EXH IBIT 2002
`
`EXHIBIT 2002
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`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
`_______________
`
`Patent 6,012,103
`_______________
`
`
`
`PETITION
`to Institute an Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,103
`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
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2002
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 6,249,825
`Page 1
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................ VI
`
`EXHIBIT LIST .................................................................................................. VIII
`
`I.
`
`§ 42.22(A)(1) — A STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF
`
`REQUESTED ........................................................................................................ 1
`
`II. § 42.104(A) – GROUNDS FOR STANDING ................................................ 1
`
`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
`
`V.
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 4
`
`A. § 42.104(b)(3)—How the Challenged Claims Are To Be Construed ....... 6
`
`VI. SUMMARY OF THE ’103 PATENT AND ITS PROSECUTION
`
`HISTORY ............................................................................................................ 10
`
`A. Overview .................................................................................................. 10
`
`B. The ’103 Patent ........................................................................................ 10
`
`C. Prosecution History .................................................................................. 15
`
`1. The ‘103 Patent .................................................................................... 15
`
`2. The ‘825 Patent .................................................................................... 16
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2002
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 6,249,825
`Page 2
`
`

`
`LG’s Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,103
`
`
`VII.
`
`§ 42.104(B)(4) – HOW THE CONSTRUED CLAIMS ARE
`
`UNPATENTABLE .............................................................................................. 20
`
`A. Ground #1: Claims 14, 18, 19, 20, 23, and 24-27 of the ’103 Patent are
`
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)(Pre-AIA) over APA and Yap ................... 20
`
`1. Admitted Prior Art ............................................................................... 20
`
`2. Claim 14 ............................................................................................... 23
`
`3. Claim 18 ............................................................................................... 30
`
`4. Claim 19 ............................................................................................... 31
`
`5. Claim 20 ............................................................................................... 32
`
`6. Claim 23 ............................................................................................... 33
`
`7. Claim 24 ............................................................................................... 35
`
`8. Claim 25 ............................................................................................... 38
`
`9. Claim 26 ............................................................................................... 38
`
`10. Claim 27 ............................................................................................... 39
`
`B. Ground #2: Claims 15 and 16 of the ’103 Patent are Obvious under 35
`
`U.S.C. 103(a)(Pre-AIA) over the APA, Yap, and Michelson ......................... 40
`
`1. Claim 15 ............................................................................................... 40
`
`2. Claim 16 ............................................................................................... 42
`
`C. Ground #3: Claims 14-16, 18 and 23-26 are Obvious under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103 (pre-AIA) over Michelson, PCCextend, and Davis .................................. 43
`
`
`
`iv
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2002
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 6,249,825
`Page 3
`
`

`
`LG’s Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,103
`
`1. Claim 14 ............................................................................................... 43
`
`2. Claim 15 ............................................................................................... 50
`
`3. Claim 16 ............................................................................................... 51
`
`4. Claim 18 ............................................................................................... 51
`
`5. Claim 23 ............................................................................................... 52
`
`6. Claim 24 ............................................................................................... 52
`
`7. Claim 25 ............................................................................................... 56
`
`8. Claim 26 ............................................................................................... 56
`
`D. Ground 4: Claims 19, 20, and 27 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103,
`
`as being obvious over Michelson, PCCextend, Davis, and the APA .............. 57
`
`1. Claim 19 ............................................................................................... 57
`
`2. Claim 20 ............................................................................................... 58
`
`3. Claim 27 ............................................................................................... 60
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................ 60
`
` 
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2002
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 6,249,825
`Page 4
`
`

`
`LG’s Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,103
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases 
`
`In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr.,
`367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .............................................................................. 6
`
`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). ........................ 20
`
`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. § 103(a) ............................................................................................ 1, 3, 4
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`Rules 
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................ 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.101 ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.101(a) ................................................................................................. 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.101(b) ....................................................................................... 1, 2, 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1) ............................................................................................ 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ............................................................................................ 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) .......................................................................................... 20
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(1) .............................................................................................. 1
`
`
`
`vi
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2002
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 6,249,825
`Page 5
`
`

`
`LG’s Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,103
`
`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
`
`
`
`vii
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2002
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 6,249,825
`Page 6
`
`

`
`LG’s Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,103
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Reference
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,103 to Sartore et al. (filed
`on Jul. 2, 1997) (issued on Jan. 4, 2000).
`
`Prior Art Type
`
`Admitted Prior Art
`(“APA”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,073,193 to Yap (filed Apr. 24,
`1997) (issued Jun. 6, 2000) (“Yap”).
`
`§ 102(e)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,628,028 to Michelson (filed on
`Mar. 2, 1995) (issued on May 6,
`1997)(“Michelson”).
`
`§ 102 (a), (e)
`
`PCCextend 100 User’s Manual (published April
`3, 1995)(“PCCextend”).
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,862,393 to Davis (filed on Oct.
`7, 1996) (issued on Jan. 19, 1999)(“Davis”).
`
`§ 102(e)
`
`Ex.
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`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
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`Prosecution History of European Patent
`Application No. 98931675.7
`
`European Patent Convention (EPC) Rule 29
`(1973)
`
`Patent Assignment Records of the ‘103, ‘825, and
`‘770 Patents
`
`1012
`
`Declaration of Geert Knapen
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`1013
`
`USB Specification v 1.0 (published January
`1996)
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`
`
`viii
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2002
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 6,249,825
`Page 7
`
`

`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`LG’s Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,103
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,590,273 to Balbinot (filed
`January 30, 1996) (issued December 31, 1996)
`
`§ 102 (a), (e)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,338,109 to Snyder (filed
`August 30, 1996)
`
`Quinnell, Richard A., “USB: A Neat Package
`with a Few Loose Ends,” EDN Magazine
`(published October 24, 1996)
`
`Levine, Larry. PCMCIA Primer, pp. 117-130
`(published 1995)
`
`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)
`
`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)
`
`
`
`ix
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2002
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 6,249,825
`Page 8
`
`

`
`LG’s Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,103
`
`
`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 14-16, 18-20, and 23-27 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,012,103 (“the ’103 patent”) (Ex. 1001), assigned to Cypress
`
`Semiconductor Corp. (“Cypress”), as being invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)(Pre-
`
`AIA) in light of the grounds presented herein.
`
`II.
`
`
`§ 42.104(a) – GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Petitioners hereby certify that the ’103 patent for which review is sought is
`
`available for IPR. Specifically: (1) none of the Petitioners is an owner of the ’103
`
`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 ’103 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 ’103 patent, see § 42.101(b); and (4)
`
`Petitioners, Petitioners’ real parties-in-interest, or a privy of Petitioners are not
`
`
`
`1
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2002
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 6,249,825
`Page 9
`
`

`
`estopped from challenging the claims on the grounds identified in this Petition, see
`
`LG’s Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,103
`
`
`§ 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 ’103 patent).
`
`Additionally, petitions for inter partes review are being filed concurrently for two
`
`related patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 6,249,825 and 6,493,770.
`
`
`
`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 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
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2002
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 6,249,825
`Page 10
`
`

`
`LG’s Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,103
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4), papers concerning this matter should be
`
`served on either Jason Shapiro or Soumya 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 14-
`
`
`
`16, 18-20, and 23-27 of the ’103 patent as obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) (Pre-
`
`AIA). The ’103 patent contains thirty-three claims, of which claims 1, 14, and 24
`
`are independent. Claims 14-16, 18-20, 23, 24, and 25-27 are directed to
`
`reconfiguring a peripheral device connected by a computer bus and port to a host
`
`computer. Ex. 1001, at 10:15-27, 10:60-11:4.
`
`
`
`Dependent claims 15, 16, 18-20, 23, and 25-27 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 14-16, 18-20, and 23-27 are summarized
`
`below:
`
`Ground
`No.
`1
`
`2
`
`
`
`Claim No(s).
`
`Proposed Statutory Rejections for the Claims of
`the ‘103 Patent
`14, 18-20, 23-27 Obviousness under § 103(a) over APA and Yap
`Obviousness under § 103(a) over APA, Yap, and
`
`15, 16
`
`Michelson
`
`3
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2002
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 6,249,825
`Page 11
`
`

`
`LG’s Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,103
`
`
`3
`
`4
`
`14-16, 18, 23-26 Obviousness under § 103(a) over Michelson,
`PCCextend, and Davis
`
`19, 20, 27
`
`Obviousness under § 103(a) over Michelson,
`
`PCCextend, Davis, and APA
`
`
`Grounds 1, 2, 3, and 4 are not redundant at least because Grounds 1 and 2
`
`are based on Yap, a secondary reference that patent owner may seek to swear
`
`behind because it has an effective date only a few months prior to the filing date of
`
`the ‘103 patent, whereas Grounds 3 and 4 are based on older references that would
`
`be more difficult for patent owner to swear behind.
`
`V.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The ‘103 Patent includes three sets of patent claims. Two sets of claims
`
`(based on independent claims 1 and 14) relate to a system and method,
`
`respectively, 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 24) relates to a peripheral interface device having means for
`
`electronically simulating a physical disconnection and reconnection of a peripheral
`
`device to reconfigure the device.
`
`The rest of the features in the independent claims are Admitted Prior Art
`
`(“APA”). Ex. 1012, ¶¶ 60-66, 95-106, 118-120, 122-124. For example, in the
`
`Background of the Invention of the ‘103 Patent (the “Background”), the patentee
`
`
`
`4
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2002
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 6,249,825
`Page 12
`
`

`
`LG’s Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,103
`
`
`admits that it was known to detect a peripheral device connected to a host
`
`computer by a computer bus and port. Id. at ¶ 61; Ex. 1001, 1:55-60. 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 2:9-13. 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. at 2:13-17. This was admitted to be
`
`one of the “problems of known systems and methods. . . .” Id. at 2:26-29.
`
`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, ¶ 64. All of
`
`these features are also found in prior art references discussed herein. Id. at ¶¶ 67-
`
`91.
`
`The ‘103 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 6:54-
`
`62, 6:65-7:11. 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 6:17-
`
`
`
`5
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2002
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 6,249,825
`Page 13
`
`

`
`LG’s Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,103
`
`
`20. 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, 14, and 24. Ex. 1012, ¶ 43. 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,
`
`¶ 43. 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
`
`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
`
`
`1 Because the claim construction standard in an IPR is different than that used in
`
`litigation, LG 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).
`
`
`
`6
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2002
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 6,249,825
`Page 14
`
`

`
`LG’s Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,103
`
`
`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 simulating a physical disconnection and reconnection of
`
`the peripheral device”: The broadest reasonable interpretation of the term
`
`“electronically 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, ¶ 59. This interpretation is the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation that is consistent with the claims of the ‘103 Patent and the rest of
`
`the specification. See id.; see also Ex. 1001, 3:14-24, claims 13, 23, and 33. For
`
`example, independent claim 1 recites a third circuit configured to electronically
`
`simulate a physical disconnection and reconnection of a peripheral device, and
`
`dependent claim 13 recites “wherein said third circuit comprises a reset circuit
`
`configured to reset the configuration of the peripheral device.” Independent claim
`
`14 recites electronically simulating a physical disconnection and reconnection of a
`
`peripheral device, and dependent claim 23 recites “wherein said simulating
`
`
`
`7
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2002
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 6,249,825
`Page 15
`
`

`
`LG’s Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,103
`
`
`comprises electronically resetting the configuration of the peripheral device,
`
`controllable by the peripheral device.” Similarly, independent claim 24 recites
`
`means for electronically simulating a physical disconnection and reconnection of a
`
`peripheral device, and dependent claim 33 recites “wherein said electronic
`
`simulating means comprises means for 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, resetting
`
`operation, and the means for electronically resetting recited in the dependent
`
`claims. The interpretation of the “electronically simulating” language proposed
`
`herein encompasses the claimed reset circuit, operation, and means in the
`
`dependent claims, as well as the other aspects of electronically simulating (such as
`
`simulating with a switch) described in the patent (see, e.g., 6:48-7:11), and is
`
`therefore the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the claims and the
`
`rest of the specification. Ex. 1012, ¶ 59.
`
` “means for physically connecting a peripheral device to a computer
`
`system through the computer peripheral bus: The corresponding structure in the
`
`‘103 Patent for physically connecting a peripheral device to a computer system
`
`through the computer peripheral bus is a connector and equivalents thereof. Ex.
`
`1012, ¶ 59. The only structure disclosed in the ‘103 patent for physically
`
`connecting a peripheral device to a computer system through the computer
`
`
`
`8
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2002
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 6,249,825
`Page 16
`
`

`
`peripheral bus is a connector. Id. See also Ex. 1001, 1:39-54, Figs. 1, 2, 5, 6, and
`
`LG’s Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,103
`
`
`7.
`
` “means for receiving a second set of configuration information from a
`
`computer system over the computer peripheral bus and port”: The
`
`corresponding structure in the ‘103 Patent for receiving a second set of
`
`configuration information from a computer system over the computer peripheral
`
`bus and port is a peripheral device interface and equivalents thereof. Ex. 1012, ¶
`
`59. For example, Fig. 2 shows an interface 76 for receiving configuration
`
`information over the computer bus and port. Id. See also Ex. 1001, 5:12, Figs. 2,
`
`and 5-7.
`
` “means for electronically simulating a physical disconnection and
`
`reconnection of the peripheral device to reconfigure the peripheral device to a
`
`second configuration based on the second set of configuration information”:
`
`The corresponding structure in the ‘103 Patent for electronically simulating a
`
`physical disconnection and reconnection of the peripheral device to reconfigure the
`
`peripheral device to a second configuration based on the second set of
`
`configuration information is an electronic circuit and equivalents thereof. Ex.
`
`1012, ¶ 59. For example, circuit 120 performs this function. Id. See also Ex.
`
`1001, 6:48-7:11, Fig. 4.
`
`
`
`9
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2002
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 6,249,825
`Page 17
`
`

`
`LG’s Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,103
`
`
`VI. SUMMARY OF THE ’103 PATENT AND ITS PROSECUTION
`HISTORY
`A. Overview
`The ‘103 Patent was filed as U.S. Patent Application No. 08/886,923 on July
`
`2, 1997, and was originally assigned to Anchor Chips, Inc. Ex. 1011. Two
`
`continuation applications were filed based on the above application: U.S. Patent
`
`Application No. 09/476,923 (which issued as U.S. Patent No. 6,249,825) and U.S.
`
`Patent Application No. 09/878,488 (which issued as U.S. Patent No. 6,493,770).
`
`The three patents, which were originally assigned to Anchor Chips, Inc., were later
`
`assigned to Cypress Semiconductor Corporation (“Cypress”) on December 26,
`
`2002. Id.
`
`B. The ’103 Patent
`The ‘103 Patent relates to using an electronic circuit to simulate a 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, 2:51-58;
`
`5:25-32.
`
`Figure 2 (reproduced below) of the ‘103 Patent illustrates a USB system “in
`
`accordance with the invention.” Id. at 3:42-43, 4:52-54. 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 4:55-5:2.
`
`
`
`10
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2002
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 6,249,825
`Page 18
`
`

`
`LG’s Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,103
`
`
`
`
`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 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 5:25-
`
`32. 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 2:51-58.
`
`According to the ‘103 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, 6:6-32, Fig. 3 (reproduced above).
`
`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 6:6-32. “In operation, the
`
`
`
`11
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2002
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 6,249,825
`Page 19
`
`

`
`LG’s Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,103
`
`
`host computer detects the connection of a peripheral device by monitoring the
`
`voltage levels of one of the two USB data leads.” Id. at 6:17-20. 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 6:20-24. 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 6:25-32.
`
`The ‘103 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 6:65-7:23, Fig. 4 (reproduced below).
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2002
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 6,249,825
`Page 20
`
`

`
`LG’s Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,103
`
`
`The switch 130 “may be a semiconductor switch such as a field effect
`
`transistor (FET),” and “may have a control lead 132 which may control the
`
`operation of the electrical switch.” Id. at 6:50-56. By opening the switch, “the D+
`
`data lead is no longer connected to the supply voltage and the host computer
`
`determines that the peripheral device has been disconnected even though the
`
`peripheral device is still physically connected to the USB.” Id. at 7:1-7.
`
`“Similarly, when the electrical switch is closed again, the D+ data lead is again
`
`connected to the supply voltage and the host computer will detect that the
`
`peripheral device has been reconnected to the USB.” Id. at 7:7-11.
`
`According to the ‘103 Patent, the “electronic disconnection and reconnection
`
`of the peripheral device, as described above, in combination with the storage of the
`
`configuration information sets on the host computer permits the configuration of
`
`the peripheral devices to be changed easily without requiring the physical
`
`disconnection and reconnection of a peripheral device.” Id. at 7:14-19.
`
`According to the ‘103 Patent, the USB interface system and method may be
`
`a single semiconductor chip which may be incorporated into a plurality of
`
`peripheral devices. Id. at 3:1-4. “The chip may initially have a generic
`
`configuration (e.g., not specific to a particular peripheral device).” Id. at 3:4-6.
`
`“Then, the appropriate configuration information for a particular peripheral device
`
`and manufacturer may be downloaded to the chip, an electronic simulation of the
`
`
`
`13
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2002
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 6,249,825
`Page 21
`
`

`
`LG’s Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,103
`
`
`disconnection and reconnection of the peripheral device occurs, the peripheral
`
`device is recognized as a new, manufacturer specific peripheral device and the
`
`appropriate software device driver is loaded into the memory of the host
`
`computer.” Id. at 3:6-13.
`
`“For example, a plurality of different peripheral devices manufactured by
`
`different companies may each include a USB interface system.” Id. at 5:52-55.
`
`“The USB interface system for each peripheral device is identical (e.g. has a USB
`
`interface circuit and a memory) except that each memory may contain an
`
`identification code that is unique to, for example, a particular manufacturer.” Id. at
`
`5:55-59. “When one of the peripheral devices is connected to the USB and the
`
`host computer, the appropriate configuration information for the peripheral device,
`
`based on the identification code, is downloaded over the USB to the memory of the
`
`peripheral de