOSA/XFS, WRIGHT, DDAG, AND
`BROCKSCHMIDT RENDER OBVIOUS CLAIMS 1-10. ..........................47
`
`XII. GERTZ, WINSEM, DDAG, AND
`BROCKSCHMIDT RENDER OBVIOUS CLAIMS 1-10. ..........................48
`
`XIII. WOSA/XFS, WINSEM, DDAG, AND
`BROCKSCHMIDT RENDER OBVIOUS CLAIMS 1-10. ..........................48
`
`XIV. WOSA/XFS, WINSEM, DDAG,
`AND HP86 RENDER CLAIM 7 OBVIOUS. ...............................................48
`
`XV. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................49
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`ATTORNEY REFERENCE NO.: 8954-89860-05
`FILED VIA PRPS ON: May 17, 2013
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`Cases
`
`In re NTP, Inc,
`654 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................11
`
`In re Yamamoto,
`740 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ............................................................................10
`
`Merck & Co., Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.,
`395 F. 3d 1364 (Fed.Cir. 2005) ............................................................................11
`
`Roy-G-Biv Corp. v. FANUC Ltd. et al.,
`Case No. 2:07-cv-00418-DF. ...............................................................................10
`
`ROY-G-BIV Corporation v. ABB, Inc. et al.,
`6:11-cv-00622-LED (ED Tex.) .............................................................................. 2
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996). .............................................................................13
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 .................................................................................... 17, 18, 19
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 et seq. ............................................................................................... 1
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 (b) .............................................................................................10
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15 ....................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`ATTORNEY REFERENCE NO.: 8954-89860-05
`FILED VIA PRPS ON: May 17, 2013
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`Ex. 1001: David W. Brown et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,516,236, Motion Control
`Systems, Issued February 4, 2003 (the “’236 Patent”).
`
`Ex. 1002:
`
`Exhibit A to U.S. Patent No. 6,516,236, as retrieved from PAIR
`(“’236 Ex. A”) (It appears additional material not originally intended
`to be a part of Exhibit A may have been incorporated into the
`document available from PAIR. ABB provides the document as
`retrieved from PAIR in full for completeness).
`
`Ex. 1003:
`
`Exhibit B to U.S. Patent No. 6,516,236, as retrieved from PAIR
`(“’236 Ex. B”).
`
`Ex. 1004: Excerpt from ’236 Patent File History (R.C.N. 95/000,396) document
`identified in IDS as Bates No. RGB00055568 -- XMC Motion Control
`Component 93-94 History (“XMC History”).
`
`Ex. 1005: Excerpt from ’236 Patent File History (R.C.N. 95/000,396) document
`identified in IDS as Bates No. RGB00051652 -- Email from
`Compumotor employee Stuart Goodnick to Applicant Dave Brown,
`September 1994 (“Goodnick Email”).
`
`Ex. 1006: Excerpt from ’236 Patent File History (R.C.N. 95/000,396) document
`identified in IDS as Bates No. RGB56075 -- Roy-G-Biv 1994
`Company Meeting, May 5, 1995 (“RGB Meeting”).
`
`Ex. 1007: Excerpt from ’236 Patent File History (R.C.N. 95/000,396) document
`identified in IDS as Bates No. RGB00052984 -- Fax to Compumotor
`employee Stuart Goodnick from Applicant Dave Brown, January
`1994 (“Goodnick Fax”).
`
`CITED PRIOR ART
`
`Ex. 1008: Gertz, M.W., A Visual Programming Environment for Real-Time
`Control Systems. Ph.D. dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University,
`Nov. 22, 1994 (“Gertz”).
`
`Ex. 1009: Microsoft Corporation, WOSA (Windows Open Services Architecture)
`Extensions for Financial Services, April 14, 1994 (“WOSA/XFS”).
`
`vi
`
`

`

`ATTORNEY REFERENCE NO.: 8954-89860-05
`FILED VIA PRPS ON: May 17, 2013
`
`Ex. 1010: Microsoft Press, MS Windows 3.1 Device Driver Adaptation Guide, ©
`1991, Chs. 1-2, 4, 10-12 (“DDAG”).
`
`Ex. 1011: Brockschmidt, Kraig, Inside OLE 2. Microsoft Press Programming
`Series, 1994 (“Brockschmidt”).
`
`Ex. 1012: Stewart, D.B., Real-Time Software Design and Analysis of
`Reconfigurable Multi-Sensor Based Systems. Ph.D. dissertation,
`Carnegie Mellon University, April 1, 1994 (“Stewart”).
`
`Ex. 1013: Morrow, J. Dan; Nelson, Bradley J.; and Khosla, Pradeep, Vision and
`Force Driven Sensorimotor Primitives for Robotic Assembly Skills.
`Institute for Software Research, paper 574, January 1, 1995
`(“Morrow”).
`
`Ex. 1014: National Instruments, LabVIEW for Windows: User Manual, August
`1993 (“LabVIEW”).
`
`Ex. 1015: Compumotor Division, Parker Hannifin Corporation, Motion Toolbox
`User Guide, March 1994 (“Motion Toolbox”).
`
`Ex. 1016: Yared, Wael I. and Sheridan, Thomas B., Plan Recognition and
`Generalization in Command Languages with Application to
`Telerobotics, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics,
`Vol. 21, No. 2, March/April 1991 (“Yared”).
`
`Ex. 1017: Michael Wright et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,453,933, CNC Control
`System, issued Sept. 26, 1995 (“Wright”).
`
`Ex. 1018: Dan Mitchell, USDATA, WinSEM: OLE Based Real-Time Device
`Interface (Proposed), March 24, 1995 (“WinSEM”).
`
`Ex. 1019: Hewlett Packard, Interface and Programming Manual, HP 7550
`Graphics Plotter, 3rd ed., 1986 (“HP86”).
`
`OTHER EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1020: U.S. Patent No. 5,691,897, Motion Control Systems, issued Nov. 25,
`1997 (“the ’897 Patent”).
`
`Ex. 1021: U.S. Patent No. 5,867,385, Motion Control Systems, issued Feb. 2,
`1999 (“the ’385 Patent”).
`
`vii
`
`

`

`ATTORNEY REFERENCE NO.: 8954-89860-05
`FILED VIA PRPS ON: May 17, 2013
`
`Ex. 1022: U.S. Prov. Appl. No. 60/067,466, Motion Control Systems and
`Methods, Dec. 4, 1997 (“’466 Application”).
`
`Ex. 1023: David W. Brown et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,513,058, Distribution of
`Motion Control Commands Over a Network, Issued January 28, 2003
`(“the ’058 Patent”).
`
`Ex. 1024: David W. Brown et al., U.S. Patent No. 8,073,557, Motion Control
`Systems, issued Dec. 6, 2011 (the “’557 Patent”).
`
`Ex. 1025: David W. Brown et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,941,543, Motion Control
`System and Method, Issued September 6, 2005 (the “’543 Patent”).
`
`Ex. 1026: Amended Infringement Contentions, ROY-G-BIV Corp., v. ABB, Inc.
`et al. (E.D.Tex., Nov. 6, 2012) (CASE NO. 6:11-CV-00622-LED)
`(“RGB AIC”).
`
`Ex. 1027: Amended Infringement Contentions, Exhibit B, ROY-G-BIV Corp., v.
`ABB, Inc. et al. (E.D.Tex., Nov. 6, 2012) (CASE NO. 6:11-CV-
`00622-LED) (“RGB AIC, Ex. B”).
`
`Ex. 1028: Plaintiff Roy-G-Biv Corporation’s Opening Markman Brief, Roy-G-
`Biv Corp., v. Fanuc Ltd., et al. (E.D.Tex., Nov. 21, 2008) (CASE NO.
`2:07-CV-0418-DF-CE) (“Fanuc RGB Markman Brief”).
`
`Ex. 1029: Claim Construction Order, Roy-G-Biv Corp., v. Fanuc Ltd., et al.
`(E.D.Tex., Aug. 25, 2009) (CASE NO. 2:07-CV-0418-DF-CE)
`(“Fanuc Markman Order”).
`
`Ex. 1030: Patent Owner Roy-G-Biv Corporation’s Preliminary Response Under
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107, IPR2013-00062 (“RGB ’062 Preliminary
`Response”).
`
`Ex. 1031: ABB’s letter brief regarding indefiniteness, ROY-G-BIV Corporation
`v. ABB, Inc. et al. (E.D. Tex., CASE NO. 6:11-CV-00622-LED)
`(“ABB Letter Brief”).
`
`Ex. 1032: RGB’s letter brief regarding indefiniteness, ROY-G-BIV Corporation
`v. ABB, Inc. et al. (E.D. Tex., CASE NO. 6:11-CV-00622-LED)
`(“RGB Letter Brief”).
`
`viii
`
`

`

`ATTORNEY REFERENCE NO.: 8954-89860-05
`FILED VIA PRPS ON: May 17, 2013
`
`Ex. 1033: Plaintiff Roy-G-Biv Corporation’s Opening Markman Brief, ROY-G-
`BIV Corporation v. ABB, Inc. et al. (E.D. Tex., CASE NO. 6:11-CV-
`00622-LED) (“RGB Markman Brief”).
`
`Ex. 1034: Hewlett Packard, Matrix/Plotter Programming, HP 9831A Desktop
`Computer, 1977 (“HP77”).
`
`Ex. 1035: Hewlett Packard, User’s Guide, HP 7550 Plus Plotter, 1990
`(“HP90”).
`
`Ex. 1036: Martin L. Stone et al., An Intelligent Plotter for High-Throughput,
`Unattended Operation, Hewlett-Packard Journal, April, 1985
`(“HP85”).
`
`Ex. 1037: John Lloyd, Mike Parker, and Rick McClain, Extending the RCCL
`Programming Environment to Multiple Robots and Processors, ©
`1988, IEEE (“Lloyd”).
`
`Ex. 1038: David J. Miller and R. Charleene Lennox, An Object-Oriented
`Environment for Robot System Architectures, presented at the 1990
`IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation,
`Cincinnati, OH, Aug. 1990 (“Miller”).
`
`Ex. 1039: David A. Simon, Lee E. Weiss, and Arthur C. Sanderson, Self-Tuning
`of Robot Program Primitives, The Robotics Institute of Carnegie
`Mellon University, © 1990, IEEE (“Simon”).
`
`Ex. 1040: Cashin, J., WOSA: Windows Open Services Architecture, January 11,
`1994 (“Cashin”).
`
`Ex. 1041: Kevin Holloway, Motion Software Heads Toward Friendlier User
`Environments, published at www.roygbiv.com/XMCreview1.htm,
`January 21, 1997 (“Holloway”).1
`
`Ex. 1042: Hall, Marty and Mayfield, James, Improving the Performance of AI
`Software: Payoffs and Pitfalls in Using Automatic Memoization.
`
`
`1 Retrieved via the Internet Archive on Dec. 27, 2011 at:
`http://web.archive.org/web/19970121074306/http://www.roygbiv.com/XMCrevie
`X1.htm.
`
`ix
`
`

`

`ATTORNEY REFERENCE NO.: 8954-89860-05
`FILED VIA PRPS ON: May 17, 2013
`
`Proceedings of Sixth International Symposium on Artificial
`Intelligence, Monterrey, Mexico, September 1993 (“Hall”).
`
`Ex. 1043:
`
`Jacob Tal, Step by Step Design of Motion Control Systems, Chapters 9
`and 10, Galil Motion Control, Inc., 1994 (“Tal”).
`
`Ex. 1044: David B. Stewart et al., The Chimera II Real-Time Operating System
`for Advanced Sensor-Based Control Applications. Institute for
`Software Research, paper 613, January 1, 1992 (“Chimera II”).
`
`Ex. 1045: U.S. Patent No. 5,881,230, Method and System for Remote
`Automation of Object Oriented Applications, issued Mar. 9, 1999
`(“Christensen”).
`
`Ex. 1046: CNET, Developers get peek at Network OLE, March 11, 1996
`(“CNET”).
`
`Ex. 1047: Decision; Institution of Inter Partes Review, IPR2013-00062 (“’062
`Decision”).
`
`Ex. 1048: Stewart, D.B., et al. Chimera Real-Time Operating System (“Stewart
`Config”)
`
`Ex. 1049: Amended Infringement Contentions, Exhibit C, ROY-G-BIV Corp., v.
`ABB, Inc. et al. (E.D.Tex., Nov. 6, 2012) (CASE NO. 6:11-CV-
`00622-LED) (“RGB AIC, Ex. C”).
`
`Ex. 1050: Amended Infringement Contentions, Exhibit D, ROY-G-BIV Corp.,
`v. ABB, Inc. et al. (E.D.Tex., Nov. 6, 2012) (CASE NO. 6:11-CV-
`00622-LED) (“RGB AIC, Ex. D”).
`
`Ex. 1051: Defendant’s Joint Claim Construction Brief, ROY-G-BIV Corp., v.
`ABB, Inc. et al. (E.D.Tex., Nov. 6, 2012) (CASE NO. 6:11-CV-
`00622-LED) (“Defs. CCB”).
`
`Ex. 1052: Order Granting Defendant’s Letter Brief re Indefiniteness, ROY-G-
`BIV Corp., v. ABB, Inc. et al. (E.D.Tex., Nov. 6, 2012) (CASE NO.
`6:11-CV-00622-LED).
`
`
`
`
`
`x
`
`

`

`ATTORNEY REFERENCE NO.: 8954-89860-05
`FILED VIA PRPS ON: May 17, 2013
`
`Fee: In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.15, 42.103, please charge the inter
`
`partes review request fee of $9,000.00 and the inter partes review post-institution
`
`fee of $14,000.00 to Deposit Account 02-4550.
`
`Identification of Challenge: Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311 et seq., Petitioner
`
`ABB Inc. (“ABB”) requests inter partes review of claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,516,236 B1 (“’236 patent”), issued to Roy-G-Biv Corporation (“RGB”), and
`
`ruling that claims 1-10 are unpatentable based on one or more of the grounds under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 below. Sections V-XIV and Appendix A provide the detailed
`
`statement of the reasons for the relief requested for each claim challenged, per 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.104(b). For each ground, the petition demonstrates at least a
`
`reasonable likelihood that at least one of the claims challenged is unpatentable:
`
`1. Gertz, Stewart, Morrow, DDAG, and Brockschmidt render claims 5-6 obvious.
`
`2. Gertz, Stewart, Morrow, DDAG, and HP86 render claim 7 obvious.
`
`3. WOSA/XFS, LabVIEW, Motion Toolbox, DDAG, and Brockschmidt render
`
`claims 1-10 obvious.
`
`4. Gertz, Yared, DDAG, and Brockschmidt render claims 1-10 obvious.
`
`5. WOSA/XFS, Yared, DDAG, and Brockschmidt render claims 1-10 obvious.
`
`6. Gertz, Wright, DDAG, and Brockschmidt render claims 1-10 obvious.
`
`7. WOSA/XFS, Wright, DDAG, and Brockschmidt render claims 1-10 obvious.
`
`8. Gertz, WinSEM, DDAG, and Brockschmidt render claims 1-10 obvious.
`
`Second Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,516,236 B1
`
`Page 1
`
`

`

`ATTORNEY REFERENCE NO.: 8954-89860-05
`FILED VIA PRPS ON: May 17, 2013
`
`9. WOSA/XFS, WinSEM, DDAG, and Brockschmidt render obvious claims 1-10.
`
`10. WOSA/XFS, WinSEM, DDAG, HP86 render claim 7 obvious.
`
`Standing: ABB certifies that this patent is available for inter partes review
`
`and that ABB is not barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review
`
`challenging the patent claims on the grounds identified in this petition. The Board
`
`instituted trial against the ’236 Patent in IPR2013-00062. This petition is
`
`accompanied by a motion for joinder with the ’062 Trial.
`
`Real-Party-in-Interest: ABB is the real-party-in-interest.
`
`Related Matters: Judicial Matters: ROY-G-BIV Corporation v. ABB, Inc. et
`
`al., 6:11-cv-00622-LED (ED Tex.). Administrative matters: On April 18, 2013,
`
`trial was instituted in IPR2013-00062 (against the ’236 Patent) and IPR2013-
`
`00074 (against U.S. Patent No. 8,073,557). A petition for review is pending
`
`against U.S. Patent No. 6,513,058 (IPR2013-00063).
`
`Lead and Backup Counsel; Service Information:
`
`Richard D. Mc Leod (Lead Counsel, PTO Reg. No. 46,921)
`rick.mcleod@klarquist.com
`Michael Jones (Backup Counsel, PTO Reg. No. 41,879)
`michael.jones@klarquist.com
`Klarquist Sparkman LLP
`One World Trade Center, Suite 1600
`121 S.W. Salmon Street
`Portland, Oregon 97204
`Telephone: (503) 595-5300
`Facsimile: (503) 595-5301
`
`
`Second Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,516,236 B1
`
`Page 2
`
`

`

`ATTORNEY REFERENCE NO.: 8954-89860-05
`FILED VIA PRPS ON: May 17, 2013
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Board instituted a trial for inter partes review of claims 1-4 and 8-10 of
`
`the ’236 patent on grounds of obviousness over Gertz, Stewart and Morrow. (’062
`
`Decision). The Board declined to institute trial on claims 5 and 6, which recite a
`
`pointer table, noting that ABB had not formally asserted the combination of Gertz,
`
`Stewart, Morrow, and a reference teaching a pointer table. (Id., fn. 1).
`
`Accordingly, ABB formally presents this combination, as well as additional art
`
`teaching the limitations of claim 7 and primitive operations, a focal point of RGB’s
`
`preliminary response in the ’062 Trial.2
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND OF THE TECHNOLOGY AND PATENT
`
`The technology relates to the concepts of “device independence” and
`
`“motion control.” First, the ’236 specification is summarized. Then, these
`
`concepts are explained in the context of the common knowledge prior to the
`
`applicants’ alleged invention.
`
`A.
`
`Summary of the Patented System3
`
`The ’236 Patent, titled “MOTION CONTROL SYSTEMS,” issued from
`
`U.S. Appl. No. 10/021,669, filed Dec. 10, 2001, and alleges priority from several
`
`
`2 RGB also attempted to distinguish between synchronous and asynchronous
`functions and between functions and port based objects, though the claims make no
`such distinctions and the cited art would render them obvious even if they did.
`3 This summary is not an admission that the patent’s disclosure is true.
`
`Second Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,516,236 B1
`
`Page 3
`
`

`

`ATTORNEY REFERENCE NO.: 8954-89860-05
`FILED VIA PRPS ON: May 17, 2013
`
`earlier earlier-filed applications (the “Prior Applications”), including:
`
`• U.S. Pat. No. 5,867,385 (the ’385 Patent), filed May 30, 1996; and
`
`• U.S. Pat. No. 5,691,897 (the ’897 Patent), filed May 30, 1995.4
`
`The ’236 Patent describes “interface software that facilitates the creation of
`
`hardware independent motion control software,” for providing improved methods
`
`and devices for moving objects. (’236, 1:13-16; 3:24-26). It describes a software
`
`system which runs on a personal computer and is connected to motion control
`
`devices (described as hardware controllers combined with mechanical systems)
`
`(“MCDs”) via a hardware bus. (Id., 6:6-29). The patent admits as prior art the
`
`hardware bus, hardware controllers and the mechanical systems, leaving the
`
`software system as the claimed point of novelty. (Id., 6:30-34).
`
`
`
`The software system of the ’236 Patent allows users to create applications
`
`that control MCDs. (Id., 6:35-38). It allows applications to be created
`
`independently of (“isolated from”) the requirements of any specific MCD, and
`
`without requiring the user to have an extensive knowledge of the coding
`
`requirements of individual devices. (Id., 6:51-7:4). The process of controlling an
`
`MCD begins by defining several physical actions capable of being performed by
`
`MCDs in the abstract (“motion control operations”), without any connection to
`
`
`4 The ’543 patent, asserted in concurrent litigation, is part of this family.
`
`Second Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,516,236 B1
`
`Page 4
`
`

`

`ATTORNEY REFERENCE NO.: 8954-89860-05
`FILED VIA PRPS ON: May 17, 2013
`
`specific hardware or software modules. (Id., 7:19-27). The software system is
`
`then configured so that these operations can be requested by a user through an
`
`application and performed by a device upon request.
`
`The software system includes an application programming interface (“API”)
`
`which allows a user to develop motion control applications from API functions
`
`(labeled “component functions”). (Id., 7:54-65). A completed application
`
`program defines a series of steps the user desires an MCD to perform. (Id., 8:25-
`
`35). The software system then converts the device-neutral instructions of the
`
`application to device-specific instructions and transmits them to the device that
`
`will perform the desired motion sequence. (Id., 6:39-50).
`
`The ’236 Patent describes how the conversion of instructions is
`
`accomplished. The software system includes, in addition to the application
`
`program and the API, a service provider interface (“SPI”), a motion control
`
`component containing component code, and software drivers containing driver
`
`code.5 (Id., 7:40-8:14). The SPI includes a number of SPI functions (labeled
`
`“driver functions”), each of which is associated with one of the pre-defined motion
`
`control operations. (Id., 7:40-53). The component code contained in the motion
`
`control component then associates API functions (“component functions”) with
`
`
`5 “The common programming practice in which drivers are provided for
`hardware such as printers or the like…” is admitted as prior art. (’236, 3:1-3).
`
`Second Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,516,236 B1
`
`Page 5
`
`

`

`ATTORNEY REFERENCE NO.: 8954-89860-05
`FILED VIA PRPS ON: May 17, 2013
`
`SPI functions (driver functions), and the driver code contained in the software
`
`drivers associate SPI functions with device specific control commands. (Id., 7:54-
`
`65; 8:8-14). In this way, a user can build a motion control application program
`
`from API functions. The running of that application program causes the API
`
`functions to be translated into SPI functions by the component code, and the SPI
`
`functions to be translated into device-specific control commands by the software
`
`drivers.
`
`
`
`The ’236 patent discloses that the software system operates on a single
`
`computer system. The specification explains, with reference to its fig. 1, that the
`
`system “comprises a personal computer portion 12 having a hardware bus 14, a
`
`plurality of motion control hardware controllers 16a, 16b, and 16c, and mechanical
`
`systems 18a, 18b, and 18c that interact with one or more objects (not shown) to be
`
`moved.” (Id., 6:9-13). Fig. 1 clearly illustrates that the system for generating the
`
`sequence of control commands is contained within the personal computer 12. The
`
`specification further explains that “The hardware bus 14 provides the physical
`
`connections necessary for the computer 12 to communicate with the hardware
`
`controllers 16.” (Id., 6:20-22; 6:46-50). The specification also makes clear that
`
`“stream” components allow communication between drivers and MCDs, and are
`
`implemented via a PC Bus or a Serial Port. (Id., 17:42-48; 18:11-34). The
`
`specification also makes repeated reference to the use of OLE and OLE 2.0 for
`
`Second Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,516,236 B1
`
`Page 6
`
`

`

`ATTORNEY REFERENCE NO.: 8954-89860-05
`FILED VIA PRPS ON: May 17, 2013
`
`communication between components. At the time the ’897 patent was filed, OLE
`
`was capable of providing communication only between components on a single
`
`computer. (See, e.g., Christensen, 1:60 – 2:24; CNET, 1). Thus, the system
`
`described in the ’236 Patent is confined to a single personal computer.
`
`B. Middleware: Microsoft Windows & WOSA
`
`During the 1980s, “device independence” referred to the use of
`
`“middleware” (i.e. an API) between application programs and hardware devices.
`
`In Windows 3.1, the operating system incorporated middleware for a variety of
`
`computer peripherals, including displays and printers. (See RGB Meeting,
`
`discussing API/SPI functions in the Windows GDI).6 RGB acknowledged the
`
`importance of this as part of the Windows Open Services Architecture (“WOSA”)
`
`developed by Microsoft. (Id.)
`
`Before the Prior Applications were filed, Microsoft was extending device
`
`independence to various devices/data via WOSA and Object Linking and
`
`Embedding (“OLE”) technologies. (Cashin at 6). Microsoft published several
`
`extensions for WOSA, including WOSA/XRT and WOSA/XFS. Also before the
`
`Prior Applications were filed, middleware systems were used to associate,
`
`implement, and emulate driver functions (such as the Windows GDI) (DDAG, pp.
`
`
`6 See also DDAG, Chs. 2 and 4 disclosing API/SPI functions for the
`Windows GDI. Thus, an application (e.g., MS Word) could draw/print the same
`content on any compatible display or printer.
`
`Second Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,516,236 B1
`
`Page 7
`
`

`

`ATTORNEY REFERENCE NO.: 8954-89860-05
`FILED VIA PRPS ON: May 17, 2013
`
`26-27), and to store previously determined associations in a function or pointer
`
`table. (Brockschmidt, p. 29; Hall, Abstract, § 2). Thus, creating a middleware API
`
`to improve reliability and efficiency was well-known and common.
`
`C.
`
`“Motion Control Devices” (“MCDs”)
`
`In the ’062 Trial, the Board construed MCD “to include any hardware device
`
`with a controller and a mechanical system that translates signals generated by the
`
`controller into the movement of an object.” (’062 Decision at 11). In Litigation,
`
`RGB asserts an even broader construction: “a device comprising a controller and a
`
`mechanical system.” (Defs. CCB at 17). The majority of computer peripherals
`
`(including disk drives) are MCDs under either definition.
`
`For example, in a typical desktop plotter (commanded by a computer using a
`
`device driver), one stepper motor moved the paper along one axis, while another
`
`motor moved the pen along a perpendicular axis. (HP90, A-6 (describing a pen
`
`axis and a paper axis); HP85, 27-28 (describing the orientation of a sheet of paper
`
`with respect to a pen axis); see generally, HP77). These motors were individually
`
`controllable in discrete steps down to 0.025 mm in the HP7550A. (HP86 at 34).
`
`D. The Confluence of WOSA and “Motion Control Devices”
`
`The system disclosed in the ’236 Patent is described using WOSA and OLE.
`
`Yet, the ’236 Patent baldly asserts that “[t]he WOSA model has no relation to
`
`motion control devices.” (’236, 2:66-67).
`
`Second Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,516,236 B1
`
`Page 8
`
`

`

`ATTORNEY REFERENCE NO.: 8954-89860-05
`FILED VIA PRPS ON: May 17, 2013
`
`RGB contradicted this statement during prosecution. For example, “[a]ll
`
`core technology develop