UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Canon et al.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG.,
`Patent Owner
`
`IPR2016-01199
`IPR2016-01200
`U.S. Patent Nos. 8,966,144 and 8,504,746
`
`Patent Owner Papst’s Demonstratives
`Hearing Date: September 14, 2017
`
`0
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG's Patent Owner Demonstratives - Ex. 2009, p. 1
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Canon et al.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG.,
`Patent Owner
`
`IPR2016-01199
`IPR2016-01200
`U.S. Patent Nos. 8,966,144 and 8,504,746
`
`Patent Owner Papst’s Demonstratives
`Hearing Date: September 14, 2017
`
`0
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG's Patent Owner Demonstratives - Ex. 2009, p. 1
`
`
`
`The ‘144 and ‘746 Tasler Patents
`
`2
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG's Patent Owner Demonstratives - Ex. 2009, p. 2
`
`
`
`The ‘144 and ‘746 Tasler Patents
`
`“The user is no longer responsible for installing the interface device 10 on the host device by
`means of specific drivers which must also be loaded; instead the interface device 10 is
`automatically readied for operation when the host system is booted”
`(‘144 patent at 7:22-26, ‘144 Response at 21)
`
`“The interface device according to the present invention therefore no longer communicates
`with the host device or computer by means of a specially designed driver but the means of a
`program which is present in the BIOS system ...”
`
`(‘144 patent at 4:23-27; ‘144 Response at 5)
`
`“Using a standard interface of a host device, the interface device according to the present
`invention permits communication with any host device. By simulating an input/output device
`to the host device and, in a preferred embodiment, by simulating a virtual mass storage
`device, the interface device is automatically supported by all known host systems without any
`additional sophisticated driver software.”
`
`(‘144 patent at 11:38-44; ‘144 Response at 6)
`
`3
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG's Patent Owner Demonstratives - Ex. 2009, p. 3
`
`
`
`Automatic File Transfer Process
`
`“wherein the processor is further
`adapted to be
`involved in an
`automatic file transfer process in
`which, when
`the
`i/o
`port
`is
`operatively
`interfaced with
`the
`multi-purpose
`interface
`of
`the
`computer, and after the at least one
`parameter has been received by the
`multi-purpose
`interface
`of
`the
`computer, the processor executes at
`least one other instruction set stored
`in the program memory and thereby
`causes the at
`least one file of
`digitized
`analog
`data
`to
`be
`transferred
`to
`the
`computer
`regardless of
`the identity of
`the
`manufacturer of the computer and
`without requiring any user -loaded
`file transfer enabling software to be
`loaded on or
`installed in the
`computer at any time.”
`
`4
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG's Patent Owner Demonstratives - Ex. 2009, p. 4
`
`
`
`Automatic File Transfer Process
`
`“without
`of
`Board Construction
`requiring any user-loaded file transfer
`enabling software to be loaded”:
`“without requiring the end user to
`install or
`load specific drivers or
`software beyond that included in the
`operating system, BIOS, or drivers
`for a multi-purpose interface or SCSI
`interface.”
`(‘144 Decision at 16; See also ‘746 Decision at 9)
`
`5
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG's Patent Owner Demonstratives - Ex. 2009, p. 5
`
`
`
`End User
`Dr. Reynolds admitted the Tasler patents use “user” and “end user” interchangeably,
`and that a system administrator can be an end user. (Ex. 2006 at 87:7-18; ‘144 Response at 20-21)
`Q. Do you understand from reading Tasler's
`patents that he meant different things by using
`"end user" in one place and "user" in another?
`A. I do not believe he meant different
`things. I believe he used them interchangeably.
`Q. Would you agree that a system
`administrator could be considered an end user?
`MR. MAIORANA: Object to the form of the
`question.
`BY THE WITNESS:
`A. A system administrator can be an ultimate
`user of a computer, yes.
`
`Petitioners admit dispute over “end user” is irrelevant.
`
`(Reply at 10)
`
`6
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG's Patent Owner Demonstratives - Ex. 2009, p. 6
`
`
`
`The ‘081 Aytac Patent
`Aytac discloses a multitasking communications device
`
`single site for
`CaTbox is “the open, programmable,
`processing for the answering machine, fax machine, copier,
`and telephone. This invention takes out the processing core
`from each one of these gadgets and gives the tasks to a single
`central processing unit
`that
`is the CaTbox. It builds a
`multitasking operating system . . .”
`(‘144 at 5:9–14; ‘144 Response at 28)
`
`As a standalone unit, CaTbox implements the following
`functions:
`a. print files found in a spool directory and pointed to in a
`queue
`b. receive faxes and print them or store them on CaTdisc
`c. send faxes driven by keypad
`d. receive voice mail and store them on CaTdisc
`e. play voice mail back driven by keypad
`f. copy from scanner to printer
`g. other functions that may be programmed such as email
`retrieval, faxback and data modem based TCP/IP/PPP node,
`dial a phone number.
`
`7
`
`(‘144 at 8:7-19; ‘144 Response at 28-29)
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG's Patent Owner Demonstratives - Ex. 2009, p. 7
`
`
`
`The ‘081 Aytac Patent
`
`“[i]n tandem with [ASPIDISK.SYS], a virtual device driver called CATSYNC.VXD 523 implements the
`synchronization between the operating system of PC 101 and that of CaTbox 102 that access the same CaTdisc 301.”
`(‘081 at 10:58–63; ‘144 Response at 31)
`
`“CATCAS.EXE 524 implements the remote CAS modem function.”
`
`(‘081 at 11:6–37; ‘144 Response at 31)
`CATSER.VXD is a virtual device driver program that “implements the remote modem (CaTmodem) function.”
`(‘081 at 11:38-40; ‘144 Response at 31)
`
`8
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG's Patent Owner Demonstratives - Ex. 2009, p. 8
`
`
`
`Aytac’s Specialized Software
`
`and
`of CATSYNC.VXD, CATCAS.EXE,
`38. Each
`CATSER.VXD are
`specialized
`software
`and
`drivers
`specifically created for operation of the CaTbox. (Id. at
`10:52–11:64.) These drivers would have to be loaded by an
`end user because they are specific to the CaTbox and were
`developed by the inventor Aytac and were not customary
`drivers that were typically present on most computers at the
`time of the invention of the ’144 patent. For example,
`CATSYNC.VXD is a program written by the inventor of the
`Aytac patent and is included in the source code submitted
`with the Aytac patent application. (See, e.g., Ex. 1006 at 77,
`502.)
`
`(Ex. 2005, ¶ 38)
`
`9
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG's Patent Owner Demonstratives - Ex. 2009, p. 9
`
`
`
`CATSYNC.VXD Used In Every File Transfer
`
`CATSYNC.VXD 523 hooks the File I/O calls
`from the PC operating system (in this case
`Windows 95 520) and replaces the original call
`with the following:
`if File I/O for CaTdisc
`notify CaTdisc of beginning of File
`I/O receive acknowledgment
`flush File I/O caches for CaTdisc
`make the intended File I/O call
`
`(LUN=0)
`
`notify CaTdisc of end of File I/O
`(Ex. 1004 at 10:67-11:5; ‘144 Response at 31)
`
`10
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG's Patent Owner Demonstratives - Ex. 2009, p. 10
`
`
`
`CATSYNC.VXD Used In Every File Transfer
`Dr. Reynolds confirmed that CATSYNC.VXD is CaTbox-specific software
`involved in file transfers
`
`Q. Is the CaTsync.vxd driver a specific
`driver to the CaTbox system?
`A. As the embodiment is described, it is
`presented as something you would install, yes.
`Q. Would the CaTsync.vxd driver be
`involved in the file transfer from the CaTdisc to
`the host PC, assuming it’s installed on the host
`PC?
`A. Given the statement at the bottom of
`column 10, it hooks file IO calls from the PC, I
`would answer your question yes, it would.
`
`(Ex. 2006, 107:24-108:8)
`
`11
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG's Patent Owner Demonstratives - Ex. 2009, p. 11
`
`
`
`CATSYNC and CATCAS Prevent Corruption
`
`fax
`“To view a fax, a Windows
`program also makes a file read call . . .
`We need to make sure that these calls
`do not corrupt local calls to CaTdisc.
`For example, while a fax is being sent
`from 30 PC, an incoming call may be
`in the process of being recorded on
`CaTdisc.”
`(Ex. 1004 at 11:25–37; ‘144 Response at 35; Ex. 2005 ¶ 42)
`
`12
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG's Patent Owner Demonstratives - Ex. 2009, p. 12
`
`
`
`Aytac’s Specialized Software Is Required
`
`Petitioners’ position based on false assumption that specialized software
`taught in Aytac is optional, unnecessary, and would not be installed.
`(Petition at 31 citing Ex. 1001 ¶ 101; ‘144 Response at 36-37)
`
`Gafford: “44. In view of the teachings in Aytac regarding the need for the
`CATSYNC.VXD and CATCAS.EXE programs to avoid corruption of local
`calls to the CaTdisc, one of ordinary skill would understand that these
`programs are not optional and are necessary for reliable file transfer.”
`(Ex. 2005 ¶ 44)
`
`13
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG's Patent Owner Demonstratives - Ex. 2009, p. 13
`
`
`
`CATSYNC.VXD Is Required
`
`evidences both
`above
`“42. The CATSYNC.VXD pseudo-code
`Gafford:
`CATSYNC.VXD’s stated synchronization function, as well as a cache disabling
`function. Regarding synchronization, a person of ordinary skill would know that
`only one processor at a time can be allowed to modify one storage medium such as
`a disc. If CATSYNC.VXD were not installed in the host computer, the CaTbox
`device would be inoperable due to unreliability arising from lack of synchronization
`of two processors accessing the same disc, i.e., CaTdisc.”
`
`(Ex. 2005 at ¶ 42)
`
`Gafford: “45. A POSITA also understands that a cache cannot be maintained in the
`host computer for files resident on the CaTdisc because they may change due to
`activity in the CaTbox independently of accesses from the host PC, thus creating a
`difference between the data in the cache and the data on the CaTdisc and resulting
`in errors in operation of the user’s host PC programs that depend on accurate data
`being retrieved from the various media connected via the CaTbox.”
`
`(Ex. 2005 at ¶45)
`
`14
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG's Patent Owner Demonstratives - Ex. 2009, p. 14
`
`
`
`Aytac’s Specialized Software Is Required
`
`Dr. Reynolds confirmed necessity of specialized software at deposition
`
`5 Q. But what would Aytac say about his
`6 invention? I'm not interested in what Aytac would
`7 say about Tasler. I'm interested in what Aytac is
`8 saying to the person reading this patent.
`9 A. If the objective is to achieve all of the
`10 other things that Aytac is attempting to achieve in
`11 this embodiment, then he would not say they were
`12 superfluous, but that's not really the question
`13 here.
`14 Q. That's the question I'm asking. He says
`15 things like "We need to make sure that these calls
`16 do not corrupt local calls to CaTdisc"; is that
`17 correct?
`18 A. He says that, yes.
`19 Q. So based on that, would you understand him
`20 saying that a user who uses the CaTbox should
`21 install CATCAS and CaTsync to avoid corrupting
`22 local calls to the CaTdisc?
`23 A. If the user is attempting to accomplish
`24 all of the things in Aytac that go above and beyond
`25 simple reads and writes to the CaTdisc, yes.
`
`15
`
`(Ex. 2006 at 96:5–25; ‘144 Response at 37-38.)
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG's Patent Owner Demonstratives - Ex. 2009, p. 15
`
`
`
`Aytac’s Specialized Software Is Required
`Petitioners provide no viable reason to modify Aytac to remove specialized
`software.
`
`(‘144 Response at 38)
`
`CATSYNC.VXD not addressed in the Petition itself.
`
`(‘144 Response at 36, ‘746 Response at 27)
`
`Dr. Reynolds’ testimony about what would occur “if CATSYNC.VXD were not
`installed on the host computer” is contrary to teachings of Aytac and impermissibly
`based upon hindsight.
`See W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (‘144 Response at 38)
`
`16
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG's Patent Owner Demonstratives - Ex. 2009, p. 16
`
`
`
`Aytac’s Specialized Software Is Required
`Modification to remove specialized software would render CaTbox inoperable for
`its intended purpose: multitasking
`
`(‘144 Response at 38)
`
`60. A number of errors could occur if the CATSYNC.VXD
`driver were not
`installed,
`including data corruption or
`incorrect data being read or written from the CaTdisc.
`Further, a host computer’s requests to read files from the
`CaTdisc would not work reliably if CATSYNC.VXD were
`not installed. Because both the host PC processor and the
`CatBox processor may access the CaTdisk hard drive, and
`only one processor may access the CaTdisk at one time,
`CATSYNC.VXD is implemented to synchronize the two
`processors’ access of
`the CaTdisk to avoid conflicts.
`CATSYNC.VXD also ensures that the host PC acquires the
`requested file from the CaTbox, rather than a cached version
`of the file stored on the host PC. If CATSYNC.VXD were not
`installed, the CaTbox would not reliably respond to requests
`from the host PC to transfer files. Thus, CATSYNC.VXD is
`necessary and required to properly read files from the
`CaTdisc.
`
`(Ex. 2005 at ¶ 60; ‘144 Response at 37)
`
`17
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG's Patent Owner Demonstratives - Ex. 2009, p. 17
`
`
`
`“Regardless of the Identity of A Manufacturer of
`The Computer”
`Required By Claims 1 And 84 of ‘144 And Effectively Required by Claim 86 of
`‘144 Patent
`
`Petitioners fail to cite any evidence that specialized drivers disclosed in Aytac were
`independent of any computing platform or manufacturer
`
`(‘144 Pet. at 62)
`
`device
`host
`discuss
`not
`does
`67. Aytac
`independence, nor does it disclose an interface
`device that would be operable with any type of
`host computer or operating system. Indeed, Aytac
`does not disclose any host computer other than a
`PC running Windows 95.
`
`(Ex. 2005 ¶ 67; ‘081 at 10:52-66)
`
`18
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG's Patent Owner Demonstratives - Ex. 2009, p. 18
`
`
`
`Claim 65 of ‘144 Patent
`
`65. The ADGPD of claim 1, where the processor is adapted to be directly involved
`in all aspects of the data generation process.
`
`Claim 1: “. . .wherein the processor is adapted to be involved in a data generation
`process by which the sensor generates analog data, the analog data is processed,
`and the processed analog data is stored in the data storage memory as at least one
`file of digitized analog data;”
`
`Gafford: “71. . . .Dr. Reynolds fails to explain how the CaTbox processor would be
`involved in the generation of analog data or the processing of the analog data. For
`example, by the time the CaTbox receives a fax, the generating of the analog data
`and processing of the data (i.e., digitization) would have been done by the fax
`machine, without any involvement by the CaTbox processor.”
`
`(Ex. 2005 at ¶ 71)
`
`Dr. Reynolds also relies on alleged disclosure of voice message using microphone,
`but only relies on source code, which is not prior art.
`
`(‘144 Response at 46; Ex. 1001 at ¶ 84)
`
`19
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG's Patent Owner Demonstratives - Ex. 2009, p. 19
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
