`
`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 CORP.
`Patent Owner
`_______________
`
`Patent 6,249,825
`_______________
`
`
`PETITION
`to Institute an Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,249,825
`under 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`PO Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313–1450
`Submitted Electronically via the Patent Review Processing System
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`V. 
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................................................... v 
`EXHIBIT LIST ....................................................................................................... vii 
`I. 
`§ 42.22(a)(1) — A STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF
`REQUESTED .................................................................................................. 1 
`§ 42.104(a) – GROUNDS FOR STANDING ................................................. 1 
`II. 
`III.  MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 2 
`IV. 
`§ 42.104(b) – IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGES ................................. 3 
`A. 
`§ 42.104(b)(1) -(2)—Claims, Statutory Grounds, and Prior Art .......... 3 
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 4 
`A. 
`§ 42.104(b)(3)—How the Challenged Claims Are To Be
`Construed ............................................................................................... 6 
`VI.  SUMMARY OF THE ’825 PATENT AND ITS PROSECUTION
`HISTORY ........................................................................................................ 9 
`A.  Overview ............................................................................................... 9 
`B. 
`The ’825 Patent ..................................................................................... 9 
`C. 
`Prosecution History ............................................................................. 14 
`1. 
`The ‘103 Patent ......................................................................... 14 
`2. 
`The ‘825 Patent ......................................................................... 16 
`3. 
`The ‘770 Patent ......................................................................... 17 
`VII.  § 42.104(b)(4) – HOW THE CONSTRUED CLAIMS ARE
`UNPATENTABLE ........................................................................................ 19 
`A.  Ground #1: Claims 1, 5, 7, 10, 11, and 15-17 are Obvious under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over APA and Yap ............................................... 19 
`1. 
`Admitted Prior Art .................................................................... 19 
`2. 
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 22 
`a. 
`“1. A system for reconfiguring a peripheral device
`having a first configuration connected by a
`computer bus and a port to a host computer, the
`system comprising:” ....................................................... 22 
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`LG’s Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,249,825
`
`
`b. 
`
`c. 
`
`“a first circuit configured to download information
`for a second configuration from the host computer
`into the peripheral device over the computer bus;
`and” ................................................................................. 23 
`“a second circuit configured to electronically
`simulate a physical disconnection and reconnection
`of the peripheral device over said computer bus to
`reconfigure the peripheral device to said second
`configuration.” ................................................................ 25 
`Claim 5 ...................................................................................... 28 
`3. 
`Claim 7 ...................................................................................... 29 
`4. 
`Claim 10 .................................................................................... 30 
`5. 
`Claim 11 .................................................................................... 31 
`6. 
`Claim 15 .................................................................................... 31 
`7. 
`Claim 16 .................................................................................... 32 
`8. 
`Claim 17 .................................................................................... 32 
`9. 
`Ground #2: Claims 2, 3, 12, and 13 are Obvious under 35 U.S.C. §
`103(a) over APA, Yap, and Michelson ............................................... 33 
`1. 
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 33 
`2. 
`Claim 3 ...................................................................................... 35 
`3. 
`Claim 12 .................................................................................... 36 
`4. 
`Claim 13 .................................................................................... 36 
`Ground #3: Claims 1-3, 10, 11-13, and 17 are Obvious under
`35 U.S.C. § 103 over Michelson, PCCextend, and Davis................... 36 
`1. 
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 36 
`a. 
`“1. A system for reconfiguring a peripheral device
`having a first configuration connected by a
`computer bus and a port to a host computer, the
`system comprising:” ....................................................... 36 
`“a first circuit configured to download information
`for a second configuration from the host computer
`into the peripheral device over the computer bus;
`and” ................................................................................. 38 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`b. 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`LG’s Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,249,825
`
`
`c. 
`
`E. 
`
`“a second circuit configured to electronically
`simulate a physical disconnection and reconnection
`of the peripheral device over said computer bus to
`reconfigure the peripheral device to said second
`configuration.” ................................................................ 39 
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 43 
`2. 
`Claim 3 ...................................................................................... 44 
`3. 
`Claim 10 .................................................................................... 44 
`4. 
`Claim 11 .................................................................................... 45 
`5. 
`Claim 12 .................................................................................... 45 
`6. 
`Claim 13 .................................................................................... 45 
`7. 
`Claim 17 .................................................................................... 45 
`8. 
`D.  Ground #4: Claims 5, 7, 15, and 16 are Obvious under 35 U.S.C. §
`103(a) over Michelson, PCCextend, Davis, and the APA .................. 47 
`1. 
`Claim 5 ...................................................................................... 47 
`2. 
`Claim 7 ...................................................................................... 48 
`3. 
`Claim 15 .................................................................................... 50 
`4. 
`Claim 16 .................................................................................... 51 
`Ground #5: Claims 18-20 are anticipated by Yap under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 102(e) ................................................................................................ 51 
`1. 
`Claim 18 .................................................................................... 51 
`a. 
`“A system for simulating a disconnection and
`reconnection of a peripheral device connected by a
`computer bus and a port to a host computer, the
`system comprising:” ....................................................... 51 
`“a first circuit configured to detect the peripheral
`device connected to the port; and” ................................. 52 
`“a second circuit configured to electronically
`simulate a physical disconnection and reconnection
`of the peripheral device over said computer bus.” ......... 52 
`Claim 19 .................................................................................... 54 
`Claim 20 .................................................................................... 54 
`
`b. 
`
`c. 
`
`2. 
`3. 
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`LG’s Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,249,825
`
`
`F. 
`
`Ground #6: Claims 18 and 20 are anticipated by Davis under 35
`U.S.C. § 102(e) .................................................................................... 54 
`1. 
`Claim 18 .................................................................................... 54 
`a. 
`“18. A system for simulating a disconnection and
`reconnection of a peripheral device connected by a
`computer bus and a port to a host computer, the
`system comprising:” ....................................................... 54 
`“a first circuit configured to detect the peripheral
`device connected to the port; and” ................................. 55 
`“a second circuit configured to electronically
`simulate a physical disconnection and reconnection
`of the peripheral device over said computer bus” .......... 57 
`Claim 20 .................................................................................... 58 
`2. 
`G.  Ground 7: Claim 19 would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. §
`103(a) over Davis and the APA .......................................................... 58 
`1. 
`Claim 19 .................................................................................... 58 
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 59 
`
`
`b. 
`
`c. 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases 
`
`In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr.,
`367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .............................................................................. 7
`
`Intri-Plex Technologies Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Perf. Plastics Rencol Ltd.,
`Case No. IPR 2014-00309, 2014 WL 2623456 (P.T.A.B. June 10, 2014) .......... 19
`
`Multiform Dessicants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd.,
`133 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .............................................................................. 7
`
`York Prods., Inc. v. Central Tractor Farm & Family Ctr.,
`99 F.3d 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ................................................................................ 7
`
`Statutes 
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ......................................................................................................1, 3
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ............................................................................................ 52, 55
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................ 37
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ................................................................................ 19, 33, 47, 58
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (Pre-AIA) .................................................................................... 3
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 313 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 317 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 318 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`LG’s Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,249,825
`
`35 U.S.C. § 319 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. §103(c) (pre-AIA) ................................................................................... 28
`
`Regulations 
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................ 7
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.101 ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.101(a) ................................................................................................. 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.101(b) ................................................................................................ 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.101(c) ................................................................................................. 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ................................................................................................ 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1) ............................................................................................ 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2) ............................................................................................ 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ............................................................................................ 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) .......................................................................................... 19
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(1) .............................................................................................. 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ................................................................................................ 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ................................................................................................ 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ................................................................................................ 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ................................................................................................ 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`LG’s Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,249,825
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Ex.
`
`Reference
`
`Prior Art Type
`
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 6,249,825 to Sartore et al. (filed on
`Jan. 4, 2000) (issued on June 19, 2001).
`
`Admitted Prior Art
`
`1002 U.S. Patent No. 6,073,193 to Yap (filed Apr. 24,
`1997) (issued Jun. 6, 2000)(“Yap”).
`
`§ 102(e)
`
`1003 U.S. Patent No. 5,628,028 to Michelson (filed on
`Mar. 2, 1995) (issued on May 6,
`1997)(“Michelson”).
`
`§ 102(a), (e)
`
`1004 PCCextend 100 User’s Manual (published April 3,
`1995)(“PCCextend”)
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`1005 U.S. Patent No. 5,862,393 to Davis (filed on Oct. 7,
`1996) (issued on Jan. 19, 1999)(“Davis”).
`
`§ 102(e)
`
`1006 Prosecution History of U.S. Patent 6,012,103
`
`1007 Prosecution History of U.S. Patent 6,249,825
`
`1008 Prosecution History of U.S. Patent 6,493,770
`
`1009 Prosecution History of European Patent Application
`No. 98931675.7
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`1010 European Patent Convention (EPC) Rules 43 (2007)
`and 29 (1973)
`
`N/A
`
`1011 Patent Assignment Records of U.S. Patent Nos.
`6,012,103; 6,249,825; and 6,493,770
`
`1012 Declaration of Geert Knapen
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`1013 USB Specification v 1.0 (published January 1996)
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`LG’s Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,249,825
`
`
`1014 U.S. Patent No. 5,590,273 to Balbinot (filed
`January 30, 1996) (issued December 31, 1996)
`
`§ 102 (a), (e)
`
`1015 U.S. Patent No. 6,338,109 to Snyder (filed August
`30, 1996)
`
`1016 Quinnell, Richard A., “USB: A Neat Package with a
`Few Loose Ends,” EDN Magazine (published
`October 24, 1996)
`
`1017 Levine, Larry. PCMCIA Primer, pp. 117-130
`(published 1995)
`
`1018 PCMCIA PC Card 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 (published 1992)
`
`§ 102(e)
`
`§ 102(a)
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`1019 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 (published 1992)
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`1020 U.S. Patent No. 5,537,654 to Bedingfield (filed
`May 20, 1993) (issued July 16, 1996)
`
`§ 102(a), (e)
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`LG’s Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,249,825
`
`
`I.
`
`§ 42.22(a)(1) — A STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF
`REQUESTED
`
`Petitioners, LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., and LG
`
`Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc. (collectively “LG” or “Petitioners”),
`
`respectfully request that the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`(“USPTO”) institute inter partes review (“IPR”) under 35 U.S.C. § 311–319 and
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq., and cancel claims 1-3, 5, 7, 10-13, and 15-20 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,249,825 (“the ‘825 patent”) (Ex. 1001), assigned to Cypress
`
`Semiconductor Corp. (“Cypress”), as being invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and/or
`
`103(a) (Pre-AIA) in light of the grounds presented herein.
`
`II.
`
`§ 42.104(a) – GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Petitioners hereby certify that the ‘825 patent for which review is sought is
`
`available for IPR. Specifically: (1) none of the Petitioners is an owner of the ‘825
`
`patent, see § 42.101; (2) before the date on which this Petition for review was filed,
`
`none of the Petitioners and Petitioners’ real parties-in-interest filed a civil action
`
`challenging the validity of a claim of the ‘825 patent, see § 42.101(a); (3)
`
`Petitioners requesting this proceeding have not filed this Petition more than one
`
`year after September 3, 2013, the date on which at least one of the Petitioners,
`
`Petitioners’ real party-in-interest, or a privy of Petitioners was served with a
`
`complaint alleging infringement of the ‘825 patent, see § 42.101(b); and (4)
`
`Petitioners, Petitioners’ real parties-in-interest, or a privy of Petitioners are not
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`estopped from challenging the claims on the grounds identified in this Petition, see
`
`LG’s Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,249,825
`
`
`§ 42.101(c).
`
`III. MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), Petitioners are the real parties-in-interest
`
`for this Petition. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2), the other judicial or
`
`administrative matters that would likely affect, or be affected by, a decision in this
`
`proceeding are: Cypress Semiconductor, Corp. v. LG Electronics, Inc., Case No.
`
`4:13-cv-04034 (N.D. Cal.) (asserting infringement of the ‘825 patent).
`
`Additionally, petitions for inter partes review are being filed concurrently for two
`
`related patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 6,012,103 (“the ‘103 Patent”) and 6,493,770 (“the
`
`‘770 Patent”).
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3), Petitioners provide the following
`
`designation of counsel:
`
`
`
`Email:
`Postal:
`
`Hand
`Delivery:
`Telephone:
`Facsimile:
`
`
`
`Lead Counsel
`Jason Shapiro (Reg. # 35,354)
`jshapiro@rothwellfigg.com
`ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST &
`MANBECK, P.C.
`607 14th Street, N.W., Suite 800
`Washington, DC 20005
`Same as Postal
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`Soumya P. Panda (Reg. # 60,447)
`spanda@rothwellfigg.com
`ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST &
`MANBECK, P.C.
`607 14th Street, N.W., Suite 800
`Washington, DC 20005
`Same as Postal
`
`202-783-6040
`202-783-6031
`
`202-783-6040
`202-783-6031
`
`2
`
`

`

`LG’s Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,249,825
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4), papers concerning this matter should be
`
`served on either Jason Shapiro or Soumya P. Panda as identified above, and as
`
`appropriate to the foregoing mailing/email addresses.
`
`IV. § 42.104(b) – IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGES
`
`A.
`
`§ 42.104(b)(1) -(2)—Claims, Statutory Grounds, and Prior
`Art
`
`Petitioners are requesting inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-3,
`
`5, 7, 10-13, and 15-20 of the ‘825 Patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102
`
`and 103(a) (Pre-AIA). The ’825 patent contains twenty claims, of which claims 1,
`
`11, and 18 are independent. Claims 1 and 11 are directed to reconfiguring a
`
`peripheral device connected by a computer bus and port to a host computer. Ex.
`
`1001, 9:33-43, 10:12-22. Independent claim 18 is directed more generally to a
`
`system for simulating a disconnection and reconnection of a peripheral device
`
`connected by a computer bus and a port to a host computer. Id. at 10:46-53.
`
`Dependent claims 2-3, 5, 7, 10, 12, 13, 15-17, 19, and 20 either recite well-
`
`known features of a bus interface system or well-known details about
`
`reconfiguring a peripheral device. The grounds of invalidity of claims 1-3, 5, 7,
`
`10-13 and 15-20 are summarized below:
`
`Ground
`No.
`1
`
`Claim No(s).
`
`Proposed Statutory Rejections for the Claims
`of the ’825 Patent
`1, 5, 7, 10, 11, 15-17 Obvious under § 103(a) over APA and Yap
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`LG’s Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,249,825
`
`
`Obvious under § 103(a) over APA, Yap, and
`
`2, 3, 12, 13
`
`Michelson
`
`1-3, 10-13, 17
`
`Obvious under § 103(a) over Michelson,
`
`PCCextend, and Davis
`
`5, 7, 15, 16
`
`Obvious under § 103(a) over Michelson,
`
`PCCextend, Davis, and the APA
`
`Anticipation under § 102(e) by Yap
`
`Anticipation under § 102(e) by Davis
`
`Obvious under § 103(a) over Davis and APA
`
`18-20
`
`18, 20
`
`19
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`Grounds 1, 2, and 5 are not redundant with Grounds 3, 4, 6, and 7 at least
`
`because Grounds 1, 2, and 5 are based on Yap, a reference that patent owner may
`
`seek to swear behind because it has an effective date only a few months before the
`
`priority filing date of the ‘825 patent, whereas Grounds 3, 4, 6, and 7 are based on
`
`older references that would be more difficult for patent owner to swear behind.
`
`V.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The ‘825 Patent includes three sets of patent claims. Two sets of claims
`
`(based on independent claims 1 and 11) relate to systems and methods for
`
`reconfiguring a peripheral device by simulating a physical disconnection and
`
`reconnection of the device, and the third set of claims (based on independent claim
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`18) relates simply to a system for simulating a physical disconnection and
`
`LG’s Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,249,825
`
`
`reconnection of a peripheral device.
`
`The rest of the features in the independent claims are Admitted Prior Art
`
`(“APA”). Ex. 1012, ¶¶ 61-67. For example, in the Background of the Invention of
`
`the ‘825 Patent (the “Background”), the patentee admits that it was known to
`
`detect a peripheral device connected to a host computer by a computer bus and
`
`port. Id. at ¶ 62; Ex. 1001, 1:59-64. The Background further states that the only
`
`opportunity for associating a software device driver with a peripheral device in a
`
`USB system is at the time when the enumeration process occurs. Id. at 2:13-16;
`
`Ex. 1012, ¶ 64. The Background also states, “[t]hus, 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.; Ex. 1005, 2:17-21. This was admitted to be one of the
`
`“problems of known systems and methods. . . .” Id. at 2:29-32; Ex. 1012, ¶ 64.
`
`Accordingly, it was admitted to be known that a peripheral device could have a
`
`first configuration and that information for a second configuration could be
`
`downloaded into the peripheral device over a computer bus. Ex. 1012, ¶¶ 61-65.
`
`All of these features are also found in prior art references discussed herein. Id., at
`
`¶¶ 66, 68-92.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`LG’s Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,249,825
`
`
`The ‘825 Patent describes that the problem of having to physically
`
`disconnect and reconnect a peripheral device to reconfigure the device is solved by
`
`a switch which is connected to one of the USB data lines D+ and D-. Id. at 6:51-
`
`55, 6:66-7:15; Ex. 1012, ¶¶ 53-54. 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 ¶ 51; Ex. 1001, 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 device over the bus, as recited in independent claims 1, 11, and 18.
`
`Ex. 1012, ¶ 44. However, as described in more detail below, it was well known in
`
`the prior art (e.g., Yap, PCCextend, and Davis) to 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, which causes
`
`reconfiguration. Ex. 1012, ¶¶ 71, 84-85, 88. 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. Id.
`
`A.
`
`§ 42.104(b)(3)—How the Challenged Claims Are To Be
`Construed
`
`A claim in an unexpired patent is to be given its “broadest reasonable
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`LG’s Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,249,825
`
`
`interpretation in light of the specification in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.100(b).1 Claim terms are given their ordinary and accustomed meaning as
`
`would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, unless the inventor, as a
`
`lexicographer, has set forth a special meaning for a term. Multiform Dessicants,
`
`Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1998); York Prods., Inc. v.
`
`Central Tractor Farm & Family Ctr., 99 F.3d 1568, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Thus,
`
`solely for this proceeding, the following list contains the proposed terms for
`
`construction and corresponding definitions. All other terms, not presented below,
`
`should be given their plain and ordinary meaning.
`
` “electronically [simulate/simulating] a physical disconnection and
`
`reconnection of the peripheral device”: The broadest reasonable interpretation of
`
`the term “electronically [simulate/simulating] a physical disconnection and
`
`reconnection of the peripheral device” is “using an electronic circuit to perform an
`
`action, such as an electronic reset, associated with physical disconnection and
`
`reconnection of a peripheral device.” Ex. 1012, ¶ 60. This interpretation is the
`
`
` 1
`
` Because the claim construction standard in an IPR is different than that used in
`
`litigation, Petitioners expressly reserve the right to present different constructions
`
`of terms in the related litigation. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d
`
`1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`LG’s Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,249,825
`
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation that is consistent with the claims of the ‘825
`
`Patent and the rest of the specification. Id.; see also Ex. 1001, 3:17-27, claims 1,
`
`10, 11, 17. For example, independent claim 1 recites a second circuit configured to
`
`electronically simulate a physical disconnection and reconnection of a peripheral
`
`device, and dependent claim 10 recites “wherein said second comprises a reset
`
`circuit configured to reset the first or second configuration of the peripheral
`
`device.” Independent claim 11 recites “(B) electronically simulating a physical
`
`disconnection and reconnection of the peripheral device,” and dependent claim 17
`
`recites “wherein step (B) comprises electronically resetting the configuration of
`
`the peripheral device.” Thus, the interpretation of the “electronically simulating”
`
`language must be broad enough so as not to exclude the reset circuit and resetting
`
`operation recited in the dependent claims. The interpretation of the “electronically
`
`simulating” language proposed herein encompasses the claimed reset circuit and
`
`operation, as well as the other aspects of electronically simulating (such as
`
`simulating with a switch) described in the patent (see, e.g., id. at 6:66-7:12), and is
`
`therefore the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the claims. Ex.
`
`1012, ¶ 60.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`LG’s Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,249,825
`
`
`VI. SUMMARY OF THE ’825 PATENT AND ITS PROSECUTION
`HISTORY
`
`A. Overview
`
`The ‘825 Patent is a continuation of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,103 (“the ‘103
`
`Patent”). The ‘103 Patent was filed as U.S. Patent Application No. 08/886,923 on
`
`July 2, 1997. The ‘825 Patent was then filed as U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`09/476,923. Another continuation application (U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`09/878,488, which issued as U.S. Patent No. 6,493,770) was later filed as a
`
`continuation of the ‘825 Patent. These three patents were originally assigned to
`
`Anchor Chips, Inc. Ex. 1011. They were later assigned to Cypress Semiconductor
`
`Corporation (“Cypress”) on December 26, 2002. Id.
`
`B.
`
`The ’825 Patent
`
`The ‘825 Patent relates to using an electronic circuit to simulate physical
`
`disconnection and reconnection of a peripheral device while it is connected to a
`
`host computer in order to reconfigure the peripheral device. Ex. 1001, 2:55-61,
`
`5:26-33; Ex. 1012, ¶ 46.
`
`Figure 2 (reproduced below) of the ‘825 Patent illustrates a USB system in
`
`accordance with the invention. Id. at ¶ 47; Ex. 1001, 3:42-43, 4:53-55. The USB
`
`system includes a host computer with an operating system that stores “one or more
`
`peripheral device drivers, such as a first peripheral device driver 68” and a
`
`“plurality of different configuration information sets 70.” Id. at 4:57-5:3; Ex.
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`LG’s Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,249,825
`
`
`1012, ¶ 47. 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. Id. at ¶ 48; Ex. 1001, 5:26-44. 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; Ex. 1012, ¶ 48. 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.; Ex. 1001, 2:55-61.
`
`
`
`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, 6:7-34, Fig. 3 (above); Ex. 1012, ¶
`
`51.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`LG’s Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,249,825
`
`
`
`
`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 ¶ 52; Ex.
`
`1001, 6:-34. “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; Ex. 1012, ¶ 52. Based on this measurement, the host computer “determines
`
`that no peripheral device is connected to the USB port.” Id.; Ex. 1001, 6:22-26.
`
`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; Ex. 1012, ¶ 52.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`LG’s Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,249,825
`
`
`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. Ex. 1001, 6:66-7:24, Fig. 4 (reproduced below); Ex. 1012, ¶ 53. The switch
`
`130 “may be a semiconductor switch such as a field effect transistor (FET),” and
`
`“may have a control lead