Petitioners’
`Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`FUJIFILM Corporation, et al. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co, KG
`IPR2016-01199 & IPR2016-01200
`Petitions Based On U.S. Pat. No. 5,758,081 (“Aytac”)
`
`September 14, 2017
`
`
`Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`FUJIFILM Corporation, et al. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co, KG
`IPR2016-01199 & IPR2016-01200
`Petitions Based On U.S. Pat. No. 5,758,081 (“Aytac”)
`
`September 14, 2017
`
`
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,966,144
`
`IPR2016-01199
`IPR2016-01199
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,966,144
`
`
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,966,144 (“the ’144 Patent”)
`
`• Title: “Analog Data Generating and Processing
`Device having a Multi-Use Automatic Processor”
`• Named Inventor: Michael Tasler
`• Owner: Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG
`• Earliest asserted priority date: March 4, 1997
`
`Ex. 1003
`FUJIFILM Corporation, et al. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG, IPR2016-01199
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01199 Overview
`
`• Challenged Claims: 1-8, 10, 14-20, 22, 28, 29, 38, 52, 56, 57, 59-65, 67, 71-74, 77-
`80, 84, 86, and 87
`• Claims 1, 84, and 86 are independent
`• Ground of Unpatentability: The Challenged Claims are unpatentable under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over U.S. Pat. No. 5,758,081 (“Aytac”), in combination
`with the SCSI Specification and the Admitted Prior Art.
`
`Pet. at 13-16; Institution Dec. at 6-7, 41
`FUJIFILM Corporation, et al. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG, IPR2016-01199
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01199 Outline
`
`• Undisputed Issues
`• Disputed Issues
`– “Regardless of the identity of a manufacturer of the computer”
`– “An automatic file transfer process in which … at least one file of digitized analog
`data to be transferred to the computer without requiring any user-loaded file
`transfer enabling software to be loaded or installed in the computer at any time”
`– Dependent claim 65
`
`FUJIFILM Corporation, et al. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG, IPR2016-01199
`
`5
`
`
`
`Undisputed Issues
`
`Undisputed Issues
`
`
`
`Undisputed Issues: Aytac Is Prior Art
`
`• U.S. Pat. No. 5,758,081
`• Title: “Computing and Communications Transmitting,
`Receiving System, With a Push Button Interface,
`That Is Continuously On, That Pairs Up With a
`Personal Computer and Carries Out Mainly
`Communications Related Routine Tasks”
`• Named Inventor: Haluk M. Aytac
`• Filed: December 8, 1995
`• Prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
`
`Ex. 1004; Pet. at 13; see Resp. at 6-7
`FUJIFILM Corporation, et al. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG, IPR2016-01199
`
`7
`
`
`
`Undisputed Issues: SCSI Specification Is Prior Art
`
`• Title: “American National Standard for Information
`Systems, Small Computer System Interface-2,
`ANSI X3.131-1994
`• Published: 1994
`• Prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
`
`Ex. 1005; Pet. at 13-14; see Resp. at 11-12
`FUJIFILM Corporation, et al. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG, IPR2016-01199
`
`8
`
`
`
`Undisputed Issues: the Admitted Prior Art
`
`• The ’144 Patent contains admissions about what
`was known and present in the art at and before the
`time of the alleged invention.
`• Admissions about the prior art are found at Col.
`3:37-46, 4:20-22, 5:11-14, 5:21-23, 5:37-47, 8:45-
`50, 10:26-33.
`– Patent Owner disputes that the virtual boot sequence disclosed
`at Col. 5:37-47 is an admission of prior art, even though the ’144
`Patent describes it as “conventional.” This dispute does not
`affect the three disputed unpatentability issues.
`
`Ex. 1003; Pet. at 70-72; Institution Dec. at 7, 24; Resp. at 12
`FUJIFILM Corporation, et al. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG, IPR2016-01199
`
`9
`
`
`
`Uncontested Issues: The Obviousness
`Combination Discloses Claim Limitations
`
`Claim 1
`
`[Preamble] An ADGPD…
`
`[a] An I/O port
`
`[b] A program memory
`
`[c] A data storage memory
`
`[d] A sensor…
`
`[e] A processor operatively interfaced…
`
`Disclosed by Aytac + SCSI Specification +
`APA?
`YES
`YES
`YES
`YES
`YES
`YES
`
`Pet. at 37-91; See Resp. at 28-44
`FUJIFILM Corporation, et al. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG, IPR2016-01199
`
`10
`
`
`
`Uncontested Issues: The Obviousness
`Combination Discloses Claim Limitations
`
`Claim 1
`
`[e][1] The processor is adapted to be involved in
`a data generation process…
`[e][2] The processor is adapted to be involved in
`an automatic recognition process…
`
`[e][3] The processor is adapted to be involved in
`an automatic file transfer process…
`
`Disclosed by Aytac + SCSI Specification +
`APA?
`YES
`
`Patent Owner only disputes one of four sub-
`parts, “regardless of the identity of a
`manufacturer of the computer”
`Besides the issue above, Patent Owner
`disputes the “without requiring any user-loaded
`file transfer enabling software” sub-part
`
`Patent Owner disputes corresponding limitations in the other independent claims (84 and 86)
`
`Pet. at 37-91; See Resp. at 28-44
`FUJIFILM Corporation, et al. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG, IPR2016-01199
`
`11
`
`
`
`Uncontested Issues: The Obviousness
`Combination Discloses Claim Limitations
`
`Claim Additional
`Limitations
`Disclosed?
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`10
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`Claim Additional
`Limitations
`Disclosed?
`YES
`
`14
`
`Claim Additional
`Limitations
`Disclosed?
`YES
`
`28
`
`Claim Additional
`Limitations
`Disclosed?
`YES
`
`61
`
`Claim Additional
`Limitations
`Disclosed?
`YES
`
`73
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`22
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`29
`
`38
`
`52
`
`56
`
`57
`
`59
`
`60
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`62
`
`63
`
`64
`
`65
`
`67
`
`71
`
`72
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`Disputed
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`74
`
`77
`
`78
`
`79
`
`80
`
`87
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`Pet. at 37-91; See Resp. at 28-44
`FUJIFILM Corporation, et al. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG, IPR2016-01199
`
`12
`
`
`
`The Parties Essentially Agree on the Level of
`Ordinary Skill
`
`Pet. at 16; Institution Dec. at 21; Resp. at 13-14
`FUJIFILM Corporation, et al. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG, IPR2016-01199
`
`13
`
`
`
`Undisputed Issues: Dr. Reynolds’ Qualifications
`
`• PhD in Computer Science (Univ. of Texas), focused on
`parallel and distributed systems and networking topics
`• Professor of Computer Science at Univ. of Virginia for
`32 years
`• Consults for Department of Defense and other clients
`on network architecture
`
`Ex. 1002
`FUJIFILM Corporation, et al. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG, IPR2016-01199
`
`14
`
`
`
`Aytac Expressly Cites the SCSI Specification
`
`Aytac
`
`Ex. 1004 at 4:49-54, 9:56-63; Pet. at 24-25; See generally Resp.
`FUJIFILM Corporation, et al. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG, IPR2016-01199
`
`15
`
`
`
`Disputed Issue #1
`“Regardless of the identity of a manufacturer of the computer”
`
`
`
`“Regardless of the Manufacturer” Limitations:
`Language from Each Independent Claim
`
`Claim 1
`wherein the [ADGPD’s] processor also is adapted to be involved in
`an automatic recognition process in which … the processor …
`causes at least one parameter which provides identification
`information regarding the ADGPD to be automatically sent [to] the
`computer … (d) regardless of the identity of a manufacturer of
`the computer …
`wherein the processor is further adapted to be involved in an
`automatic file transfer process in which … the processor …
`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 …
`
`Claim 84
`[Highlighted
`language is the
`same as claim 1;
`other differences
`are not relevant to
`the disputed issue]
`
`Ex. 1003
`FUJIFILM Corporation, et al. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG, IPR2016-01199
`
`Claim 86
`“a second computer that is
`manufactured by a
`company different than the
`company that
`manufactured the
`first computer”
`[The parties agree that the
`recitations about connecting
`the ADGPD to two computers
`of different manufacturers
`effectively is the same as
`claim 1’s highlighted
`language]
`
`17
`
`
`
`“Regardless of the Manufacturer” Limitations:
`The Parties’ Arguments
`
`Petitioners’ Argument
`Aytac’s disclosed system (“CaTbox”) uses
`SCSI. By design, SCSI was device-
`independent and operated with computers
`from many different manufacturers.
`
`Patent Owner’s Argument
`Aytac’s disclosed system is specifically
`adapted to work with computers running
`Windows 95.
`
`Pet. at 62; Resp. at 41-44; Reply at 21-23
`FUJIFILM Corporation, et al. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG, IPR2016-01199
`
`18
`
`
`
`“Manufacturer of the Computer” Does Not Mean
`“Manufacturer of the Operating System”
`
`Ex. 1007 (‘144 Patent File History) at p. 784; Reply at 22
`FUJIFILM Corporation, et al. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG, IPR2016-01199
`
`19
`
`
`
`Mr. Gafford Admitted that Aytac’s System Meets
`This Limitation
`
`Ex. 1013 at 44:22-45:10; 45:18-24; Reply at 22-23
`FUJIFILM Corporation, et al. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG, IPR2016-01199
`
`20
`
`
`
`SCSI is Device-Independent
`
`’144 Patent
`
`Ex. 1001 at 62; Ex. 1004 at 10:52-56; Pet. at 62; Resp. at 42; Reply at 23
`FUJIFILM Corporation, et al. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG, IPR2016-01199
`
`21
`
`
`
`Mr. Gafford Admitted that SCSI is Device-
`Independent
`
`Ex .1013 at 44:14-21; Reply at 23
`FUJIFILM Corporation, et al. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG, IPR2016-01199
`
`22
`
`
`
`Disputed Issue #2
`
`“an automatic file transfer process in which … at least
`one file of digitized analog data to be transferred to the
`computer without requiring any user-loaded file transfer
`enabling software to be loaded or installed in the
`computer at any time”
`
`
`
`“Automatic File Transfer” Limitations: Language
`from Each Independent Claim
`
`Claim 1
`wherein the [ADGPD’s] 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.
`
`Claim 84
`[Highlighted
`language is the
`same as claim 1;
`other differences are
`not relevant to the
`disputed issues]
`
`Claim 86
`[Highlighted language is
`the same as claim 1
`except the language is
`repeated, once for the
`“first” computer and
`then for the “second”
`computer; other
`differences are not
`relevant to the
`disputed issues]
`
`Ex. 1003
`FUJIFILM Corporation, et al. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG, IPR2016-01199
`
`24
`
`
`
`“Automatic File Transfer” Limitation:
`The Parties’ Arguments, Summarized
`
`Petitioners’ Argument
`Aytac’s CaTBoX system is precisely what the
`’144 Patent claims as its “invention”: a device
`which interfaces a host computer and
`peripherals using standard SCSI connections,
`drivers, and protocols.
`
`Aytac also discloses other features. It does not
`matter whether or not software enabling those
`features is loaded on Aytac’s computer, because
`those features go beyond, and are not required
`for, the ’144 Patent’s claimed “automatic file
`transfer.”
`
`Patent Owner’s Argument
`Aytac’s system requires user-loaded software
`to accomplish its intended purpose, and it
`would not have been obvious to modify Aytac
`to remove that software, therefore the
`obviousness combination does not meet the
`negative “without requiring any user-loaded file
`transfer enabling software” limitation.
`
`Pet. at 2-3, 23-24, 30-31, 49-60, 63-67; Resp. at 1-2, 28-40; Reply at 1-9, 11-21
`FUJIFILM Corporation, et al. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG, IPR2016-01199
`
`25
`
`
`
`“Automatic File Transfer”: Argument Roadmap
`
`1. Claim Construction (Slides 27-31)
`‒ “Without requiring” does not mean “prohibiting” the existence of any user-loaded software
`‒ The claims require the ability to transfer one file
`‒ The claims do not require “synchronization” of current access requests or “reliability”
`2. Aytac’s System Does Not Require User-Loaded File Transfer Software (Slides 32-39)
`‒ Aytac discloses automatic file transfer using SCSI, just like the ʼ144 Patent
`‒ Patent Owner does not dispute how Aytac uses SCSI
`3. Patent Owner’s Argument is Wrong (Slides 40-49)
`‒ The expert witnesses agree on what Aytac’s software does
`‒ CATSYNC.VXD’s synchronization and cache clearing are not required to transfer one file
`‒ CATCAS.EXE and CATSER.VXD perform irrelevant functions
`
`FUJIFILM Corporation, et al. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG, IPR2016-01199
`
`26
`
`
`
`“Automatic File Transfer” Limitation: “Without
`Requiring” Does Not Mean “Prohibiting” Software
`
`Ex. 1013 at 53:7-21; Reply at 8-9, 20
`FUJIFILM Corporation, et al. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG, IPR2016-01199
`
`27
`
`
`
`“Automatic File Transfer” Limitation Requires the
`Ability to Transfer One File
`
`Institution Dec. at 14-15
`FUJIFILM Corporation, et al. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG, IPR2016-01199
`
`28
`
`
`
`“Automatic File Transfer” Limitation Requires the
`Ability to Transfer One File
`
`Resp. at 1-2
`FUJIFILM Corporation, et al. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG, IPR2016-01199
`
`29
`
`
`
`“Automatic File Transfer” Limitation Requires the
`Ability to Transfer One File
`
`Ex 1013 at 51:23-52:5; Reply at 5-6
`FUJIFILM Corporation, et al. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG, IPR2016-01199
`
`30
`
`
`
`“Automatic File Transfer” Limitation Does Not
`Require “Synchronization” or “Reliability”
`
`Ex 1013 at 57:7-11; 52:7-10; Reply at 6-8
`FUJIFILM Corporation, et al. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG, IPR2016-01199
`
`31
`
`
`
`Aytac Meets the “Without Requiring” Limitation
`
`Aytac’s CaTbox System
`
`Ex. 1004, Figure 1; Pet. at 27, 42-43, 45
`FUJIFILM Corporation, et al. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG, IPR2016-01199
`
`32
`
`
`
`Aytac Meets the “Without Requiring” Limitation
`
`Aytac discloses automatic file transfer using SCSI protocols and drivers
`
`Aytac
`
`Ex. 1001 at 59; Ex. 1004 at 10:56-58; 10:67-11:5; Pet. at 31, 40, 59-60, 64-67
`FUJIFILM Corporation, et al. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG, IPR2016-01199
`
`33
`
`
`
`Aytac Meets the “Without Requiring” Limitation
`
`Aytac discloses automatic file transfer using SCSI protocols and drivers
`
`Ex. 1004 at 10:56-58; 10:67-11:5; Figure 5; Pet. at 31, 40,
`59-60, 64-67; Ex. 1001 at 59, 64-68
`FUJIFILM Corporation, et al. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG, IPR2016-01199
`
`34
`
`
`
`Aytac Meets the “Without Requiring” Limitation
`
`Aytac’s system does not require software on the computer beyond standard
`SCSI drivers
`
`Ex. 1001 at 61
`FUJIFILM Corporation, et al. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG, IPR2016-01199
`
`35
`
`
`
`Aytac and the ’144 Patent
`Transfer a File the Same Way
`
`’144 Patent
`
`Aytac
`
`Ex. 1003 at Fig. 1; Ex. 1004 at Fig. 1; Pet. at 21-22, 27, 42-43,
`45, 49-67
`FUJIFILM Corporation, et al. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG, IPR2016-01199
`
`36
`
`
`
`Aytac and the ’144 Patent
`Transfer a File the Same Way
`Aytac and the ’144 Patent use the same SCSI interface
`’144 Patent
`
`Aytac
`
`Ex. 1003 at 3:51-55; Ex. 1004 at 9:64-10:2; Pet. at 23-24, 29-30, 38-39, 51-52
`FUJIFILM Corporation, et al. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG, IPR2016-01199
`
`37
`
`
`
`Aytac and the ’144 Patent
`Transfer a File the Same Way
`Aytac and the ’144 Patent use the same SCSI commands
`’144 Patent
`
`Aytac
`
`Ex 1003 at 5:11-23; Ex 1004 at 4:49-53, 9:56-63; Pet. at 23-
`25, 29-30, 38-39, 51-53, 55
`FUJIFILM Corporation, et al. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG, IPR2016-01199
`
`38
`
`
`
`Aytac and the ’144 Patent
`Transfer a File the Same Way
`Aytac and the ’144 Patent use the same SCSI drivers (“ASPI” drivers)
`’144 Patent
`Aytac
`’144 Patent
`
`Ex 1003 at 10:23-33; Ex 1004 at 10:52-58; Pet. at 30, 52, 55, 65
`FUJIFILM Corporation, et al. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG, IPR2016-01199
`
`39
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Mischaracterizes Petitioners’
`Argument: No Modification of Aytac Is Required
`
`Resp. at 38; see also Resp. at 1-2, 27-29
`FUJIFILM Corporation, et al. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG, IPR2016-01199
`
`40
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Says: Aytac Requires User-Loaded
`Software for Cache Clearing & Synchronization
`
`Ex. 2005 at 23
`FUJIFILM Corporation, et al. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG, IPR2016-01199
`
`41
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Says: Aytac Requires User-Loaded
`Software for Cache Clearing & Synchronization
`
`Ex. 1013 at 48:13-24; Reply at 17
`FUJIFILM Corporation, et al. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG, IPR2016-01199
`
`42
`
`
`
`Cache Clearing Necessarily Only Occurs
`After a Successful File Transfer
`
`Ex. 2005 at 25-26
`FUJIFILM Corporation, et al. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG, IPR2016-01199
`
`43
`
`
`
`Cache Clearing Necessarily Only Occurs
`After a Successful File Transfer
`
`Ex. 1013 at 46:21-47:10; Reply at 17-18
`FUJIFILM Corporation, et al. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG, IPR2016-01199
`
`44
`
`
`
`“Synchronization” Is Not Required for Automatic
`File Transfer
`It is not necessary to address concurrent access attempts to transfer a file
`
`Ex. 1013 at 48:2-11; Reply at 18
`FUJIFILM Corporation, et al. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG, IPR2016-01199
`
`45
`
`
`
`“Synchronization” Is Not Required for Automatic
`File Transfer
`It is not necessary to address concurrent access attempts to transfer a file
`
`Ex. 1004 at 59; Pet. at 59-60
`FUJIFILM Corporation, et al. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG, IPR2016-01199
`
`46
`
`
`
`“Synchronization” Is Not Required for Automatic
`File Transfer
`It is not necessary to address concurrent access attempts to transfer a file
`
`Ex. 2006 at 92:7-20; see also id. at 90:3-22, 98:3-8
`Reply at 18-19
`FUJIFILM Corporation, et al. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG, IPR2016-01199
`
`47
`
`
`
`CATCAS.EXE Is Not Required for Automatic
`File Transfer
`
`Aytac
`
`Ex. 1013 at 49:7-14; Ex. 1004 at 11:6-13; Reply at 13 n.4
`FUJIFILM Corporation, et al. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG, IPR2016-01199
`
`48
`
`
`
`CATSER.VXD Is Not Required for Automatic
`File Transfer
`
`Aytac
`
`Ex. 1013 at 49:17-50:4; Ex. 1004 at 11:38-39; Reply at 13 n.4
`FUJIFILM Corporation, et al. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG, IPR2016-01199
`
`49
`
`
`
`Disputed Issue #3
`Dependent Claim 65
`
`
`
`Dependent Claim 65
`
`Claim 65
`The ADGPD of claim 1, wherein the [ADGPD’s] processor is adapted to be directly involved in
`all aspects of the data generation process.
`
`Ex. 1003
`FUJIFILM Corporation, et al. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG, IPR2016-01199
`
`51
`
`
`
`CaTbox’s Processor Is Directly Involved in All
`Aspects of the Data Generation Process
`
`Aytac
`
`Ex. 1004 at 5:9-13; Resp. at 28; Reply at 24.
`FUJIFILM Corporation, et al. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG, IPR2016-01199
`
`52
`
`
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,504,746
`
`IPR2016-01200
`IPR2016-01200
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,504,746
`
`
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,504,746 (“the ’746 Patent”)
`
`• Title: “Analog Data Generating and Processing
`Device for Use With a Personal Computer”
`• Named Inventor: Michael Tasler
`• Owner: Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG
`• Earliest asserted priority date: March 4, 1997
`
`Ex. 1003
`FUJIFILM Corporation, et al. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG, IPR2016-01200
`
`54
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01200
`
`• Challenged Claims: 1, 6, 15, 17, 18, 31, and 34
`• Claims 1, 31, and 34 are independent
`• Ground of Unpatentability: The Challenged Claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §
`103(a) as obvious over U.S. Pat. No. 5,758,081 (“Aytac”), in combination with the SCSI
`Specification and the Admitted Prior Art.
`
`Pet. at 15-16; Inst. Dec. at 26
`FUJIFILM Corporation, et al. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG, IPR2016-01200
`
`55
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01200 Outline
`
`• Only Disputed Issue – Same as First Issue for ’144 Patent
`– “An automatic file transfer process in which … at least one file of digitized analog
`data to be transferred to the computer without requiring any user-loaded file
`transfer enabling software to be loaded or installed in the computer at any time”
`
`FUJIFILM Corporation, et al. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG, IPR2016-01200
`
`56
`
`
`
`“Automatic File Transfer” Limitations: Language
`from Each Independent Claim
`Claim 1
`Claim 31
`wherein the [ADGPD’s]
`wherein the [ADGPD’s]
`processor is further configured
`processor is configured to
`and programmed to … allow
`automatically transfer the
`the at least one file of digitized
`digitized analog data acquired
`analog data … to be transferred
`from the analog source to the
`to the computer …
`host device … while using the
`whereby there is no
`device driver associated with the
`requirement for any user-
`mass storage device to perform
`loaded file transfer enabling
`the automatic transfer without
`software to be loaded on or
`requiring any user-loaded file
`installed in the computer in
`transfer enabling software to
`addition to the operating system.
`be loaded on or installed in the
`computer.
`
`Claim 34
`automatically transferring
`data from the analog source
`to the host device in response
`to a digital data read command
`from the host device, … while
`using the device driver to
`perform the automatic transfer
`of the acquired digitized analog
`data to the host device without
`requiring any user-loaded file
`transfer enabling software to
`be loaded on or installed in
`the host device.
`
`Ex. 1003
`FUJIFILM Corporation, et al. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG, IPR2016-01200
`
`57
`
`
`
`“Automatic File Transfer” Limitation in ’746 Patent
`Is Effectively the Same as in the ’144 Patent
`
`Ex. 1013 at 40:23-41:2
`FUJIFILM Corporation, et al. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG, IPR2016-01200
`
`58
`
`
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
