`
`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 IPR2014-01396
`Patent 6,249,825
`
`PATENT OWNER CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR CORP.
`RESPONSE
`
`62627554_17
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................1
`
`OVERVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,249,825 ............................................2
`
`A.
`
`Universal Serial Bus (USB) Technology ..............................................2
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED ....................................................7
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................7
`
`A.
`
`How The Claims Are To Be Interpreted...............................................7
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`“Electronically [Simulate/Simulating] A Physical
`Disconnection And Reconnection Of The Peripheral
`Device” (Claims 1, 11 And 18)...................................................8
`
`“Computer Bus” (Claims 1 & 11).............................................11
`
`Prosecution History Disavowal...........................................................12
`
`Petitioner’s Comments Concerning Traversal In The File
`Histories...............................................................................................15
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`V.
`
`THE PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ...............................16
`
`A. Mr. Knapen Is Not A POSITA............................................................17
`
`VI. CLAIMS 1-3, 10-13 AND 17 ARE NOT OBVIOUS OVER
`MICHELSON, PCCEXTEND AND DAVIS ...............................................18
`
`A. Michelson Does Not Teach Electronically Simulating Physical
`Disconnection/Reconnection “Over A Computer Bus”......................18
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The Challenged Claims Require Electronic Simulation …
`Over A Computer Bus ..............................................................18
`
`Michelson Does Not Teach Electronic Simulation …
`Over A Computer Bus ..............................................................18
`
`B. Michelson Does Not Teach A “Second Configuration” .....................22
`
`62627554_17
`
`i
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01396
`U.S. Patent No. 6,249,825
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The Challenged Claims Require First and Second
`Configurations...........................................................................22
`
`Michelson’s CIS Data Stored In The EEPROM And
`FPGA Data Are Not First And Second Configurations............23
`
`C. Michelson Does Not Teach Selection Of A Second
`Configuration Based On An Identification Code Read From
`The Peripheral Device.........................................................................26
`
`D.
`
`One Of Ordinary Skill In The Art Would Not Have Combined
`The PCMCIA References....................................................................27
`
`1.
`
`A POSITA Would Not Combine Michelson And
`PCCextend ................................................................................27
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`Michelson Is Not A Testing Board.................................28
`
`The Manipulation Of Bus Signals With PCCextend
`Is Not Applicable To Michelson ....................................29
`
`Michelson’s “Reset” Is Unrelated To PCCextend’s
`“Reset”............................................................................32
`
`Combining Michelson And PCCextend Would
`Result In An Inoperable System.....................................34
`
`2.
`
`A POSITA Would Not Combine Michelson, PCCextend
`And Davis .................................................................................35
`
`E.
`
`Claims 18 And 20 Are Not Anticipated By Davis..............................38
`
`1.
`
`Davis Does Not Teach Electrical Simulation “Over Said
`Computer Bus”..........................................................................39
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`The Combination Of PCMCIA References Cannot Invalidate
`Since Such Technology Was Disclaimed During Prosecution...........40
`
`Claims 5, 7, 15 And 16 Are Not Obvious Over Michelson,
`PCCextend, Davis And The APA .......................................................40
`
`1.
`
`The Petition And Declaration Lack A Rational Basis For
`Combining The PCMCIA References And USB
`Technology To Arrive At The Inventions Of Claims 5
`And 15.......................................................................................40
`
`62627554_17
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01396
`U.S. Patent No. 6,249,825
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`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................................51
`
`Petitioner’s Reliance On Purported APA is improper..............52
`
`The APA Confirms A Low Level Of Skill In The Art.............53
`
`H.
`
`I.
`
`Claim 19 Is Not Obvious Over Davis And The APA.........................54
`
`Objective Indicia Of Non-Obviousness ..............................................54
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Industry Praise And Acceptance...............................................55
`
`Commercial Success .................................................................59
`
`VII. CONCLUSION..............................................................................................60
`
`62627554_17
`
`iii
`
`
`
`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) ..............................................................55, 57, 59
`
`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 .................................................................................................8
`
`Belden, Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC,
`No. 2014-1676 (Fed. Cir, Apr. 17, 2015) at 11 ..................................................14
`
`Crocs, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`598 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ..........................................................................59
`
`Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc.,
`807 F.2d 955 (Fed.Cir.1986) ..............................................................................43
`
`Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd.,
`851 F.2d 1387 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ..........................................................................59
`
`DeMarini Sports, Inc. v. Worth, Inc.,
`239 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ..........................................................................16
`
`Ekchian v. Home Depot, Inc.,
`104 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ..........................................................................12
`
`Graham v. John Deere,
`383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966) ..............................................................passim
`
`In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr.,
`367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................7
`
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ......................................................................35, 40
`
`62627554_17
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01396
`U.S. Patent No. 6,249,825
`Page(s)
`
`Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entm't, Inc.,
`637 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ..........................................................................53
`
`Institut Pasteur & Universite Pierre et Marie Curie v. Focarino,
`738 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ....................................................................54, 55
`
`Intri-Plex Techs., Inc., v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Rencol
`Ltd.,
`Case No. IPR2014-00309 (Paper 83, Mar. 23, 2015).........................................42
`
`KSR Int’l Co., v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 US 398 (2007)........................................................................................40, 51
`
`L-3 Commc’ns Holdings, Inc. v. Power Survey, LLC,
`Case No. IPR2014-00832 (Paper 9, Nov. 14, 2014) ..........................................16
`
`Leo Pharm. Prods., Ltd. v. Rea,
`726 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ..........................................................................54
`
`LinkedIn Corp. v. AvMarkets Inc.,
`Case No. CBM2013-00025, (Paper 30, November 10, 2014), 2014
`Pat. App. LEXIS 7747 ..........................................................................................8
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc.,
`357 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ..........................................................................14
`
`Omega Eng’r, Inc. v. Raytek Corp.,
`334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ..........................................................................12
`
`Ortho-McNiel Pharma., Inc. v. Mylan Labs., Inc.,
`520 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ..........................................................................55
`
`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) (en banc)......................................................7, 10
`
`Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Paragon Trade Brands, Inc.,
`989 F. Supp. 547 (D Del. 1997)..........................................................................43
`
`62627554_17
`
`v
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01396
`U.S. Patent No. 6,249,825
`Page(s)
`
`Rambus Inc. v. Rea,
`731 F.3d 1248 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ....................................................................55, 58
`
`RF Delaware, Inc. v. Pacific Keystone Technologies, Inc.,
`326 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ..........................................................................10
`
`Rolls-Royce PLC v. United Techs. Corp.,
`603 F.3d 1325,1338 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .................................................................51
`
`Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co.,
`234 F. 3d 654 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ...........................................................................42
`
`Salazar v. Procter & Gamble Co.,
`414 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ..........................................................................16
`
`Shire Dev., LLC v. Watson Pharms., Inc.,
`746 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ..........................................................................14
`
`Synopsys Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.,
`Case No. IPR2012-00041 (Paper 16, Feb. 22, 2013) .........................................31
`
`The Scotts Co. LLC v. Encap, LLC,
`Case No. IPR2013-00110 (Paper 79, June 24, 2014), 2014 Pat.
`App. LEXIS 4142 ...............................................................................................14
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................8
`
`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).......................................9
`
`ZTE (USA), Inc. v. Elecs. & Telecomms. Research Inst.,
`Case No. IPR2015-00029 (Paper 12, Mar. 20, 2015).........................................22
`
`Statutes
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................7
`
`62627554_17
`
`vi
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01396
`U.S. Patent No. 6,249,825
`Page(s)
`37 C.F.R. § 42.120 .....................................................................................................1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103........................................................................................................43
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311(b) ...................................................................................................52
`
`Other Authorities
`John Hyde, USB Design By Example: A Practical Guide to I/O
`Devices, pp. 62-63 (1999)...................................................................................57
`
`Robert L. Harmon, Patents and the Federal Circuit, § 4.2(c) (3d. ed.
`1994) ...................................................................................................................43
`
`62627554_17
`
`vii
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`2014
`
`2015
`
`2016
`2017
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`Reference Name
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,103 to Sartore et al. (filed on July 2,
`1997) (issued on January 4, 2000)
`Petition To Institute an Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent
`No. 6,012,103 (Case No. IPR2014-01386)
`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.
`
`62627554_17
`
`viii
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`2018
`2019
`2020
`2021
`2022
`
`2023
`
`2024
`
`2025
`2026
`
`2027
`
`2028
`2029
`2030
`2031
`
`2032
`
`2033
`
`2034
`
`2035
`
`2036
`
`2037
`
`Case IPR2014-01396
`U.S. Patent No. 6,249,825
`
`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
`
`62627554_17
`
`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 IPR2014-01396
`U.S. Patent No. 6,249,825
`
`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
`
`62627554_17
`
`x
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01396
`U.S. Patent No. 6,249,825
`
`Exhibit No.
`2059
`
`2060
`
`Reference Name
`Cantrell, “Silicon Update,” Circuit Cellar INK, Issue 95, June
`1998.
`EDN, “IC changes course of USB enumeration procedure,”
`March 2, 1998
`
`62627554_17
`
`xi
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01396
`U.S. Patent No. 6,249,825
`
`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. 6,249,825 (“the ’825 patent”).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The Board instituted trial based on Petitioner’s allegations that claims 1-3,
`
`10-13 and 17 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. For example, none of the references teach or suggest each properly
`
`construed claim’s requirement of simulating a physical disconnection and
`
`reconnection of a peripheral device “over said computer bus.” 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.
`
`With respect to claims 18 and 20, the Board instituted trial based on
`
`Petitioner’s assertion that both claims were anticipated by Davis. Davis, however,
`
`just as Michelson and PCCextend, does not disclose simulating a physical
`
`62627554_17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01396
`U.S. Patent No. 6,249,825
`
`disconnection and reconnection of a peripheral device “over said computer bus,”
`
`which both claims require. Consequently, there can be no anticipation.
`
`Finally, the Board instituted trial on Petitioner’s assertion that claims 5, 7, 15
`
`and 16 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 because, as discussed, none of these teach
`
`or suggest simulating a physical disconnection and reconnection of a peripheral
`
`device “over said computer bus.” Moreover, Petitioner’s challenge also fails
`
`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 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. 6,249,825
`A.
`Universal Serial Bus (USB) Technology
`The invention of the ’825 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
`
`62627554_17
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01396
`U.S. Patent No. 6,249,825
`
`computer peripherals. Ex. 2001, 1:39-54.1 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. 2001 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. 2001 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
`
`a peripheral device. Ex. 2001 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. 2001 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,
`
`1
`Because the USB Patents share the same specification, for the Board’s
`convenience, references in this section are to the specification of U.S. Patent No.
`6,012,103, Ex. 2001. This section is similarly repeated in Patent Owner’s
`Responses to the IPRs directed to the other two USB Patents.
`
`62627554_17
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01396
`U.S. Patent No. 6,249,825
`
`¶ 39-40. USB also permitted the physical connection and disconnection of USB-
`
`compatible peripheral devices while a computer remains turned on. Ex. 2001 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. 2001 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. 2001 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
`
`peripheral to communicate with the host. Ex. 2001 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. 2001 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
`
`62627554_17
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01396
`U.S. Patent No. 6,249,825
`
`allow for connectivity and communication between the host and the new peripheral.
`Ex. 2001 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. 2001 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. 2001 at 2:38-43. The inventions disclosed in the ’825 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 ’825
`
`patent enables USB peripheral devices to be dynamically modified with new
`
`configurations and new characteristics while allowing host computers to still
`
`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. 2001 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. 2001 at 3:1-6; 5:33-37; 8:35-40. Upon connection of the
`
`62627554_17
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01396
`U.S. Patent No. 6,249,825
`
`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. 2001 at 3:4-13; 5:37-43; 8:35-40. A new enumeration process (or
`
`re-enumeration, Ex. 2001 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, 2001 at 6:14-32. The
`
`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. 2001 at 6:65-7:14. The control of the switch may be
`
`accomplished by software resident on the peripheral device (element 120) but that
`
`62627554_17
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01396
`U.S. Patent No. 6,249,825
`
`control can also originate from software on the host computer such that the
`
`peripheral device or the host can control the switch. Ex. 2001 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. 2001 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 1-3, 5, 7, 10-13, 15-20 of the ’825 patent.
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`How The Claims Are To Be Interpreted
`A.
`A claim in an unexpired patent is to be given its “broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation in light of the specification in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.100(b).2 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
`
`2
`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).
`
`62627554_17
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01396
`U.S. Patent No. 6,249,825
`
`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 [Simulate/Simulating] A Physical
`Disconnection And Reconnection Of The Peripheral
`Device” (Claims 1, 11 And 18)
`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
`
`because use of the word “associated” broadens the plain meaning of the term in a
`
`way that substantively changes the phrase’s meaning. Ex. 2020, ¶ 54.
`
`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
`
`62627554_17
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01396
`U.S. Patent No. 6,249,825
`
`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, ¶ 55-56. 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