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.
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR CORP.
`Patent Owner
`
`DECLARATION OF GEERT KNAPEN
`in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,249,825
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`EXHIBIT 1012
`IPR Petition for U.S. Patent No. 6,249,825
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`
`QUALIFICATIONS ........................................................................................ 1 
`
`III.  MATERIALS CONSIDERED AND PREPARED ......................................... 5 
`
`IV.  SUMMARY OF OPINIONS ........................................................................... 5 
`
`V. 
`
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES USED IN ANALYSIS ............................................... 7 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`Patent Claims in General ....................................................................... 8 
`
`Prior Art ................................................................................................. 9 
`
`Unpatentability – Anticipation ............................................................ 10 
`
`D.  Unpatentability -- Obviousness ........................................................... 11 
`
`VI.  BACKGROUND OF THE PATENT AND RELEVANT
`TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................ 14 
`
`VII.  THE ‘825 PATENT ....................................................................................... 16 
`
`VIII.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 22 
`
`IX.  OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART ............................................................. 24 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`Patent Owner’s Admitted Prior Art (“APA”) ..................................... 24 
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,073,193 to Yap (“Yap”) ......................................... 28 
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,628,028 to Michelson (“Michelson”) ..................... 31 
`
`PCCextend 100 User’s Manual (“PCCextend”) ................................. 33 
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,862,393 to Davis (“Davis”) .................................... 36 
`
`X.  UNPATENTABILITY ANALYSIS ............................................................. 41 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`The Claims of the ‘825 Patent ............................................................. 41 
`
`Claims 1, 5, 7, 10, 11, and 15-17 are unpatentable under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over APA in view of Yap ............. 44 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`6. 
`
`7. 
`
`8. 
`
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................. 44 
`
`Dependent Claim 5 ................................................................... 52 
`
`Dependent Claim 7 ................................................................... 53 
`
`Dependent Claim 10 ................................................................. 55 
`
`Independent Claim 11 ............................................................... 57 
`
`Dependent Claim 15 ................................................................. 57 
`
`Dependent Claim 16 ................................................................. 58 
`
`Dependent Claim 17 ................................................................. 59 
`
`C. 
`
`Claims 2, 3, 12, and 13 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §
`103(a) as being obvious over APA in view of Yap and
`Michelson ............................................................................................ 60 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`Dependent Claim 2 ................................................................... 60 
`
`Dependent Claim 3 ................................................................... 63 
`
`Dependent Claim 12 ................................................................. 64 
`
`Dependent Claim 13 ................................................................. 64 
`
`D. 
`
`Claims 1-3, 10, 11-13, and 17 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) as being obvious over Michelson in view of PCCextend
`and Davis ............................................................................................. 65 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`6. 
`
`7. 
`
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................. 65 
`
`Dependent Claim 2 ................................................................... 73 
`
`Dependent Claim 3 ................................................................... 74 
`
`Dependent Claim 10 ................................................................. 74 
`
`Independent Claim 11 ............................................................... 75 
`
`Dependent Claim 12 ................................................................. 75 
`
`Dependent Claim 13 ................................................................. 76 
`iii
`
`
`
`

`
`8. 
`
`Dependent Claim 17 ................................................................. 76 
`
`E. 
`
`Claims 5, 7, 15, and 16 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §
`103(a) as being obvious over Michelson in view of PCCextend,
`Davis, andthe APA .............................................................................. 78 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`Dependent Claim 5 ................................................................... 78 
`
`Dependent Claim 7 ................................................................... 80 
`
`Dependent Claim 15 ................................................................. 82 
`
`Dependent Claim 16 ................................................................. 84 
`
`F. 
`
`Claims 18-20 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
`anticipated by Yap ............................................................................... 85 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`Independent Claim 18 ............................................................... 85 
`
`Dependent Claim 19 ................................................................. 88 
`
`Dependent Claim 20 ................................................................. 88 
`
`G. 
`
`Claims 18 and 20 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
`being anticipated by Davis .................................................................. 89 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`Independent Claim 18 ............................................................... 89 
`
`Dependent Claim 20 ................................................................. 92 
`
`H. 
`
`Claim 19 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)as being
`obvious over Davis in view of APA ................................................... 93 
`
`1. 
`
`Dependent Claim 19 ................................................................. 93 
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`I, Geert Knapen, hereby declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`
`I am currently a consultant at Design & Advice L.L.C.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained in this matter by Rothwell, Figg, Ernst &
`
`Manbeck, P.C. (“Rothwell Figg”) to provide various opinions regarding U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,249,825 (the “‘825 patent”). I am being compensated for my work in
`
`this matter. My compensation in no way depends upon the outcome of this
`
`proceeding.
`
`3.
`
`I have been advised that Rothwell Figg represents LG Electronics,
`
`Inc. (“LGE”), LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. (“LGE USA”), and LG Electronics
`
`Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc. (“LGE Mobilecomm”) (collectively “LG”) in this
`
`matter. I have no financial interest in LGE, LGE USA, nor LGE Mobilecomm.
`
`4.
`
`I have been advised that Cypress Semiconductor Corp. owns the ‘825
`
`Patent. I have no financial interest in the ‘825 patent.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`5.
`I received a Master of Science in Electrical Engineering in 1981 from
`
`Vrije Universiteit Brussel (V.U.B.) (Brussels Free University) at the Department of
`
`Applied Sciences.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`6.
`
`From 1981 to 1983, I was an Assistant Professor in the Department of
`
`Electrical Engineering at Brussels Free University, where I was involved in the
`
`field of non-destructive testing, such as through time-domain reflectometry.
`
`7.
`
`From 1983 to 1985, I was responsible for Industrial Consulting and
`
`External Industrial Contacts at the Brussels Free University.
`
`8.
`
`In 1985, I co-founded the company Signal Processing Innovations
`
`N.V. (Spinnov) in Brussels. The company focused on development and sale of
`
`digital signal processing boards and complete measurement systems. My
`
`responsibilities included research and development and product management. I
`
`was also responsible for designing a high-end Fast Fourier Transform (FFT)
`
`Spectrum Analyzer for Sound and Vibration markets.
`
`9.
`
`In 1990, I started another company called Ling Dynamic Systems
`
`N.V. in Brussels. Ling was also focused on the signal processing market. From
`
`1990 to 1991, I was a Director at Ling and was responsible for R&D and product
`
`management.
`
`10.
`
`In 1991, I started a company called Design & Advice C.V. in
`
`Belgium. While there, I began consulting for Philips International Technology
`
`Center Leuven (ITCL) in DSP hardware and software.
`
`11.
`
`In 1995, while still a consultant at Design & Advice C.V., I became
`
`involved in the creation of the USB standard. I represented Philips in the USB
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Device Working Group (DWG) and was elected chairman of the Audio Device
`
`Class Working Group of the DWG. I was an author of the USB Specification for
`
`audio devices.
`
`12.
`
`I also participated in the Hub Working Group and actively
`
`participated in the Common Class Specification Working Group.
`
`13.
`
`I have made various presentations on USB technology. These include
`
`presenting the world’s first USB-based digital speaker at the February 1996 USB
`
`Developers Conference; giving a presentation on the Audio Device Class at the
`
`1997 Windows Hardware Engineering Conference (WinHEC); presenting a lecture
`
`on USB synchronization at the Philadelphia USB Developers conference; and
`
`presenting a lecture about USB and USB audio before the San Francisco Audio
`
`Engineering Society (AES).
`
`14.
`
`I further participated in the development of USB-based audio products
`
`for Philips.
`
`15.
`
`In 1998, I founded a new company in San Jose, California called
`
`Design & Advice L.L.C. I represented Philips ITCL in different USB working
`
`groups. I also represented Philips as a Promoter team member during the
`
`development of the second generation USB specification, USB 2.0. During that
`
`time frame (1999), I was chairman of the Content Security Working Group, which
`
`created the framework to implement DTCP over USB.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`16.
`
`In 2000, I was elected to the Board of Directors of the USB
`
`Implementers Forum (USB-IF). I was further appointed to be Secretary of the
`
`Board. From 2000 to 2002, I participated in the development and finalization of
`
`the USB 2.0 Core Specification. In 2002, I was elected Vice President and
`
`Secretary of the USB-Implementers Forum. I also continued my role as chairman
`
`of the Audio Device Class Working Group, and started the revision of the USB
`
`Specification for audio devices.
`
`17. During that time frame, I also participated in the standardization of the
`
`Bluetooth Advanced Audio Distribution Profile Specification.
`
`18. Between 2002 and 2008, I became involved in UPnP standardization
`
`efforts, co-chaired the UPnP Audio/Video Working Committee, and was active in
`
`the Digital Home Working Group initiative.
`
`19.
`
`In 2008, I represented NXP Semiconductors as a USB 3.0 Promoter
`
`Group member, and contributed to the creation of the USB 3.0 specification. My
`
`work included co-designing the isochronous transfer model and the Service
`
`Interval Synchronization mechanism.
`
`20.
`
`In 2009, I started work on the new Video Display DWG Working
`
`Group and carried out an editor role for the core specification of the new Device
`
`Class and participated in providing a first version of the specification. During this
`
`time, I also contributed to the Content Security DWG Working Group, the
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Multimode DWG Working Group, and Power Delivery Control Promoter Working
`
`Group. My work in these areas has continued to the present day.
`
`21. My over 33 years of professional experience with computer peripheral
`
`device interface design and with USB technology, as well as my educational
`
`background, are summarized in more detail in my C.V., which is attached as
`
`Appendix A.
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED AND PREPARED
`22.
`In forming the opinions expressed below, I considered the ‘825 patent
`
`and the other patents in its family (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,012,103 and 6,493,770)
`
`(collectively the “USB Patents”) and their file histories as well as the prior art
`
`references and related documentation discussed herein. I have also relied upon my
`
`education, background, and experience.
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`23. Based on my investigation and analysis, and for the reasons set forth
`
`below, it is my opinion that all of the elements and steps recited in claims 1-3, 5, 7,
`
`10-13, and 15-20 of the ‘825 patent are disclosed in prior art references and that
`
`those claims are anticipated and/or rendered obvious in view of these references.
`
`In particular, I have relied primarily on the five prior art references identified
`
`below in support of my opinions:
`
`(1)
`
`Patent Owner’s Admitted Prior Art (“APA”) (Ex. 1001);
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`(2)
`
`(3)
`
`(4)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,073,193 to Yap (“Yap”) (Ex. 1002);
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,628,928 to Michelson (“Michelson”) (Ex. 1003);
`
`PCCextend100 User’s Manual (“PCCextend”) (Ex. 1004);
`
`(5) U.S. Patent No. 5,862,393 to Davis (“Davis”) (Ex. 1005);
`
`24. Besides the above documents, I have also considered the following
`
`references in preparing my declaration:
`
`(1)
`
`(2)
`
`(3)
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent 6,012,103 (Ex. 1006);
`
` Prosecution History of U.S. Patent 6,249,825 (Ex. 1007);
`
` Prosecution History of U.S. Patent 6,493,770 (Ex. 1008);
`
`(4) USB Specification v1.0 (Ex. 1013)
`
`(5) U.S. Patent No. 5,590,273 to Balbinot (Ex. 1014)
`
`(6) U.S. Patent No. 6,338,109 to Snyder (Ex. 1015)
`
`(7) Quinnell, Richard A., “USB: A Neat Package with a Few Loose
`
`Ends,” EDN Magazine (October 24, 1996) (Ex. 1016).
`
`(8) Levine, Larry. PCMCIA Primer, pp. 117-130 (M&T Books 1995)
`
`(Ex. 1017).
`
`(9)
`
`PCMCIA PC Standard Release 2.01, pp. 3-2 to 3-5; 4-2 to 4-7; 4-10 to
`
`4-19; 4-28 to 4-31; 4-34 to 4-37; 5-2 to 5-5; 5-12 to 5-21; 5-23; 5-48 to 5-51; 6-6
`
`to 6-17 (Ex. 1018)
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`(10) PCMCIA Card Services Specification Release 2.0, pp. 3-2 to 3-7; 3-
`
`14 to 3-17; 3-20 to 3-25; 3-28 to 3-29; 5-78 to 5-79 (Ex. 1019)
`
`(11) U.S. Patent No. 5,537,654 to Bedingfield (Ex. 1020)
`
`The bases for my opinions are set forth in greater detail below and in the
`
`claim charts attached as Appendix B.
`
`V. LEGAL PRINCIPLES USED IN ANALYSIS
`25.
`I am not a patent attorney nor have I independently researched the law
`
`on patent validity. LGE’s attorneys have explained certain legal principles to me
`
`that I have relied on in forming my opinions set forth in this declaration.
`
`26.
`
`I was informed that my assessment and determination of whether or
`
`not claims 1-3, 5, 7, 10-13, and 15-20 of the ‘825 patent are unpatentable must be
`
`undertaken from the perspective of what would have been known or understood by
`
`someone of ordinary skill in the art as of the earliest priority filing date of the USB
`
`Patents—July 2, 1997. From analyzing the USB Patents and the relevant prior art,
`
`it is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art for the ’825 patent
`
`would have at least the equivalent of a Bachelor of Science degree in computer or
`
`electrical engineering and 2-4 years of industry experience in the field of computer
`
`peripheral device interfaces and configuration or a comparable amount of
`
`combined education and equivalent industry experience. Strength in one of these
`
`areas can compensate for a weakness in another. Unless otherwise specified, when
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`I state that something would be known to or understood by one skilled in the art or
`
`possessing ordinary skill in the art, I am referring to someone with this level of
`
`knowledge and understanding.
`
`A.
`27.
`
`Patent Claims in General
`
`I have been informed that patent claims are the numbered sentences at
`
`the end of each patent. I have been informed that the claims are important because
`
`the words of the claims define what a patent covers. I have also been informed that
`
`the figures and text in the rest of the patent provide a description and/or examples
`
`and help explain the scope of the claims, but that the claims define the breadth of
`
`the patent’s coverage.
`
`28.
`
`I have also been informed that an “independent claim” expressly sets
`
`forth all of the elements that must be met in order for something to be covered by
`
`that claim. I have also been informed that a “dependent claim” does not itself
`
`recite all of the elements of the claim but refers to another claim for some of its
`
`elements. In this way, the claim “depends” on another claim and incorporates all
`
`of the elements of the claim(s) from which it depends. I also have been informed
`
`that dependent claims add additional elements. I have been informed that, to
`
`determine all the elements of a dependent claim, it is necessary to look at the
`
`recitations of the dependent claim and any other claim(s) on which it depends.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`29.
`
`I have also been informed that patent claims may be expressed as
`
`“methods” or “apparatuses/devices/systems.” That is, I have been informed that a
`
`patent may claim the steps of a “method,” such as a particular way to perform a
`
`process in a series of ordered steps, or may claim a combination of various
`
`elements in an “apparatus,” “device,” or “system.”
`
`30.
`
`I have also been informed that patent claims may be expressed as
`
`“means-plus-function” claims. I have been informed that a claim limitation is
`
`presumed to be a means-plus-function limitation when it explicitly uses the term
`
`“means” and includes functional language. I have further been informed that a
`
`claim limitation expressed in means-plus-function language shall be construed to
`
`cover the corresponding structure described in the specification and equivalents
`
`thereof.
`
`B.
`31.
`
`Prior Art
`
`I have been informed that the law provides categories of information
`
`(known as “prior art”) that may anticipate or render obvious patent claims. I have
`
`been informed that, to be prior art with respect to a particular patent in this
`
`proceeding, a reference must have been published, or patented, or be the subject of
`
`a patent application by another, before the priority date of the patent. I have also
`
`been informed that a person of ordinary skill in the art is presumed to have
`
`knowledge of all prior art. I have been asked to presume that the reference
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`materials that I opine on, i.e., the APA; U.S. Patent No. 6,073,193 to Yap; U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,628,028 to Michelson; PCCextend 100 User’s Manual; and U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,862,393 to Davis, are prior art from a technical perspective – that is,
`
`all were available to a person of ordinary skill in the art on or before the priority
`
`date of the patent.
`
`C. Unpatentability – Anticipation
`32.
`I have been informed and understand that determination of whether a
`
`patent claim is “anticipated” is a two-step process. First, the language of the claim
`
`is construed as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`of the filing of the patent application. Reference is made to the intrinsic evidence
`
`of record, which includes the language of the claim itself and other issued claims,
`
`the patent specification, and the prosecution history. Words in a claim will be
`
`given their ordinary or accustomed meaning unless it appears that the inventor
`
`used them differently. The prosecution history may limit the interpretation of the
`
`claim, especially if the applicant disavowed or disclaimed any coverage in order to
`
`obtain allowance of the claim.
`
`33. Second, I understand that after the patent claim has been construed,
`
`determining anticipation of the patent claim requires a comparison of the properly
`
`construed claim language to the prior art on an element-by-element basis.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`34.
`
`I understand that a claimed invention is “anticipated” if each and
`
`every element of the claim has been disclosed in a single prior art reference, or has
`
`been embodied in a single prior art device or practice, either explicitly or
`
`inherently (i.e., necessarily present or implied).
`
`35.
`
`I understand that although anticipation cannot be established by
`
`combining references, additional references may be used to interpret the
`
`anticipating reference by, for example, indicating what the anticipating reference
`
`would have meant to one having ordinary skill in the art.
`
`36.
`
`I understand that certain asserted claim elements in the Asserted
`
`Patent have been written in means-plus-function format. I understand that
`
`anticipatory prior art must satisfy both the functional and—assuming it can be
`
`identified in the written description of the patent—the corresponding structural
`
`requirements of a given means-plus-function claim element (by having either the
`
`structure that the patent specification discloses or its equivalent).
`
`D. Unpatentability -- Obviousness
`37.
`I have been informed that, even if every element of a claim is not
`
`found explicitly or implicitly in a single prior art reference, the claim may still be
`
`unpatentable if the differences between the claimed elements and the prior art are
`
`such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`
`invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art. That is, the invention
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`may be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when seen in light of
`
`one or more prior art references. I have been informed that a patent is obvious
`
`when it is only a combination of old and known elements, with no change in their
`
`respective functions, and that these familiar elements are combined according to
`
`known methods to obtain predictable results. I have been informed that the
`
`following four factors are considered when determining whether a patent claim is
`
`obvious: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the
`
`prior art and the claim; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) secondary
`
`considerations tending to prove obviousness or nonobviousness. I have also been
`
`informed that the courts have established a collection of secondary factors of
`
`nonobviousness, which include: unexpected, surprising, or unusual results; prior
`
`art that teaches away from the alleged invention; substantially superior results;
`
`synergistic results; long-standing need; commercial success; and copying by
`
`others. I have also been informed that there must be a connection, or nexus,
`
`between these secondary factors and the scope of the claim language.
`
`38.
`
`I have also been informed that some examples of rationales that may
`
`support a conclusion of obviousness include:
`
`a) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`
`predictable results;
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`b) Simply substituting one known element for another to obtain
`
`predictable results;
`
`c) Using known techniques to improve similar devices (or product) in
`
`the same way (e.g. obvious design choices);
`
`d) Applying a known technique to a known device (or product) ready
`
`for improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`e) Choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions,
`
`with a reasonable expectation of success—in other words, whether
`
`something is “obvious to try”;
`
`f) Using work in one field of endeavor to prompt variations of that
`
`work for use in either the same field or a different one based on
`
`design incentives or other market forces if the variations are
`
`predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; and
`
`g) Arriving at a claimed invention as a result of some teaching,
`
`suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one
`
`of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine
`
`prior art reference teachings.
`
`39.
`
`I have also been informed that other rationales to support a conclusion
`
`of obviousness may be relied upon, for instance, that common sense (where
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`substantiated) may be a reason to combine or modify prior art to achieve the
`
`claimed invention.
`
`VI. BACKGROUND OF THE PATENT AND RELEVANT
`TECHNOLOGY
`40. The ‘825 patent relates to a system and method for interfacing a
`
`computer system to a peripheral device, examples of which included a computer
`
`mouse, keyboard, and PC card (also referred to as a PCMCIA card). Various
`
`specifications have been developed to facilitate interaction between a computer
`
`and a peripheral device. These specifications have included the Personal
`
`Computer Memory Card International Association (PCMCIA) Specification and
`
`the Universal Serial Bus (USB) Specification.
`
`41.
`
`In the Background of the ‘825 Patent (“Background”), the patentee
`
`admits that it was known to connect a peripheral device to a computer using the
`
`USB. Ex. 1001, 1:59-2:12; 4:5-24; Fig. 1. The patentee also admits in the
`
`Background that, when the USB of a peripheral is inserted into a powered-up host
`
`computer or inserted into a powered-down host computer which is then powered
`
`up, the host computer detects the peripheral device and a configuration process
`
`known as “enumeration” begins which causes the peripheral device to be
`
`recognized by the host computer’s operating system. Ex. 1001, 1:59-2:12.
`
`42. The Background further states that the only opportunity for
`
`associating a software device driver with a peripheral device is at the time when
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`the enumeration process occurs. Ex. 1001, 2:13-16. “Thus, to alter the
`
`configuration or personality of a peripheral device, such as downloading new code
`
`or configuration information into the memory of the peripheral device, the host
`
`computer system must detect a peripheral device connection or a disconnection and
`
`then a reconnection.” Id. at 2:17-21.
`
`43. This was admitted to be one of the “problems of known systems and
`
`methods. . . .” Id. at 2:29-32. Accordingly, it was admitted to be known that a
`
`peripheral device could have a first configuration and that a second configuration
`
`could be downloaded into the peripheral device over a computer bus. All of these
`
`features are also found in one or more of the prior art references discussed herein.
`
`44. The Background describes that the problem that the host computer
`
`system must detect a physical disconnection and reconnection is solved by a switch
`
`which is connected to one of the USB data lines D+ and D-. Ex. 1001, 6:51-55 and
`
`6:66-7:15. It was known that a host detects the connection of a peripheral device
`
`by monitoring voltage levels on one of the two USB data lines. Id. at 6:18-
`
`21. Thus, by changing the state of the data lines, the switch is electronically
`
`simulating a physical disconnection or reconnection of the peripheral over the bus,
`
`as recited in independent claims 1, 11 and 18. However, as discussed in more detail
`
`below, it was well known in the prior art (e.g., in U.S. Patent No. 6,073,193 to
`
`Yap; PCCextend 100 User’s Manual, and U.S. Patent No. 5,862,393 to Davis) to
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`position a switch in the lines of a bus between a peripheral device and host
`
`computer which can be opened and closed to simulate a physical disconnection and
`
`reconnection over the bus and cause reconfiguration. Thus, the problem that a host
`
`needs to detect a disconnection and reconnection to cause reconfiguration had a
`
`well-known solution in the prior art.
`
`VII. THE ‘825 PATENT
`45. The Background admits that physically disconnecting and
`
`reconnecting a peripheral device to reconfigure the peripheral device was known at
`
`the time of the invention. See supra, Section VI. This physical disconnection and
`
`reconnection caused a host computer to perform an enumeration process to
`
`recognize the requirements and capabilities of the device and select an appropriate
`
`device driver with which to use the peripheral device. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:59-
`
`2:3.
`
`46. The ‘825 Patent relates to using an electronic circuit to simulate the
`
`disconnection and reconnection to take the place of an actual physical
`
`disconnection and reconnection. Ex. 1001 2:55-3:2 and 5:26-33.
`
`47. Figure 2 of the ‘825 Patent (reproduced below) illustrates a USB
`
`system “in accordance with the invention.” Ex. 1001, 3:42-43 and 4:53-55. The
`
`USB system includes a host computer with an operating system that stores “one or
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`more peripheral device drivers, such as a first peripheral device driver 68” and a
`
`“plurality of different configuration information sets 70.” Ex. 1001 4:57- 5:3.
`
`
`48. The host computer selects one of the plurality of configuration
`
`information sets, such as an updated configuration information set, to download to
`
`the peripheral device. Ex. 1001 5:25-43. Instead of relying on a physical
`
`disconnection and reconnection of the peripheral device to reconfigure the
`
`peripheral device based on the updated configuration information set, the host uses
`
`an “electronic disconnect and reconnect method in accordance with the invention.”
`
`Id. at 5:26-33. In other words, the “disconnect/connect cycle may be electrically
`
`simulated” so that “a change in the configuration information for a particular
`
`peripheral device may be implemented.” Id. at 2:55-61.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`49. For example, the peripheral device may have a first configuration that
`
`is an “initial factory configuration of the peripheral device.” Ex. 1001 5:34-38.
`
`“[W]hen the peripheral device is first connected to the USB, the configuration
`
`information 70” for a second configuration, including “any microprocessor code
`
`applicable to the peripheral device and the appropriate configuration data for the
`
`peripheral device may be downloaded over the USB into the memory 74 of the
`
`peripheral device 54 as shown by the dashed arrow 78.” Id. at 5:38-44.
`
`50. Then, the “electrical simulation of the disconnection and reconnection
`
`of the peripheral device . . . may be initiated and a re-enumeration process may
`
`occur.” Id. at 5:44-47. “During the re-enumeration process, the newly
`
`downloaded configuration information may be used to reconfigure the USB for the
`
`peripheral device and the host computer may select the appropriate software device
`
`driver 68 for the peripheral device based on the configuration information and load
`
`the device driver into memory 64 as shown by arrow 80.” Id. at 5:47-53.
`
`51. According to the ‘825 Patent, a conventional host computer USB
`
`interface circuit monitors the two USB data leads, labeled D+ and D-, to detect a
`
`disconnection and reconnection. Id. at 3:45-46; 6:7-33; Fig. 3.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`
`52. As shown in Fig. 3, when the host device and the peripheral device
`
`are connected, 3.3 V from a power bus is supplied to the D+ line. Id. at 6:7-21.
`
`“In operation, the host computer detects the connection of a peripheral device by
`
`monitoring the voltage levels of one of the two USB data leads.” Id. at 6:18-21.
`
`When the peripheral device is physically disconnected from the host computer, the
`
`connection from the 3.3 V supply voltage to the D+ line is broken as well, causing
`
`the host to measure zero volts on the D+ line. Id. at 6:22-26. Based on this
`
`measurement, the host computer “determines that no peripheral device is
`
`connected to the USB port.” Id. When that peripheral device or another peripheral
`
`device is connected to the host computer, “the 1.5 kΩ resistor 110 connected to a
`
`supply voltage of the peripheral device USB interface 101 adds a voltage to the D+
`
`line and the D+ line at the host computer is pulled to above 3 volts which is
`
`detected as a connected peripheral device by the host computer and the host
`
`computer begins the enumeration process.” Id. at 6:26-34.
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`
`53. The ‘825 Patent describes simulating the disconnection/reconnection
`
`cycle by using a switch to break the connection between a supply voltage and the
`
`D+ line. Id. at 6:66-7:24; Fig. 4 (reproduced below).
`
`
`54. The switch 130 “may be a semiconductor switch such as a field effect
`
`transistor (FET),” and “may have a control lead 132 which may cont