EXH IBIT 2004
`
`EXHIBIT 2004
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`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 6,493,770
`_______________
`
`
`
`PETITION
`to Institute an Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,493,770
`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 2004
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 6,249,825
`Page 1
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................................... VII
`
`EXHIBIT LIST .................................................................................................... IX
`
`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 ....... 7
`
`VI. SUMMARY OF THE ‘770 PATENT AND ITS PROSECUTION
`
`HISTORY .............................................................................................................. 9
`
`A. Overview .................................................................................................... 9
`
`B. The ‘770 Patent .......................................................................................... 9
`
`C. Prosecution History .................................................................................. 14
`
`1. The ‘103 Patent ........................................................................................... 14
`
`2. The ‘825 Patent ........................................................................................... 15
`
`VII.
`
`§ 42.104(B)(4) – HOW THE CONSTRUED CLAIMS ARE
`
`UNPATENTABLE .............................................................................................. 19
`
`
`
`iii
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2004
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 6,249,825
`Page 2
`
`

`
`LG’s Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,493,770
`
`
`A. Ground #1: Claims 1, 5, 7, 10, 11, 15-17 of the ‘770 Patent are Obvious
`
`under Section 103(a) over the APA and Yap .................................................. 19
`
`1. Admitted Prior Art ............................................................................... 19
`
`2. Claim 1 ................................................................................................. 22
`
`3. Claim 5 ................................................................................................. 28
`
`4. Claim 7 ................................................................................................. 29
`
`5. Claim 10 ............................................................................................... 30
`
`6. Claim 11 ............................................................................................... 31
`
`7. Claim 15 ............................................................................................... 32
`
`8. Claim 16 ............................................................................................... 32
`
`9. Claim 17 ............................................................................................... 33
`
`B. Ground #2: Claims 2, 3, 12, and 13 of the ‘770 Patent are Obvious under
`
`Section 103(a) over the APA, Yap, and Michelson ........................................ 33
`
`1. Claim 2 ................................................................................................. 33
`
`2. Claim 3 ................................................................................................. 36
`
`3. Claim 12 ............................................................................................... 37
`
`4. Claim 13 ............................................................................................... 37
`
`C. Ground #3: Claims 1-3, 10-13, 16, 17, 18, and 20 are unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103, as being obvious over Michelson, PCCextend, and Davis .. 37
`
`1. Claim 1 ................................................................................................. 37
`
`
`
`iv
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2004
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 6,249,825
`Page 3
`
`

`
`LG’s Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,493,770
`
`2. Claim 2 ................................................................................................. 45
`
`3. Claim 3 ................................................................................................. 46
`
`4. Claim 10 ............................................................................................... 47
`
`5. Claim 11 ............................................................................................... 47
`
`6. Claim 12 ............................................................................................... 47
`
`7. Claim 13 ............................................................................................... 48
`
`8. Claim 16 ............................................................................................... 48
`
`9. Claim 17 ............................................................................................... 49
`
`10. Claim 18 ............................................................................................... 51
`
`11. Claim 20 ............................................................................................... 53
`
`D. Ground #4: Claims 5, 7, 15, and 19 of the ‘770 Patent are unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as being obvious over Michelson, PCCextend, Davis,
`
`and the APA ..................................................................................................... 54
`
`1. Claim 5 ................................................................................................. 54
`
`2. Claim 7 ................................................................................................. 55
`
`3. Claim 15 ............................................................................................... 55
`
`4. Claim 19 ............................................................................................... 56
`
`E. Ground #5: Claims 18-20 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
`
`being anticipated by Yap ................................................................................. 57
`
`1. Claim 18 ............................................................................................... 57
`
`
`
`v
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2004
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 6,249,825
`Page 4
`
`

`
`LG’s Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,493,770
`
`2. Claim 19 ............................................................................................... 59
`
`3. Claim 20 ............................................................................................... 59
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................ 60
`
` 
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2004
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 6,249,825
`Page 5
`
`

`
`LG’s Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,493,770
`
`
`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 ................................................................................................ ix, 1, 4
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................................................ passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311–319 .................................................................................................. 1
`
`Rules 
`
`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, 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) ............................................................................................ 7
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) .......................................................................................... 19
`
`
`
`vii
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2004
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 6,249,825
`Page 6
`
`

`
`LG’s Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,493,770
`
`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
`
`
`
`viii
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2004
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 6,249,825
`Page 7
`
`

`
`LG’s Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,493,770
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Ex.
`
`Reference
`
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 6,493,770 to Sartore et al. (filed on
`Jun. 11, 2001) (issued on Dec. 10, 2002)(“’770
`Patent”).
`
`Prior Art Type
`
`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
`
`ix
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2004
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 6,249,825
`Page 8
`
`

`
`LG’s Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,493,770
`
`
`1013 USB Specification v 1.0 (published January 1996)
`(See Declaration of Geert Knapen)
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`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)
`
`§ 102(e)
`
`§ 102(a)
`
`1017 Levine, Larry, PCMCIA Primer (M&T Press 1995),
`pp. 117-130 (published 1995)
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`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(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)
`
`
`
`x
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2004
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 6,249,825
`Page 9
`
`

`
`LG’s Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,493,770
`
`
`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. 6,493,770 (“the ‘770 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 invalidity grounds presented herein.
`
`II.
`
`
`§ 42.104(a) – GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Petitioners hereby certify that the ‘770 patent for which review is sought is
`
`available for IPR. Specifically: (1) none of the Petitioners is an owner of the ‘770
`
`patent, see § 42.101; (2) before the date on which this Petition for review was filed,
`
`none of the Petitioners and the Petitioners’ real parties-in-interest filed a civil
`
`action challenging the validity of a claim of the ‘770 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 ‘770 patent, see § 42.101(b); and (4)
`
`Petitioners, Petitioners’ real parties-in-interest, or a privy of Petitioners are not
`1
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2004
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 6,249,825
`Page 10
`
`

`
`estopped from challenging the claims on the grounds identified in this Petition, see
`
`LG’s Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,493,770
`
`
`§ 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 ’770 patent).
`
`Additionally, petitions for inter partes review are being filed concurrently
`
`for two related patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 6,012,103 and 6,249,825. 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
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2004
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 6,249,825
`Page 11
`
`

`
`LG’s Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,493,770
`
`
`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 1-3,
`
`
`
`5, 7, 10-13, and 15-20 of the ‘770 Patent as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§
`
`102 and/or 103(a) (Pre-AIA). The ‘770 patent contains twenty claims, of which
`
`claims 1, 11, and 18 are independent. The claims are directed to reconfiguring a
`
`peripheral device connected by a computer bus to a host computer while supplying
`
`electrical power to the peripheral device. Ex. 1001, at 9:44-55; 10:51-64; 10:18-
`
`27.
`
`The dependent claims 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
`
`2
`
`3
`
`
`
`Claim No(s).
`
`Proposed Statutory Rejections for the Claims
`of the ‘770 Patent
`1, 5, 7, 10, 11, 15-17 Obvious under § 103(a) over APA and Yap
`Obvious under § 103(a) over APA, Yap, and
`
`2, 3, 12, 13
`
`Michelson
`
`1-3, 10-13, 16-18, 20 Obvious under § 103(a) over Michelson,
`
`3
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2004
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 6,249,825
`Page 12
`
`

`
`LG’s Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,493,770
`
`
`PCCextend, and Davis
`
`5, 7, 15, 19
`
`Obvious under § 103(a) over Michelson,
`
`PCCextend, Davis, and APA
`
`Anticipation under § 102(e) based on Yap
`
`18-20
`
`
`Grounds 1-5 are not redundant because Grounds 1, 2, and 5 are based on
`
`4
`
`5
`
`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 ‘770 patent,
`
`whereas Grounds 3 and 4 are based on older references.
`
`V.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The ‘770 Patent includes three sets of patent claims that relate to systems
`
`and methods for reconfiguring a peripheral device connected to a computer by
`
`simulating a physical disconnection and reconnection of the device while
`
`supplying electrical power to the peripheral device. Two of the claim sets (based
`
`on independent claims 1 and 11) further recite a downloading step or a circuit
`
`configured to download information for a second configuration. The third set of
`
`claims (based on independent claim 18) instead recites a circuit configured to
`
`detect a peripheral device connected to a computer bus. Both the downloading and
`
`detecting features in the independent claims are Admitted Prior Art (“APA”). Ex.
`
`1012, ¶¶ 35-39, 56-61. For example, in the Background of the Invention of the
`
`‘770 Patent (the “Background”), the patentee admits that it was known to detect a
`
`
`
`4
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2004
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 6,249,825
`Page 13
`
`

`
`LG’s Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,493,770
`
`
`peripheral device connected to a host computer by a computer bus and that it was
`
`known to download information for a second configuration into the peripheral
`
`device over a computer bus. Ex. 1012, ¶¶ 57, 60; Ex. 1001, 1:50-2:19. The
`
`Background further states that “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.” Ex.
`
`1001, 2:23-28; Ex. 1012, ¶ 59. This was admitted to be one of the “problems of
`
`known systems and methods . . . .” Id.; Ex. 1001, 2:36-40. 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, ¶ 60. All of these features are
`
`also found in prior art references discussed herein. E.g., Ex. 1012, ¶¶ 64, 68, 70,
`
`73.
`
`The ‘770 Patent describes that the problem of having to physically
`
`disconnect and reconnect a peripheral device to reconfigure the device is solved by
`
`a switch connected to one of the USB data lines D+ and D-. Id. at 6:59-7:6; 7:12-
`
`22; Ex. 1012, ¶ 46, 47. 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 6:27-43; Ex. 1012, ¶ 47. Thus, by changing the state of the data lines, the
`
`
`
`5
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2004
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 6,249,825
`Page 14
`
`

`
`LG’s Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,493,770
`
`switch is “electronically simulating a physical disconnection or reconnection of the
`
`peripheral device,” as recited in independent claims 1, 11, and 18. Ex. 1012, ¶ 39.
`
`However, as discussed in more detail below, it was well known in the prior art
`
`(e.g., in Yap, PCCextend, and Davis) to position a switch on 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, ¶¶ 66–69 (Yap), 79–80 (PCCextend), 83–87 (Davis). 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. Ex. 1012, ¶¶ 66–69, 79–80, 83–87.
`
`The ‘770 Patent further states that an advantage of the electrical simulation
`
`of the disconnect and reconnect cycle is that the peripheral device may utilize the
`
`electrical power supplied by the bus to operate the peripheral device. Ex. 1001,
`
`3:1-9; Ex. 1012, ¶ 53. Indeed, all of the claims of the ‘770 Patent require
`
`electronically simulating a physical disconnection and reconnection “while
`
`supplying electrical power to said peripheral device.” However, as explained
`
`below, it was also known in the prior art to electronically simulate the disconnect
`
`and reconnect cycle while supplying electrical power to the peripheral device. Ex.
`
`1012, ¶¶ 107, 156, 157, 194, 218.
`
`
`
`6
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2004
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 6,249,825
`Page 15
`
`

`
`LG’s Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,493,770
`
`
`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
`
`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 simulating a physical disconnection and reconnection of
`
`the peripheral device” is “using an electronic circuit to perform an action, such as
`
`
`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 related litigations. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d
`
`1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`
`
`7
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2004
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 6,249,825
`Page 16
`
`

`
`an electronic reset, associated with physical disconnection and reconnection of a
`
`LG’s Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,493,770
`
`
`peripheral device.” Ex. 1012, ¶ 55. This interpretation is the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation that is consistent with the claims of the ‘770 Patent and the rest of
`
`the specification. See Ex. 1001, 3:25-35; claims 1, 10, 11, 17, and 18. 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 circuit comprises a reset circuit
`
`configured to reset the first or second configuration of the peripheral
`
`device.” Similarly, 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 in the dependent claims The interpretation of
`
`the “electronically simulating” language proposed herein encompasses the claimed
`
`reset circuit and resetting operation 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., Ex. 1001, 6:59-7:8), and is therefore the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation consistent with the claims. See also Ex. 1012, ¶ 55.
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2004
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 6,249,825
`Page 17
`
`

`
`LG’s Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,493,770
`
`
`VI. SUMMARY OF THE ‘770 PATENT AND ITS PROSECUTION
`HISTORY
`A. Overview
`The ‘770 Patent is a continuation of the ‘103 Patent and the ‘825 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 a continuation application of the ‘103
`
`patent, and the ‘770 Patent was filed as another continuation application that
`
`claimed priority to the two earlier-filed applications. The 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 ‘770 Patent
`The ‘770 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, 2:59-3:6;
`
`5:36-43. Figure 2 of the ‘770 Patent, shown below, illustrates a USB system in
`
`accordance with the invention. Id. at 4:52-53. The USB system shown in Fig. 2
`
`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 5:2-8.
`
`
`
`9
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2004
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 6,249,825
`Page 18
`
`

`
`LG’s Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,493,770
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 5:6-16. 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 system uses an “electronic
`
`disconnect and reconnect method in accordance with the invention.” Id. at 5:36-
`
`43. 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 2:59-3:1.
`
`According to the ‘770 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 3:53-54; 6:28-44; Fig. 3 (reproduced
`
`above). 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 6:26-27, 36-43. “In operation, the
`
`host computer detects the connection of a peripheral device by monitoring the
`
`
`
`10
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2004
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 6,249,825
`Page 19
`
`

`
`LG’s Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,493,770
`
`
`voltage levels of one of the two USB data leads.” Id. at 6:28-31. 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 6:31-36. 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 6:36-44.
`
`The ‘770 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 7:9-24; Fig. 4 (reproduced below).
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`11
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2004
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 6,249,825
`Page 20
`
`

`
`operation of the electrical switch.” Id. at 6:61-67. By opening the switch, “the D+
`
`LG’s Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,493,770
`
`
`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 7:9-24.
`
`“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 7:9-22.
`
`According to the ‘770 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 7:24-30.
`
`According to the ‘770 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 3:12-15. “The chip may initially have a generic
`
`configuration (e.g., not specific to a particular peripheral device).” Id. at 3:15-17.
`
`“Then, the appropriate configuration information for a particular peripheral device
`
`and manufacturer may be downloaded to the chip, an electronic simulation of the
`
`disconnection and reconnection of the peripheral device occurs, the peripheral
`
`device is recognized as a new, manufacturer specific peripheral device and the
`
`
`
`12
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2004
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 6,249,825
`Page 21
`
`

`
`appropriate software device driver is loaded into the memory of the host
`
`LG’s Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,493,770
`
`
`computer.” Id. at 3:17-24.
`
`“For example, a plurality of different peripheral devices manufactured by
`
`different companies may each include a USB interface system.” Id. at 5:63-66.
`
`“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
`
`5:66-6:3. “When one of the peripheral devices is connected to the USB and the
`
`host computer, the