Case IPR2014-01386
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,103
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC., and
`LG ELECTRONICS MOBILECOMM U.S.A., INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v .
`
`CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2014-01386
`Patent 6,012,103
`
`PATENT OWNER CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR CORP.
`RESPONSE
`
`62834366_1
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01386
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,103
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................1
`
`OVERVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,012,103 ............................................2
`
`A.
`
`Universal Serial Bus (USB) Technology ..............................................2
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED ....................................................6
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................6
`
`A.
`
`How The Claims Are To Be Interpreted...............................................6
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`“Electronically Simulating A Physical Disconnection
`And Reconnection Of The Peripheral Device” (Claims 14
`& 24) ...........................................................................................7
`
`“Computer [Peripheral] Bus” (Claim 14 & 24)........................10
`
`“Means For Physically Connecting A Peripheral Device
`To A Computer System Through The Computer
`Peripheral Bus, Wherein The Peripheral Device Has A
`First Configuration”..................................................................11
`
`“Means For Receiving A Second Set Of Configuration
`Information From A Computer System Over The
`Computer Peripheral Bus And Port” ........................................12
`
`“Means For Electronically Simulating A Physical
`Disconnection And Reconnection Of The Peripheral
`Device To Reconfigure The Peripheral Device To A
`Second Configuration Based On The Second Set Of
`Configuration Information” ......................................................12
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Prosecution History Disavowal...........................................................15
`
`Petitioner’s Comments Concerning Traversal In The File
`Histories...............................................................................................18
`
`V.
`
`THE PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ...............................19
`
`A. Mr. Knapen Is Not A POSITA............................................................19
`
`62834366_1
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01386
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,103
`VI. CLAIMS 14-16, 18, AND 23-26 ARE NOT OBVIOUS OVER
`MICHELSON, PCCEXTEND AND DAVIS ...............................................20
`
`A. Michelson Does Not Teach A “Second Configuration” .....................20
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The Challenged Claims Require First and Second
`Configurations...........................................................................20
`
`Michelson’s CIS Data Stored In The EEPROM And
`FPGA Data Are Not First And Second Configurations............21
`
`B. Michelson Does Not Teach Selection Of A Second Set Of
`Configuration Information Based On An Identification Code
`Read From The Peripheral Device......................................................25
`
`C.
`
`One Of Ordinary Skill In The Art Would Not Have Combined
`The PCMCIA References....................................................................26
`
`1.
`
`A POSITA Would Not Combine Michelson And
`PCCextend ................................................................................26
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`Michelson Is Not A Testing Board.................................27
`
`The Manipulation Of Bus Signals With PCCextend
`Is Not Applicable To Michelson ....................................28
`
`Michelson’s “Reset” Is Unrelated To PCCextend’s
`“Reset”............................................................................31
`
`Combining Michelson And PCCextend Would
`Result In An Inoperable System.....................................33
`
`2.
`
`A POSITA Would Not Combine Michelson, PCCextend
`And Davis .................................................................................35
`
`The Combination Of Michelson, PCCextend And Davis Also
`Do Not Render Claim 24 Obvious Because They Do Not
`Disclose A “Means For Electronically Simulating A Physical
`Disconnection And Reconnection Of The Peripheral Device…”.......38
`
`The Combination Of PCMCIA References Cannot Invalidate
`Since Such Technology Was Disclaimed During Prosecution...........40
`
`Claims 19, 20 And 27Are Not Obvious Over Michelson,
`PCCextend, Davis And The APA .......................................................40
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`62834366_1
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01386
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,103
`The Petition And Declaration Lack A Rational Basis For
`Combining The PCMCIA References And USB
`Technology To Arrive At The Inventions Of Claims 19,
`20 And 27..................................................................................40
`
`Petitioner Provides No Support For Its Assertion Of
`“Routine Engineering”..............................................................42
`
`More Than “Routine Engineering” Is Required To
`Substitute A USB Bus For The PCMCIA Buses In The
`PCMCIA References ................................................................45
`
`The Substitution Of A USB Bus For A PCMCIA Bus
`Would Not Yield A Predictable Variation................................50
`
`Petitioner’s Reliance On Purported APA is improper..............52
`
`The APA Confirms A Low Level Of Skill In The Art.............52
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`G.
`
`Objective Indicia Of Non-Obviousness ..............................................54
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Industry Praise And Acceptance...............................................54
`
`Commercial Success .................................................................58
`
`VII. CONCLUSION..............................................................................................60
`
`62834366_1
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01386
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,103
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Alberts v. Kappos, 917 F. Supp. 2d 94 (D.D.C. 2013) ............................................53
`Apple Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 725 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2013)........... 54, 56, 58
`BAE Sys. Info. & Elec. Sys. Integration, Inc. v. Cheetah Omni, LLC, Case No.
`IPR2013-00175, (Paper 45, June 19, 2014), 2014 Pat. App. LEXIS 4134, at *5,
`*6............................................................................................................................7
`Crocs, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 598 F.3d 1294, 1310-11 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......58
`Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
`..............................................................................................................................58
`DeMarini Sports, Inc. v. Worth, Inc., 239 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ...................18
`
`Ekchian v. Home Depot, Inc., 104 F.3d 1299, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 1997).....................15
`Golight Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 355 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ...................11
`Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966)...................................................... passim
`
`In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ....................................................... 35, 40
`Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entm't, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......53
`Intri-Plex Techs., Inc., v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Rencol Ltd.,
`IPR2014-00309, at *9 (P.T.A.B., Mar. 23, 2014) ...............................................42
`L-3 Commc’n Holdings, Inc. v. Power Survey, LLC, Case IPR2014-00832 (Patent
`8,482,274 B2), Paper 9, Nov. 14, 2014 at *16-18 ...............................................18
`Laitram Corp. v. Rexnord, Inc., 939 F.2d 1533, 1538 (Fed. Cir. 1991)..................14
`
`Leo Pharm. Prods., Ltd. v. Rea, 726 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Institut Pasteur &
`Universite Pierre et Marie Curie v. Focarino, 738 F.3d 1337, 1346 (Fed. Cir.
`2013).....................................................................................................................54
`LinkedIn Corp. v. AvMarkets Inc., Case No. CBM2013-00025, (Paper 30,
`November 10, 2014), 2014 Pat. App. LEXIS 7747, at *10...................................7
`
`62834366_1
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01386
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,103
`Medical Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205 (Fed.
`Cir. 2003) .............................................................................................................11
`Omega Eng’r, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .....................15
`Ortho-McNiel Pharma., Inc. v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 520 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
`..............................................................................................................................54
`Otsuka Pharm. Co., Ltd. v. Sandoz, Inc., 678 F.3d 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..............41
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................7, 9
`Rambus Inc. v. Rea, 731 F.3d 1248 (Fed. Cir. 2013)....................................... 54, 58
`RF Delaware, Inc. v. Pacific Keystone Technologies, Inc., 326 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir.
`2003).......................................................................................................................9
`Rolls-Royce PLC v. United Techs. Corp., 603 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............51
`
`Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 234 F. 3d 654, 664 (Fed. Cir. 2000)................................42
`Salazar v. Procter & Gamble Co., 414 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005)........................18
`Shire Dev., LLC v. Watson Pharms., Inc., 746 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2014)............17
`
`Synopsys Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., IPR2012-00041, Paper 16 at 14-15
`(P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 2013)......................................................................................31
`
`The Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Paragon Trade Brands, Inc. 989 F.Supp. 547
`(D.Del. 11997) .....................................................................................................43
`
`The Scotts Co. LLC v. Encap, LLC, Case No. IPR2013-00110 (Paper 79, June 24,
`2014), 2014 Pat. App. LEXIS 4142 at *19-24.....................................................16
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .........7
`Union Carbide Corp. v. Am. Can Co., 724 F.2d 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1984) .................53
`ZTE Corp. v. ContentGuard Holdings, Inc., Case No. IPR2013-00133 (Paper No.
`61, July 1, 2014)............................................................................................. viii, 8
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311(b) ...................................................................................................52
`Other Authorities
`
`62834366_1
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01386
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,103
`MPEP 2144.03 (1996) .............................................................................................18
`Rules
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................7
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.120 .....................................................................................................1
`
`62834366_1
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01386
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,103
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`Reference Name
`U.S. Patent No. 6,249,825 to Sartore et al. (filed on January 4,
`2000) (issued on June 19, 2001)
`Petition To Institute an Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent
`No. 6,249,825 (Case No. IPR2014-01396)
`U.S. Patent No.6,493,770 to Sartore et al. (filed on June 11,
`2001) (issued on December 10, 2002)
`Petition To Institute an Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent
`No. 6,493,770 (Case No. IPR2014-01405)
`Patent and Trademark Office, Office Patent Trial Practice
`Guide (published in Fed. Reg. Vol. 77, No. 157, August 14,
`2012)
`Liberty Mut. Ins. Comp. v. Progressive Ins. Comp., Case No.
`CBM2012-00003 (Paper 8, October 25, 2012)
`Oracle Corp. v. Clouding IP, LLC, IPR2013-00075 (Paper
`15, June 13, 2013)
`Chimei Innolux Corp. v. Semiconductor Energy Lab. Co.,
`Ltd., Case No. IPR2013-00038 (Paper 9, March 21, 2013)
`Nichia Corp. v. Emcore Corp., Case No. IPR2012-00005
`(Paper 68, February 11, 2014)
`Carestream Health, Inc. v. Smartplates, LLC, Case No.
`IPR2013-00600 (Paper 9, March 5, 2014)
`Intellectual Ventures Mgmt., LLC v. XILINX, Inc., Case No.
`IPR2012-00023 (Paper 35, February 11, 2014)
`Zoll Lifecor Corp. v. Koninklijke Philips Elecs. N.V.,
`IPR2013-00616 (Paper 14, January 13, 2014)
`ZTE Corp. v. ContentGuard Holdings, Inc., IPR2013-00133
`(Paper 53, February 26, 2014)
`112th Congress, 1st Session, Issue 157 Cong. Rec. S1350
`(daily ed. March 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Leahy)
`Transcript of Deposition of GSI’s Expert, Geert Knapen
`(4/29/15)
`U.S. Patent No. No. 5,687,346
`Xilinx XC3000 Series Field Programmable Gate Arrays
`(XC3000A/L, EX3100A/L) datasheet, November 9, 1998.
`
`Exhibit No.
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`2014
`
`2015
`
`2016
`2017
`
`62834366_1
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Exhibit No.
`2018
`2019
`2020
`2021
`2022
`
`2023
`
`2024
`
`2025
`2026
`
`2027
`
`2028
`2029
`2030
`2031
`
`2032
`
`2033
`
`2034
`
`2035
`
`2036
`
`2037
`
`Case IPR2014-01386
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,103
`Reference Name
`Declaration of David G. Wright
`Excerpts from PCMCIA PC Card Standard, Release 2.1, 1993
`Declaration of John Garney
`C.V. of John Garney
`Claim Chart showing correspondence of claims of `103 patent
`to Anchor Chips and Cypress products
`Claim Chart showing correspondence of claims of `825 patent
`to Anchor Chips and Cypress products
`Claim Chart showing correspondence of claims of `770 patent
`to Anchor Chips and Cypress products
`Anchor Chips 1998 EZ-USB Integrated Circuit Datasheet
`Anchor Chips 1999 EZ-USB Series 2011 USB Controller
`Datasheet
`EE Product News Sept. 1, 1998, “USB Chips Are Software
`Programmable”
`Anchor Chips Q1 1998 “Quick and EZ Guide to USB”
`CONFIDENTIAL: Anchor Chips’ Presentation
`CONFIDENTIAL: Anchor Chips’ Presentation
`Cypress Semiconductor, EZ-USB Technical Reference
`Manual, Rev. D, © 2002-2011
`Cypress Semiconductor, EZ-USB FX Technical Reference
`Manual, v. 1.2, © 2000
`Cypress Semiconductor, MoBL-USB FX2LP18 Technical
`Reference Manual, Rev. B, © 2002-2011
`Cypress Semiconductor, CY7C64713 EZ-USB® FX1TM USB
`Microcontroller Full Speed USB Peripheral Controller, ©
`2004-2014
`Cypress Semiconductor CY7C68013A, CY7C68014A,
`CY7C68015A, CY7C68016A EZ-USB® FX2LPTM USB
`Microcontroller High-Speed USB Peripheral Controller, ©
`2003-2013, Revised July 19, 2013
`Cypress Semiconductor, MoBL-USBTM FX2LP18 USB
`Microcontroller, © 2005-2010, Revised October 28, 2010
`EDN, “IC changes course of USB enumeration procedure,”
`March 2, 1998
`
`62834366_1
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Exhibit No.
`2038
`2039
`2040
`2041
`2042
`2043
`
`2044
`
`2045
`
`2046
`2047
`2048
`
`2049
`2050
`
`2051
`
`2052
`2053
`2054
`2055
`
`2056
`
`2057
`
`2058
`
`Case IPR2014-01386
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,103
`Reference Name
`CONFIDENTIAL: Anchor Chips Presentation
`CONFIDENTIAL: Anchor Chips 1998 USB Market Research
`CONFIDENTIAL: Anchor Chips 1998 USB Market Research
`CONFIDENTIAL: Anchor Chips 1998 USB Market Research
`CONFIDENTIAL: Anchor Chips 1998 USB Market Research
`CONFIDENTIAL: Anchor Chips 1997-1998 Product &
`Marketing Plan, Sales Forecast and Balance Sheet
`CONFIDENTIAL: Anchor Chips Presentation Re Revenue
`and Forecast
`CONFIDENTIAL: Anchor Chips 1998 Sales Forecast Versus
`Plan Presentation
`Not Used
`CONFIDENTIAL: Anchor Chips 1998 Presentation
`CONFIDENTIAL: Anchor Chips April 22, 1999 Board
`Meeting Presentation
`CONFIDENTIAL: Cypress Internal Presentation
`CONFIDENTIAL: Cypress November 13, 2000 Internal
`Presentation
`Cypress December 2, 1999 Press Release, “Cypress
`Semiconductor Maps Out USB Strategy; Targets USB Market
`Segments With Solutions for the Entire Spectrum of PC
`Peripherals”
`Anchor Chips Document quoting industry press articles
`CONFIDENTIAL: Anchor Chips Revenue
`CONFIDENTIAL: Cypress Revenue
`Anchor Chips Press Release, February 17, 1998, “Anchor
`Chips Announces Software-Configurable USB Chip Family
`for High-Speed Peripheral Equipment”
`Hyde, USB Design by Example, Intel University Press, pp.
`62-63, © 1999
`Cypress Semiconductor Press Release, May 25, 1999,
`“Cypress Semiconductor Acquires Anchor Chips Inc.”
`Cypress Semiconductor EZ-USB FX2 Technical Reference
`Manual, © 2000, 2001
`
`62834366_1
`
`x
`
`

`

`Exhibit No.
`2059
`
`2060
`
`Case IPR2014-01386
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,103
`Reference Name
`Cantrell, “Silicon Update,” Circuit Cellar INK, Issue 95, June
`1998.
`EDN, “IC changes course of USB enumeration procedure,”
`March 2, 1998
`
`62834366_1
`
`xi
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01386
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,103
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.120, the patent owner, Cypress Semiconductor
`
`Corp. (“Cypress” or “Patent Owner”), hereby submits the following response to
`
`LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics USA, Inc. and LG Electronics Mobilecomm
`
`U.S.A., Inc.’s (“LG” or “Petitioner”) Petition for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,103 (“the `103 patent”).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The Board instituted trial based on Petitioner’s allegations that claims 14–16,
`
`18, and 23–26 are obvious over three references relating to PCMCIA technology,
`
`Exhibit 1003 (“Michelson”), Exhibit 1004 (“PCCextend”) and Exhibit 1005
`
`(“Davis”). Petitioner’s allegations are undermined not only by improper claim
`
`constructions but also by Petitioner’s misunderstanding of the teachings of the
`
`references. In addition to the references failing to disclose limitations found in the
`claims, Petitioner has failed to perform the analysis required by Graham v. John
`Deere, 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966). Petitioner consequently fails to
`
`establish any articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings to support the legal
`
`conclusion of obviousness with regard to the proffered combinations.
`
`Finally, the Board instituted trial on Petitioner’s assertion that claims 19, 20,
`
`and 27 are obvious over Michelson, PCCextend, Davis and the purported admitted
`
`prior art (“APA”), and also on Petitioner’s assertion that claim 19 is obvious over
`
`Davis and the APA. This challenge fails for the same reasons as claims 14–16, 18,
`
`and 23–26 and also because Petitioner incorrectly asserts that replacing PCMCIA
`
`technology with USB technology would be a simple matter of “routine
`
`engineering.” To the contrary, substituting USB technology for PCMCIA
`
`62834366_1
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01386
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012.103
`
`technology would be extremely difficult, thus demonstrating that the PCMCIA
`
`references (Michelson, PCCextend, Davis) would not be used with the alleged
`
`APA.
`
`In addition to the failings of the prior art, objective indicia of non-
`
`obviousness demonstrate that the challenged claims are not obvious. Thus, as fully
`
`explained below, Patent Owner requests that the Board reject Petitioner’s challenge
`
`and confirm the patentability of the challenged claims.
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,012,103
`
`Universal Serial Bus (USB) Technology
`A.
`The invention of the `103 patent markedly improves the Universal Serial
`
`Bus (USB) standard. USB is a widely used industry standard that was developed
`
`to create a single standardized peripheral device connection system that provides a
`
`simplified consistent user experience for the connection of computers with
`
`computer peripherals. Ex. 1001, 1:39-54. Before USB, the many different kinds of
`
`peripheral devices that could connect to a personal computer, such as a printer,
`
`modem, keyboard or a mouse, each had unique electrical characteristics and
`
`needed different kinds of connectors with different kinds of cables to connect with
`
`a personal computer. Ex. 1001 at 1:9-28. The different characteristics and
`
`connections of the different peripheral devices required that multiple unique kinds
`
`of plugs or “ports” be installed in the personal computer to allow connection and
`
`communication with the personal computer. Ex. 1001 at 1:16-30. Also, these
`
`unique connections often shared the common drawback of requiring that a personal
`
`computer be turned off and then back on in order to disconnect, connect or update
`
`62834366_1
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01386
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012.103
`
`a peripheral device. Ex. 1001 at 1:28-34. Failure to do so could permanently
`damage the peripheral, the port or the personal computer itself. Id. See also Ex.
`
`2020, ¶ 37-38.
`
`The USB standard solved many (but not all) of these problems. USB
`
`provided for a common cable and connector type, reducing the need for separate
`
`power cords and simplifying connectivity to and communication with peripheral
`
`devices. Ex. 1001 at 1:34-46. USB also addressed the problem of multiple cables,
`
`cards and connector types previously required, which in turn allowed use of a
`
`common type of port on personal computers for many peripherals. Id.; Ex. 2020, ¶
`
`39-40. USB also permitted the physical connection and disconnection of USB-
`
`compatible peripheral devices while a computer remains turned on. Ex. 1001 at
`
`1:50-54. This eliminates the old practice of requiring the user to manually turn off
`
`and reboot the computer and peripheral devices in order to disconnect, connect, or
`update a peripheral device. Id. See also Ex. 2020, ¶ 41.
`
`The personal computer to which a USB-capable peripheral may be
`
`connected is known as a “host” or “host computer.” Ex. 1001 at 1:46-48. When a
`
`USB-capable peripheral is first connected to a USB-capable host, software on the
`
`host and peripheral engage in a configuration process known as “enumeration,”
`
`during which the host requests information from the peripheral and the peripheral
`
`provides information that allows the host to identify the peripheral. Ex. 1001 at
`
`1:55-60. The host uses configuration information received from the USB
`
`peripheral device to identify device driver software to load in its (the host’s)
`
`memory that will permit the host to communicate with the peripheral and allow the
`
`62834366_1
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01386
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012.103
`
`peripheral to communicate with the host. Ex. 1001 at 1:60-66, 2: 3-7. Prior to the
`
`patented invention, at the conclusion of this USB enumeration process, the
`
`association of the peripheral with the host could not be subsequently changed. Ex.
`
`1001 at 2:3-17. When that peripheral was physically disconnected and a different
`
`peripheral with its own configuration information was then connected to the
`
`personal computer, a new enumeration process would begin for the new peripheral.
`
`As part of that subsequent enumeration process, the new peripheral’s device driver
`
`software would be loaded into the memory of the host computer to allow for
`
`connectivity and communication between the host and the new peripheral. Ex.
`1001 at 4:45-49. See also Ex. 2020, ¶ 42-44.
`
`Although USB provides a number of advantages over standard peripheral
`
`device connection techniques, prior to the patented inventions it did not provide a
`
`means for easily altering the configuration and changing the software associated
`
`with a particular peripheral device on a host computer without physically
`
`disconnecting the device from the host. Ex. 1001 at 2:18-25. The inventors of the
`
`challenged patent recognized that such features would be useful to allow the
`
`peripheral devices and associated software to be updated and features improved,
`
`thus extending the life of the peripheral hardware and improving functionality. Ex.
`
`1001 at 2:38-43. The inventions disclosed in the `103 patent are directed to
`
`overcoming these inherent shortcomings and provide a system and method for easily
`
`updating the configuration of peripheral devices over a USB connection. The `103
`
`patent enables USB peripheral devices to be dynamically modified with new
`
`configurations and new characteristics while allowing host computers to still
`
`62834366_1
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01386
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012.103
`
`communicate with the peripheral devices. Advantageously, this is achieved
`
`without the need for a user to physically disconnect and then reconnect the USB
`
`cable in order to effectuate the change. Ex. 1001 at 2:48-57; Ex. 2020, ¶ 45-46.
`
`In an exemplary embodiment, Figure 2 of the USB Patents illustrates this
`
`improved system and method of USB peripheral device modification. Rather than
`
`the peripheral device (shown as element 54) having fixed configuration data, the
`
`peripheral device is initially configured as a generic device with a generic
`
`configuration. Ex. 1001 at 3:1-6; 5:33-37; 8:35-40. Upon connection of the
`
`peripheral device to the host (element 52) the host will enumerate the device in the
`
`normal way using the generic configuration and the devices will then be able to
`
`communicate. As further shown in Figure 2, once communication is established
`
`the new desired configuration information (element 70) for the peripheral device
`
`that resides in the host computer is subsequently downloaded to the peripheral
`
`device. Ex. 1001 at 3:4-13; 5:37-43; 8:35-40. A new enumeration process (or
`
`re-enumeration, Ex. 1001 at 5:43-46) then occurs in order to effectuate the change
`
`of configuration data and may trigger the use of a different device driver (element
`
`68) in the host with the newly-configured peripheral. Cypress’s USB Patents teach
`
`a system and method that facilitates re-enumeration without the need to physically
`
`disconnect and then reconnect the USB cable. Ex. 2020, ¶ 47-48.
`
`When a USB-enabled peripheral device is attached to a USB-enabled host,
`
`the peripheral makes available to the host a small voltage (3.3V in this example) on
`
`the USB cable that can be detected by the host. When the host detects the voltage,
`
`the host starts an enumeration with the USB peripheral. Ex, 1001 at 6:14-32. The
`
`62834366_1
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01386
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012.103
`
`patent, at Figure 4, describes a software-controllable electronic switch that is
`
`configured in series with a resistor connected to a data line, e.g., D+ in Figure 4.
`
`The switch (which can include a transistor) is illustrated in Figure 4 as element 130.
`
`By controlling the off and on status of the switch, the host can be “tricked” into
`
`detecting a disconnection and reconnection of the peripheral device (element 120)
`
`even though the peripheral device has not actually been physically disconnected
`
`and reconnected. Ex. 1001 at 6:65-7:14. The control of the switch may be
`
`accomplished by software resident on the peripheral device (element 120) but that
`
`control can also originate from software on the host computer such that the
`
`peripheral device or the host can control the switch. Ex. 1001 at 6:56-63. This in
`
`turn means that re-enumeration of the peripheral device with the new
`
`configuration information can be accomplished without additional human
`
`interaction, allowing the configuration of the peripheral devices to be changed
`
`easily without a physical disconnection and reconnection of the peripheral device.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 2:51-67; 3:14-23; 7:14-19. See also Ex. 2020, ¶ 49-51.
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED
`Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board confirm the patentability
`
`of claims 14–16, 18–20, and 23–27 of the `103 patent.
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A.
`How The Claims Are To Be Interpreted
`A claim in an unexpired patent is to be given its “broadest reasonable
`
`62834366_1
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01386
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012.103
`
`interpretation in light of the specification in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.100(b).1 Claim terms are given their plain and ordinary meaning as would be
`understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and
`in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
`1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). “There are only two exceptions to this
`
`general rule: 1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own
`
`lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term
`either in the specification or during prosecution.” Thorner v. Sony Computer
`
`Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). LinkedIn Corp. v.
`AvMarkets Inc., Case No. CBM2013-00025, (Paper 30, November 10, 2014), 2014
`Pat. App. LEXIS 7747, at *10; BAE Sys. Info. & Elec. Sys. Integration, Inc. v.
`
`Cheetah Omni, LLC, Case No. IPR2013-00175, (Paper 45, June 19, 2014), 2014
`
`Pat. App. LEXIS 4134, at *5, *6.
`
`1.
`
`“Electronically Simulating A Physical Disconnection And
`Reconnection Of The Peripheral Device” (Claims 14 & 24)
`Petitioner proposed the following definition: “using an electronic circuit to
`
`perform an action, such as an electronic reset, associated with physical
`
`disconnection and reconnection of a peripheral device.” Petition, p. 7. Patent
`
`Owner respectfully submits that Petitioner’s proposed construction is wrong
`
`1
`
`Because the standard in an IPR differs from that used in litigation, Patent
`
`Owner reserves the right to present different constructions in the related litigation.
`
`See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`62834366_1
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01386
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012.103
`
`because use of the word “associated” broadens the plain meaning of the term in a
`
`way that substantively changes the phrase’s meaning.
`
`The claim language requires simulation of an event, i.e., simulation of a
`
`physical disconnection and reconnection. In contrast to the plain meaning of the
`
`claimed phrase, Petitioner’s construction encompasses using an electronic circuit
`
`to perform any action merely “associated with” the physical disconnection and
`
`reconnection. In other words, while the claim language requires the act of
`
`simulating a physical event, Petitioner’s construction expands the breadth of the
`
`claim to any act that is in any way “associated with” the simulation. Petitioner’s
`
`definition puts no limit on the kinds of actions that are “associated” with the
`
`simulated physical disconnection and reconnection other than that they be
`
`performed with an electronic circuit. That Petitioner’s construction is wrong is
`
`seen by the fact that any action described in the patent specification might be
`considered “associated with physical disconnection and reconnection” since the
`
`simulation of the disconnection and reconnection is a key aspect of the claimed
`
`invention. Ex. 2020, ¶ 56-57. Thus, Petitioner’s construction is unreasonable
`
`because it unreasonably expands the scope of the phrase far beyond the plain
`
`English. ZTE Corp. v. ContentGuard Holdings, Inc., Case No. IPR2013-00133
`
`(Paper No. 61, July 1, 2014) at 20 (“Although it is true that the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation standard applies for claim interpretation, the construction must be
`
`reasonable in light of the specification.”)
`
`Petitioner’s construction is also wrong because of its inclusion of an
`
`exemplary “action … associated with physical disconnection and reconnection of a
`
`62834366_1
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01386
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012.103
`
`peripheral device.” Petitioner’s exemplary action “associated with physical
`
`disconnection and reconnection of a peripheral device” is an “electronic reset.”
`
`Nothing in the plain language of the disputed claim phrase includes an electronic
`
`reset. The claim phrase requires simulation of physical connection and
`
`reconnection. A reset function is, by its own terms, something else since one can
`
`electronically simulate physical disconnection and reconnection without
`
`performing a reset. Ex. 2020, ¶ 58. Thus, an “electronic reset” reads limitations
`into the claims, which is never appropriate. RF Delaware, Inc. v. Pacific Keystone
`
`Technologies, Inc., 326 F.3d 1255, 1264 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“A basic claim
`
`construction canon is that one may not read a limitation into a claim from the
`
`written description.”).
`
`Finally, nothing in the language of the disputed phrase requires “using an
`
`electronic circuit.” All the phrase requires is that the action be performed
`
`“electronically.” Indeed, this function is part of a means plus function limitation,
`
`meaning it is construed to include the structure that performs this function, which
`
`as discussed below, is more limiting than an “electronic circuit.”
`
`Patent Owner respectfully submits that the claim language is clear. Under a
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the disclosure in the specification, a
`
`method or device falls within the scope of the disputed phrase if, as a substitute for
`
`the physical act of disconnecting and reconnecting a device, such a physical act is
`
`replaced by electronic simulation. Thus, Patent Owner respectfully submits that no
`construction is necessary. Ex. 1001 at 6:66-7:14. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314
`
`(“In some cases, the ordinary meaning of claim language as understood by a
`
`62834366_1
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01386
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012.103
`
`person of skill in the art may be readily apparent even to lay judges, and claim
`
`construction in such cases involves little more than the application of the widely
`
`accepted meaning of commonly understood words.”). Ex. 2020, ¶ 52. However,
`
`sho