UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`FUJIFILM Corporation et al.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG,
`Patent Owner
`
`CASE: Unassigned
`Patent No. 8,504,746
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,504,746
`
`PETITIONERS’ EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Ex. 1001 Declaration of Dr. Paul F. Reynolds, Ph.D.
`
`Ex. 1002 Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Paul F. Reynolds, Ph.D.
`
`Ex. 1003 U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746 to Michael Tasler (“the ’746 Patent”).
`
`Ex. 1004 U.S. Patent No. 5,758,081 to Haluk M. Aytac (“Aytac” or “the ’081
`Patent”).
`
`Ex. 1005 American National Standard for Information Systems, Small
`Computer System Interface-2, ANSI X3.131-1994 (1994)
`(“SCSI Specification”).
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`Prosecution History of the ’081 Patent.
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`Excerpts from the Prosecution History of the ’746 Patent.
`
`Ex. 1008 MPEP 6th ed., Rev. 1, Sept. 1, 1995, § 608.05.
`
`Ex. 1009
`
`Patent Owner (“Papst”)’s Opening Claim Construction Brief and
`Declaration of Robert Zeidman, filed in related litigation in the
`District of Columbia. In re: Papst Licensing Digital Camera Patent
`Litigation, MDL No. 1880, Case No. 1:07-mc-00493, Dkt. Nos. 630,
`630-12 (June 3, 2016).
`
`Ex. 1010 Ray Duncan, ed., “The MS-DOS Encyclopedia,” Microsoft Press
`(1988).
`
`Ex. 1011
`
`Federal Circuit decision, In re: Papst Licensing Digital Camera
`Patent Litigation, No. 2014-1110 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 2, 2015).
`
`Ex. 1012 American National Standards Institute, Procedures for the
`Development and Coordination of American National Standards,
`Approved by the ANSI Board of Directors (Sept. 9, 1993).
`
`-1-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,504,746
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8: MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................. 5
`A.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1): Real Parties-in-Interest ................................... 5
`B.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2): Related Matters .............................................. 6
`C.
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3), 42.8(b)(4): Lead and Back-up Counsel
`and Service Information ....................................................................... 9
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(A): GROUNDS FOR STANDING ........................... 15
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B): IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE ............ 15
`A.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1): Claims for Which IPR is Requested ........ 15
`B.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2): Identification of Prior Art and
`Asserted Grounds for Which IPR is Requested ................................. 16
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ...................................................... 19
`C.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3): Claim Construction .................................. 19
`D.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4): How the Claims Are Unpatentable .......... 21
`E.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5): Evidence Supporting Challenge ............... 21
`F.
`THERE EXISTS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE ............................. 21
`A.
`Description of the Alleged Invention of the ’746 Patent ................... 21
`B.
`Prosecution History of the ’746 Patent .............................................. 23
`C.
`Summary of Unpatentability Arguments ........................................... 24
`D.
`Ground #1: Claims 1, 6, 15, 17, 18, 31 and 34 Would Have
`Been Obvious Over Aytac in View of the SCSI Specification .......... 25
`1.
`Common Claim Elements of the Challenged Claims .............. 26
`2.
`The Aytac Patent ...................................................................... 26
`3.
`SCSI Specification and Overview ........................................... 31
`4.
`Independent Claims 1, 31, and 34 [similar elements] ............. 37
`
`-2-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,504,746
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`a.
`b.
`
`Claims 1, 31, and 34 [preamble] ................................... 37
`Claims 1, 31, and 34 [processor operatively
`interfaced] ...................................................................... 38
`Claims 1, 31, and 34 [processor that is configured
`and programmed to implement a data generation
`process] .......................................................................... 41
`Claims 1, 31, and 34 [processor that automatically
`causes at least one parameter indicative of the class
`of devices to be sent to a computer] .............................. 45
`Claims 1, 31, and 34 [processor that is further
`adapted to be involved in an automatic file transfer
`process] .......................................................................... 56
`Claim 1 (non-overlapping elements with claims 31 and
`34) ............................................................................................ 61
`a.
`Claim 1 [program memory] ........................................... 61
`b.
`Claim 1 [signal acquisition channel] ............................. 63
`Dependent Claims .................................................................... 65
`a.
`Claim 6 ........................................................................... 65
`b.
`Claim 15 ......................................................................... 65
`c.
`Claim 17 ......................................................................... 66
`d.
`Claim 18 ......................................................................... 69
`VI. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 70
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`-3-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,504,746
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Inter partes review is respectfully requested of claims 1, 6, 15, 17, 18, 31
`
`and 34 (the “Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746 (“the ’746 Patent”)
`
`(Ex. 1003).
`
`The ’746 Patent is part of a chain of applications dating back to 1997, which
`
`were acquired by Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG (“Papst” or the “Patent
`
`Owner”) in 2006. Papst has filed multiple patent infringement suits against Peti-
`
`tioners. During the past decade in which those patent infringement suits have been
`
`pending, Papst has continued to serially file continuation applications in an attempt
`
`to broaden the claims of its patents and capture Petitioners’ accused products.
`
`But the patent family to which the ’746 Patent belongs does not cover the
`
`technology that Papst has accused of infringement. Thus, Papst presented claims
`
`to the Patent Office through numerous applications in the family, that are broad in
`
`scope, go beyond what is disclosed in its specification and read directly on the
`
`prior art. Because of this, it took over fifteen years to prosecute the many applica-
`
`tions in the family, and during that time, Papst presented hundreds of different
`
`claims for consideration and submitted dozens of different amendments.
`
`Papst primarily cited and focused solely on distinguishing digital camera
`
`prior art over the course of prosecution. This resulted in the Examiner citing digi-
`
`tal camera prior art almost exclusively in his examination. Because of the focus on
`
`-4-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,504,746
`
`digital cameras (which the ’746 Patent does not even mention in its specification),
`
`highly relevant prior art was not considered. Among such references was U.S. Pa-
`
`tent No. 5,758,081 to Aytac (“the ’081 Patent” or “Aytac”). The ’081 Patent dis-
`
`closes exactly what the ’746 Patent describes as key to its invention: a device
`
`which interfaces a host computer and a peripheral device without requiring the
`
`loading or installing of additional drivers and software. Aytac’s ’081 Patent
`
`achieves this interfacing ability through a SCSI connection, which is the very same
`
`connection described and relied upon in Tasler’s ’746 Patent.
`
`Aytac’s ’081 Patent describes the ’746 Patent’s claimed invention better
`
`than the specification of the ’746 Patent. Indeed, Aytac submitted 450 pages of
`
`source code with his application in 1995, demonstrating a working embodiment of
`
`the invention that Papst now tries to claim 20 years later as its own. For these rea-
`
`sons, and as described in detail below, the Board should institute inter partes re-
`
`view of the ’746 Patent and cancel the Challenged Claims.
`
`II.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8: MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`A.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1): Real Parties-in-Interest
`
`The following are the Petitioners and real parties-in-interest: Canon Inc.;
`
`Canon U.S.A., Inc.; Canon Financial Services, Inc.; FUJIFILM Corporation;
`
`FUJIFILM Holdings America Corporation; FUJIFILM North America
`
`Corporation; JVC KENWOOD Corporation; JVCKENWOOD USA Corporation;
`
`-5-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,504,746
`
`Nikon Corporation; Nikon Inc.; Olympus Corporation; Olympus America Inc.;
`
`Panasonic Corporation; Panasonic Corporation of North America; Samsung
`
`Electronics Co., Ltd.; and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`In addition, out of an abundance of caution, Petitioners bring to the Board’s
`
`attention Hanwha Techwin Co., Ltd. (f/k/a Samsung Techwin Co., Ltd.); Samsung
`
`Opto-Electronics America, Inc.; Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd.; Sanyo North America
`
`Corp.; and HP Inc. (f/k/a/ Hewlett-Packard Company), who are co-defendants with
`
`some of the Petitioners in the pending multi-district litigation identified below but
`
`are not real parties-in-interest to this proceeding. None of these parties financed or
`
`controlled this petition (or had the opportunity to exercise control over this
`
`petition) or otherwise meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2).
`
`B.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2): Related Matters
`
`To the best knowledge of Petitioners, the ’746 Patent is involved in the
`
`following litigations and matters:
`
`-6-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,504,746
`
`Case Name
`
`Case No.
`
`Court
`
`Filed
`
`In re: Papst Licensing Digital
`
`1:07-mc-00493 D.D.C.
`
`Nov. 16, 2007
`
`Camera Patent Litigation – MDL
`
`No. 1880
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`3:16-cv-00575 N.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2016
`
`HP Inc.
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`6:15-cv-01095 E.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2015
`
`Apple Inc.
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`6:15-cv-01099 E.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2015
`
`LG Electronics, Inc. et al
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`6:15-cv-01100 E.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2015
`
`ZTE Corporation et al
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`6:15-cv-01102 E.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2015
`
`Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`6:15-cv-01111 E.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2015
`
`Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`6:15-cv-01115 E.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2015
`
`Huawei Technologies, et al
`
`-7-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,504,746
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`1:15-cv-01692 D.D.C.
`
`Oct. 15, 2015
`
`Canon Inc. et al
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`1:15-cv-01693 D.D.C.
`
`Oct. 15, 2015
`
`FUJIFILM Corporation et al
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`1:15-cv-01747 D.D.C.
`
`Oct. 15, 2015
`
`JVCKENWOOD Corporation et al
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`1:15-cv-01748 D.D.C.
`
`Oct. 15, 2015
`
`Nikon Corporation et al
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`1:15-cv-01749 D.D.C.
`
`Oct. 15, 2015
`
`Olympus Corporation et al
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`1:15-cv-01750 D.D.C.
`
`Oct. 15, 2015
`
`Panasonic Corporation et al
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`1:15-cv-00495 D. Del.
`
`June 15, 2015
`
`Canon Inc. et al
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`1:15-cv-00496 D. Del.
`
`June 15, 2015
`
`FUJIFILM Corporation et al
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`1:15-cv-00497 D. Del.
`
`June 15, 2015
`
`HP Inc.
`
`-8-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,504,746
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`1:15-cv-00498 D. Del.
`
`June 15, 2015
`
`JVCKENWOOD Corporation et al
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`1:15-cv-00499 D. Del.
`
`June 15, 2015
`
`Nikon Corporation et al
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`1:15-cv-00500 D. Del.
`
`June 15, 2015
`
`Olympus Corporation et al
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`1:15-cv-00501 D. Del.
`
`June 15, 2015
`
`Panasonic Corporation et al
`
`Hewlett-Packard Company v. Papst
`
`3:15-cv-02101 N.D. Cal. May 8, 2015
`
`Licensing GmbH & Co. KG
`
`Additionally, Petitioners are filing additional petitions for inter partes
`
`review of the ’746 patent, and for the following patent, which is related to the ’746
`
`patent: U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144.
`
`C.
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3), 42.8(b)(4): Lead and Back-up Counsel
`and Service Information
`
`Petitioners provide the following designation of counsel:
`
`-9-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,504,746
`
`Lead Counsel
`T. Vann Pearce, Jr.
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Christopher J. Higgins
`
`Reg. No. 58,945
`
`Reg. No. 66,422
`
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`
`1152 15th Street, N.W.
`
`1152 15th Street, N.W.
`
`Washington, D.C. 20005-1706
`
`Washington, D.C. 20005-1706
`
`Telephone: (202) 339-8400
`
`Telephone: (202) 339-8400
`
`Facsimile: (202) 339-8500
`
`Facsimile: (202) 339-8500
`
`vpearce@orrick.com
`
`chiggins@orrick.com
`
`Gregory S. Cordrey (Reg. No. 44,089)
`
`Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell, LLP
`
`3 Park Plaza, Suite 1100
`
`Irvine, CA 92614
`
`Telephone: 949-623-7200
`
`Facsimile: 949-623-7201
`
`gcordrey@jmbm.com
`
`Rachel Capoccia (pro hac vice application
`
`to be submitted)
`
`-10-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,504,746
`
`Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell, LLP
`
`1900 Avenue of the Stars, 7th floor
`
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`
`Telephone: 310-203-8080
`
`Facsimile: 310-203-0567
`
`rcapoccia@jmbm.com
`
`David L. Witcoff (Reg. No. 31,443)
`
`JONES DAY
`
`77 West Wacker
`
`Chicago, Illinois 60601-1692
`
`Telephone: 312- 269-4259
`
`Facsimile: 312- 782-8585
`
`dlwitcoff@jonesday.com
`
`Marc S. Blackman (Reg. No. 43,501)
`
`JONES DAY
`
`77 West Wacker
`
`Chicago, Illinois 60601-1692
`
`Telephone: 312- 269-4369
`
`-11-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,504,746
`
`Facsimile: 312-782-8585
`
`msblackman@jonesday.com
`
`Dion Bregman (Reg. No. 45,645)
`
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`
`1400 Page Mill Rd.
`
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`
`Telephone: 650-843-4000
`
`Facsimile: 650-843-4001
`
`dion.bregman@morganlewis.com
`
`Andrew V. Devkar (pro hac vice
`
`application to be submitted)
`
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`
`1601 Cloverfield Blvd., Suite 2050N
`
`Santa Monica, CA 90404-4082
`
`Telephone: 310-255-9070
`
`Facsimile: 310-907-2000
`
`andrew.devkar@morganlewis.com
`
`-12-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,504,746
`
`David M. Maiorana (Reg. No. 41,449)
`
`JONES DAY
`
`901 Lakeside Avenue
`
`Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1190
`
`Telephone: (216) 586-7499
`
`Fax: (216) 579-0212
`
`dmaiorana@jonesday.com
`
`F. Drexel Feeling (Reg. No. 40,602)
`
`JONES DAY
`
`901 Lakeside Avenue
`
`Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1190
`
`Telephone: (216) 586-7199
`
`Fax: (216) 579-0212
`
`f.dfeeling@jonesday.com
`
`Matthew W. Johnson (Reg. No. 59,108)
`
`JONES DAY
`
`500 Grant Street, Suite 4500
`
`Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2514
`
`-13-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,504,746
`
`Telephone: (412) 394-9524
`
`Fax: (412) 394-7959
`
`mwjohnson@jonesday.com
`
`Brian C. Rupp (Reg. No. 35,665)
`
`DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
`
`191 N. Wacker Dr., Suite 3700
`
`Chicago, IL 60606
`
`Telephone: 312-569-1000
`
`Facsimile: 312-569-3000
`
`Brian.Rupp@dbr.com
`
`Carrie A. Beyer (Reg. No. 59,195)
`
`DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
`
`191 N. Wacker Dr., Suite 3700
`
`Chicago, IL 60606
`
`Telephone: 312-569-1000
`
`Facsimile: 312-569-3000
`
`Carrie.Beyer@dbr.com
`
`-14-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,504,746
`
`Nikola Colic (Reg. No. 62,412)
`
`DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
`
`1500 K Street, N.W. , Suite 1100
`
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`Telephone: 202-230-5115
`
`Facsimile: 202-842-8465
`
`Nick.Colic@dbr.com
`
`Petitioners submit herewith a Power of Attorney with this Petition. Please
`
`address all correspondence to lead and back-up counsel. Petitioners consent to ser-
`
`vice by email at: PapstPTABPetitioners@Jonesday.com.
`
`III.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a): GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Petitioners certify that the ’746 Patent is available for inter partes review
`
`and that Petitioners are not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review
`
`challenging the patent claims on the grounds identified in this petition. Petitioners
`
`also certify that this Petition for Inter Partes Review is timely filed under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 315(b).
`
`IV.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b): IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE
`
`A.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1): Claims for Which IPR is Requested
`
`Claims 1, 6, 15, 17, 18, 31 and 34 are challenged in this Petition.
`
`-15-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,504,746
`
`B.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2): Identification of Prior Art and Asserted
`Grounds for Which IPR is Requested
`
`The prior art relied upon in this Petition is the Aytac Patent (Ex. 1004) and
`
`the SCSI Specification (Ex. 1005).
`
`The one-year time bar under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(b) is measured from
`
`the effective U.S. filing date of the ’746 Patent, which is no earlier than March 3,
`
`1998, the date of the PCT application to which the ’746 Patent claims priority
`
`(PCT/EP98/01187).
`
`Inter partes review is requested in view of the following prior art references:
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 5,758,081 to Aytac (“Aytac” or “Aytac Patent”) Ex.
`
`1004. Aytac was filed on December 8, 1995 and issued on May 26,
`
`1998, and is prior art to the ‘’746 Patent at least under pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`• American National Standard for Information Systems, Small
`
`Computer System Interface-2, ANSI X3.131-1994 (1994) (“SCSI
`
`Specification”). The SCSI Specification was published by the
`
`American National Standards Institute in 1994, more than one year
`
`before the earliest claimed priority date of the ’746 Patent. Ex. 1005,
`
`at 3; Ex. 1001, ¶ 46; Ex. 1012, at 17-18 (detailing ANSI publication
`
`requirements met by the SCSI Specification).
`
`-16-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,504,746
`
`As further evidence that the SCSI Specification was reasonably accessible to
`
`those of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest claimed priority of the ’746
`
`Patent, the SCSI Specification is explicitly referenced in Aytac. See Ex. 1004 at
`
`4:50-53. Accordingly, the SCSI Specification qualifies as prior art under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`The Aytac Patent discloses a device termed by the inventor as “CaTbox”
`
`(described in the following sections) and includes source code utilized in an actual
`
`implementation of CaTbox and which supplements the other disclosures of the
`
`Aytac Patent. The source code was filed with the Office as part of underlying
`
`Application No. 08/569,846. Ex. 1006 (Aytac Patent file wrapper, pages 77-527).
`
`Although the Office did not print the source code as part of the issued patent
`
`because the total number of pages (450) exceeded the ten-page limit in effect at the
`
`relevant time, both Aytac’s application transmittal letter and the title page indicate
`
`that the source code was filed as an integral part of the application. Ex. 1006, at 4,
`
`-17-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,504,746
`
`77. In prior proceedings, the Office has held that such appendices are part of the
`
`written description. See Intel Corp. v. MicroUnity Systems, Appeal No. 2010-
`
`008981 at 7-8 (BPAI, Dec. 9, 2010). Thus, the code appendix is included in the
`
`disclosure of Aytac, which qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`The source code listing includes a development log containing entries under
`
`various dates in 1994 and 1995 indicating when specific portions of the source
`
`code were tested and revised, thereby showing that the source code was compiled
`
`and actually reduced to practice by Aytac’s filing date. Ex. 1006 at 93-95.
`
`Moreover, Aytac’s mode of filing the source code followed the requirements for
`
`computer listing filings in effect as of the application date: “When the computer
`
`program listing is 11 pages or more in length, it may be submitted either on paper
`
`or microfiche . . . .” Ex. 1008, MPEP 6th ed., Rev. 1, Sept. 1, 1995, § 608.05.
`
`The Aytac source code supplements the disclosures of the Aytac Patent and
`
`further evidences the functionality of CaTbox at the time the Aytac application was
`
`filed. Accordingly, relevant excerpts from the source code are used below in the
`
`discussion of the Aytac Patent.
`
`Neither of Petitioners’ references were considered during the prosecution of
`
`the ’746 Patent, nor are they cumulative of the prior art considered by the
`
`Examiner.
`
`-18-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,504,746
`
`Ground 1: The Challenged Claims are rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103(a) by Aytac in view of the SCSI Specification.
`
`C.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the field, at the time the ’746 patent was effec-
`
`tively filed, possessed a working knowledge of devices such as microprocessors,
`
`hard disks, and computer interfaces such as SCSI. Ex. 1001, ¶ 39. He or she
`
`would also be familiar with associated software, including MS-DOS, MS Windows
`
`95, UNIX and SCSI software modules and drivers, associated file systems (e.g.,
`
`FAT), and device drivers. Ex. 1001, ¶ 39. A person of ordinary skill at the rele-
`
`vant time (1996-1998) would have had at least a four-year degree in electrical en-
`
`gineering, computer science, or related field of study, or equivalent experience, and
`
`at least two years’ experience in studying or developing computer interfaces or pe-
`
`ripherals. Ex. 1001, ¶ 39; see also ¶ 40.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3): Claim Construction
`D.
`A claim subject to inter partes review shall be given by the Patent Office
`
`“its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in
`
`which it appears” to one of ordinary skill in the art. 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.100(b) and
`
`42.103(b)(3); In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 778 F.3d 1271, 1281 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2015). Petitioners expressly reserve their right to advance different constructions
`
`in district court litigation, which employs a different claim construction standard.
`
`-19-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,504,746
`
`For purposes of this proceeding only, Petitioners propose adopting, as the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim terms, the following claim
`
`constructions proposed by Papst in related litigation in the District of Columbia
`
`(Misc. Action No. 07-493 (RMC), MDL No. 1880) (Ex. 1009):
`
`Claim Term
`
`Adopted BRI
`
`“without requiring any end user to load
`
`“without requiring the end user to install
`
`any software onto the [first/second]
`
`or load specific drivers or software for
`
`computer at any time”
`
`the [ADGPD/analog data acquisition de-
`
`vice/analog data acquisition and inter-
`
`“without requiring any user-loaded file
`
`face device] beyond that included in the
`
`transfer enabling software to be loaded
`
`operating system or BIOS”
`
`on or installed in the [computer/host de-
`
`vice] [at any time]”
`
`“whereby there is no requirement for any
`
`user-loaded file transfer enabling soft-
`
`ware to be loaded on or installed in the
`
`computer in addition to the operating
`
`system”
`
`-20-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,504,746
`
`“processor”
`
`“any kind of microprocessor, including a
`
`digital signal processor”
`
`E.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4): How the Claims Are Unpatentable
`
`The requested review of patentability of the challenged claims is governed
`
`by statutory provisions of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 that were in effect before
`
`March 16, 2013. The specific grounds for review and an explanation of why the
`
`challenged claims are unpatentable, including identification of where each element
`
`of each claim is found in the prior art, are provided in Section V.
`
`F.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5): Evidence Supporting Challenge
`
`The Declaration of Dr. Paul F. Reynolds, Ph.D. (Ex. 1001) and other sup-
`
`porting evidence in the Exhibit List are filed herewith. Dr. Reynolds’ background
`
`and qualifications, and the information provided to him, are discussed in Ex. 1001,
`
`¶¶ 1-20.
`
`V.
`
`THERE EXISTS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`
`A.
`
`Description of the Alleged Invention of the ’746 Patent
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 12/891,443 (“the ’443 application”) was filed
`
`on September 27, 2010 and issued on August 6, 2013 as the ’746 Patent. The ’746
`
`Patent stems from the sixth application filed in a family of seven U.S. non-provi-
`
`sional applications. The ’746 Patent’s specification describes a device alleged to
`
`facilitate the transfer of data between a data transmit/receive device, from which
`
`-21-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,504,746
`
`data is to be acquired, and a host computer. Ex. 1003 at 1:20-24; Ex. 1001, ¶ 21.
`
`The written description states that, while interface devices were known at the time
`
`of the invention, existing devices had limitations, including disadvantageous sacri-
`
`fices of data-transfer speed or of flexibility as to which computers and data devices
`
`they were compatible. Id. at 1:28-2:21; Ex. 1001, ¶¶ 22-25; see also ¶¶ 26-28.
`
`The ’746 Patent purports to describe an interface device to overcome these limita-
`
`tions. Ex. 1001, ¶¶ 24, 29-32.
`
`When a computer detects that a new device has been connected to one of its
`
`input-output (i/o) ports, a normal course of action includes these steps: the host
`
`asks the new device what type of device it is; the connected device responds; the
`
`host determines whether it already possesses drivers for the identified type of de-
`
`vice; and if it does not, an appropriate driver must be installed on the host and
`
`loaded into memory before proceeding. Ex. 1001, ¶¶ 32, 33. In the ’746 Patent
`
`family, when the interface device is connected between a data transmit/receive de-
`
`vice and a host, the interface device responds to the host’s request for identification
`
`by stating that it is a type of device, such as a hard drive, for which the computer
`
`already has a driver. Ex. 1001, ¶¶ 32-34. Thereafter, when the host communicates
`
`with the interface device (e.g., via a SCSI interface) to request data from or control
`
`-22-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,504,746
`
`the operation of the data device, the host uses its native device driver, and the inter-
`
`face device translates the communications into a form understandable by the con-
`
`nected data device. Ex. 1001, ¶¶ 34-36; see also ¶¶ 32-33; Ex. 1003 at 3:28-4:39.
`
`FIG. 1 is a block diagram of the interface device, which includes a first connecting
`
`device 12 for connecting to the host computer and a second connecting device 15
`
`for connecting to the data transmit/receive device. Ex. 1001, ¶¶ 31-33. A digital
`
`signal processor 13 and a memory 14 manage communications between the com-
`
`puter and the data transmit/receive device. Ex. 1003 at 4:59-5:7.
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History of the ’746 Patent
`
`The prosecution history of the ’746 patent spanned three Office Actions and
`
`corresponding responses. The final response before allowance included thirteen
`
`pages of arguments presenting a number of alleged reasons why the claims were
`
`allowable over the cited references. No amendments were made. A Notice of Al-
`
`lowance was issued on June 7, 2013, which stated: “The reasons for allowance of
`
`-23-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,504,746
`
`claims 2, 32, 33 and 35 . . . in the instant application is that the examiner finds ap-
`
`plicant’s arguments filed on 05/28/2013 are persuasive and that the combination of
`
`all the claimed limitations is neither anticipate[d] or render[ed] obvious by the
`
`prior art of record.” Ex. 1007, at 7. Thus, it is difficult to ascertain exactly which
`
`argument or claim limitation(s) were considered important to the Examiner’s deci-
`
`sion.
`
`C.
`
`Summary of Unpatentability Arguments
`
`The Challenged Claims are rendered obvious by the Aytac Patent in view of
`
`the SCSI Specification. Ex. 1001, ¶¶ 75, 107.
`
`Like the ’746 Patent, the Aytac Patent discloses a multi-function analog data
`
`generating and processing device, which Aytac terms the “CaTbox.” The CaTbox
`
`serves as an interface between a host computer and various analog peripheral de-
`
`vices such as microphones, speakers, fax machines and telephones. These periph-
`
`eral devices transmit analog signals (such as fax images and voicemail) to CaTbox,
`
`which in turn processes these signals and stores the processed data in digital form
`
`on a hard drive known as “CaTdisc.” When CaTbox is connected to the host com-
`
`puter, such as over a SCSI interface, CaTbox engages in a recognition process with
`
`the host computer and identifies itself as being a SCSI hard drive. Following the
`
`recognition process, the host computer can then access the files of digitized analog
`
`-24-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,504,746
`
`data stored on CaTbox, which is able to transfer the files without requiring the in-
`
`stallation of any user-loaded transfer enabling software on the host.
`
`Throughout its disclosure, the Aytac Patent references its use of a SCSI in-
`
`terface. The SCSI interface is described as part of a standard published in 1994 by
`
`the American National Standards Institute, which the Aytac Patent specifically
`
`cites to as the SCSI Specification. The SCSI Specification offers additional details
`
`illustrating how Aytac’s CaTbox operates. This plainly would have lead one of or-
`
`dinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the Aytac Patent with the SCSI
`
`Specification, and this combination renders obvious the claims of the ’746 Patent.
`
`The Aytac Patent also includes 450 pages of source code that demonstrate a work-
`
`ing embodiment of the CaTbox. What Papst claimed in 2015, Aytac had in fact in-
`
`vented 20 years earlier in 1995. Accordingly, the Challenged Claims of the ’746
`
`Patent are unpatentable.
`
`D.
`
`Ground #1: Claims 1, 6, 15, 17, 18, 31 and 34 Would Have Been
`Obvious Over Aytac in View of the SCSI Specification
`
`The invention disclosed in Aytac relies on, and expressly references, the
`
`SCSI Specification. See Ex. 1004, col. 4:49-53 (“The preferred embodiment has
`
`CaTbox look like a SCSI disk to the PC. A specification of SCSI is given in
`
`X3.131 SMALL COMPUTER SYSTEMS INTERFACE-2 REV:10L.”) One of ordi-
`
`nary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the
`
`SCSI Specification with Aytac. Ex. 1001, ¶¶ 67, 73. Aytac describes its preferred
`
`-25-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,504,746
`
`embodiment as emulating a SCSI disk and specifically directs those skilled in the
`
`art to the SCSI Specification. Ex. 1004, at 4:49-53; see Ex. 1001, ¶¶ 67-68. This
`
`is an explicit motivation to combine the two references to one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art, meeting the standard set forth in KSR. Indeed, the Aytac-SCSI Specifica-
`
`tion combination satisfies even the more restrictive “teaching, suggestion, or moti-
`
`vation” test in effect pre-KSR. Optivus Tech., Inc. v. Ion Beam Apps S.A., 469 F.3d
`
`978, 990-91 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (express mention of secondary reference in primary
`
`reference leaves “no question” that one of ordinary skill in the art would be led to
`
`combine the references).
`
`The disclosures in the Aytac Patent and the SCSI Specification for each ele-
`
`ment of the Challenged Claims are described below. As will be explained, each el-
`
`ement of the Challenged Claims is disclosed by Aytac and/or is rendered obvious
`
`by Aytac in view of the SCSI Specification.
`
`1.
`
`Common Claim Elements of the Challenged Claims
`
`Independent claims 1, 31, and 34 share many similar elements, as reflected
`
`in the claim listing appended to this Petition. Common elements of the claims will
`
`be addressed together in the sections below.
`
`2.
`
`The Aytac Patent
`
`Aytac teaches a multi-function analog data generating and processing de-
`
`vice, termed by the inventor the “CaTbox,” as an allusion to the way the device sits
`
`-26-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,504,746
`
`as an interface device between Computing and Telecommunications apparatuses.
`
`Ex. 1004, 4:11-14; Ex. 1001, ¶ 41. As explained in the claim analysis below, Ay-
`
`tac’s CaTbox, structurally and functionally, meets all limitations of the claims for
`
`which IPR is requested when combined with the SCSI Specification.
`
`In the preferred embodiment, CaTbox 102 communicates with host