UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________
`
`CANON INC.; CANON USA, INC.;
`CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.; FUJIFILM CORPORATION;
`FUJIFILM HOLDINGS AMERICA CORPORATION;
`FUJIFILM NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION; JVC KENWOOD
`CORPORATION; JVCKENWOOD USA CORPORATION;
`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.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO. KG
`Patent Owner.
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2016-01200
`Patent 8,504,746
`____________________
`
`PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO. KG’S
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01200
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`B. 
`
`I. 
`II. 
`
`Introduction .......................................................................................... 1 
`The Petition Fails To Meet The Requirements For
`Instituting An Inter Partes Review ...................................................... 4 
`The Petition Fails To Comply With 35 U.S.C.
`A. 
`§ 312(a)(3) And 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2) And
`42.104(b)(4) ................................................................................ 4 
`The Board Should Not Institute Trial Based On The
`Petition’s Redundant Grounds ................................................. 10 
`III.  The Petition Advances Flawed Claim Constructions That
`Should Be Rejected ............................................................................ 18 
`A.  Overview Of The ’746 Patent .................................................. 19 
`B. 
`Level Of Ordinary Skill In The Art ......................................... 21 
`C. 
`Response
`to
`Petitioners’
`Proposed Claim
`Constructions ............................................................................ 22 
`“without requiring any end user to load any
`1. 
`software onto the [first/second] computer at
`any time”, “without requiring any user-loaded
`file transfer enabling software to be loaded on
`or installed in the [computer/host device] at
`any time”, “whereby there is no requirement
`for any user-loaded file transfer enabling
`software to be loaded on or installed in the
`computer in addition to the operating system”,
`And “processor” Limitations ......................................... 22 
`“End user” ...................................................................... 22 
`2. 
`IV.  Petitioners Did Not Meet Their Burden To Show A
`Reasonable Likelihood Of Success On Their Ground Of
`Invalidity ............................................................................................. 25 
`A. 
`Legal Standards ........................................................................ 25 
`
`i
`
`

`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01200
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`
`B. 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`2. 
`3. 
`
`Petitioners Fail To Demonstrate The Challenged
`Claims Are Obvious Over Aytac In View Of The
`SCSI Specification ................................................................... 30 
`Petitioners Fail To Articulate A Proper
`1. 
`Obviousness Ground ...................................................... 30 
`U.S. Patent No. 5,758,081 To Aytac ............................. 32 
`American National Standard For Information
`Systems – Small Computer System Interface-2
`(“SCSI Specification”) ................................................... 36 
`Aytac’s Source Code Is Not Part Of The Aytac
`Disclosure And Does Not Otherwise Qualify
`As Prior Art .................................................................... 36 
`Aytac, Alone Or Combined With The SCSI
`Specification, Fails To Disclose Several
`Limitations Of The Independent Claims ....................... 40 
`In View Of The SCSI
`(i)  Aytac
`Specification Does Not Disclose The
`’746 Patent’s Automatic File Transfer
`Process That Occurs Without Requiring
`Any User-loaded File Transfer Enabling
`Software To Be Loaded Or Installed In
`The Host Device .................................................. 40 
`In View Of The SCSI
`(ii)  Aytac
`Specification Fail To Disclose A
`Processor That Implements A Data
`Generation Process As Claimed In
`Claims 1, 31, And 34 ........................................... 44 
`(iii)  The Petition Fails To Show That Aytac
`Or The SCSI Specification Disclose The
`Preamble Of Claim 1 ........................................... 47 
`Petitioners Fail To Demonstrate That The Challenged
`Dependent Claims Are Obvious Based On Aytac In
`View of The SCSI specification ............................................... 48 
`Conclusion .......................................................................................... 52
`
`C. 
`
`V. 
`
`ii
`
`

`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01200
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`Cases
`Activevideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................. 26
`Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc.,
`2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 14652 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 10, 2016) ......................... 29
`Canon, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures, LLC,
`IPR2014-00535, Paper 9 (PTAB Sept. 24, 2014) ..................................... 17
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC,
`IPR2014-00454, Paper 12 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2014) ......................... 7, 27, 28
`Conopco, Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Co.,
`IPR2013-00510, Paper 9 (PTAB Feb. 12, 2014) ........................................ 7
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`No. 15-446, 136 S. Ct. 2131 (June 20, 2016) ............................................ 18
`Dell, Inc. v. Elecs. & Telecommc’ns Res. Inst.,
`IPR2014-00152, Paper 12 (PTAB May 16, 2014) .................................... 28
`Dominion Dealer Sols., LLC v. Autoalert, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00223, Paper 9 (PTAB Aug. 15, 2013) ..................................... 29
`EMC Corp. v. PersonalWeb Techs., LLC,
`IPR2013-00087, Paper 25 (June 5, 2013) ................................................. 10
`Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ............................................................................... passim
`Idle Free Sys., Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc.,
`IPR2012-00027, Paper 26 (PTAB June 11, 2013) .................................... 10
`In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr.,
`367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ................................................................. 18
`In re Bass,
`314 F.3d 575 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ................................................................... 18
`In re Cronyn,
`890 F.2d 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ................................................................. 39
`In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule
`Patent Litig.,
`676 F.3d 1063 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................. 28
`
`iii
`
`

`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01200
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`
`In re Fritch,
`972 F.2d 1260 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ........................................................... 31, 48
`In re NTP, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................................................. 28
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
`504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ................................................................. 18
`In re Zurko,
`258 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ................................................................. 30
`Intel Corp. v. MicroUnity Systems,
`Appeal No. 2010-008981 (BPAI Dec. 9. 2010) ........................................ 38
`Intri-Plex Techs., Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics
`Rencol Ltd.,
`IPR2014-00309, Paper 83 (PTAB Mar. 23, 2014) .............................. 26, 28
`K/S HIMPP v. Hear-Wear Techs., LLC,
`751 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................. 5, 29, 30, 51
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ........................................................................ 2, 25, 26
`Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.,
`CBM2012-00003, Paper 7 (PTAB Oct. 25, 2012) ............................. passim
`Medtronic, Inc. v. Robert Bosch Healthcare Sys., Inc.,
`IPR2014-00436, Paper 17 (PTAB June 19, 2014) .................................... 27
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ................................................. 18
`SAS Inst. Inc. v. Complementsoft, LLC,
`IPR2013-00581, Paper 15 (PTAB Dec. 30, 2013) .................................... 16
`SAS Inst. Inc. v. Complementsoft, LLC,
`IPR2013-00581, Paper 17 (PTAB Feb. 24, 2014) .................................... 16
`Solaia Tech. LLC v. Arvinvmeritor Inc.,
`2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16482 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 17, 2003) ......................... 38
`Southwest Software, Inc. v. Harlequin, Inc.,
`226 F.3d 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ................................................................. 38
`Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,
`655 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................................................. 28
`Symantec Corp. v. RPost Comms. Ltd.,
`IPR2014-00353, Paper 15 (PTAB July 15, 2014) ................................. 7, 45
`Travelocity.com L.P. et al. v. Cronos Techs., LLC,
`CBM2014-00082, Paper 12 (PTAB Oct. 16, 2014) ................................ 3, 9
`
`iv
`
`

`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01200
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`
`TRW Auto. US LLC v. Magna Elecs. Inc.,
`IPR2014-00258, Paper 16 (PTAB June 26, 2014) ................................ 6, 27
`Wowza Media Sys., LLC v. Adobe Sys., Inc.,
`IPR2013-00054, Paper 12 (PTAB Apr. 8, 2013) ........................................ 6
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ................................................................................. 36, 38, 39
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ............................................................................................. 25
`35 U.S.C. § 311 ......................................................................................... 5, 39
`35 U.S.C. § 312 ............................................................................................... 4
`35 U.S.C. § 313 ............................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. § 314 ............................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. § 315 ......................................................................................... 3, 17
`35 U.S.C. § 325 ......................................................................................... 3, 16
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 1.96 ............................................................................................ 37
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1 ............................................................................................ 12
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ........................................................................................ 18
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 .................................................................................... 4, 44
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107 .......................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108 .............................................................................. 1, 10, 16
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22 ........................................................................................ 4, 7
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24 .......................................................................................... 53
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6 ........................................................................................ 7, 53
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65 ............................................................................................ 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ............................................................................................ 53
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756–66 (Aug. 14, 2012) ....................................................... 4
`Other Authorities
`157 Cong. Rec. S1041–42 (daily ed. Mar 1, 2011) ..................................... 17
`MPEP § 608.05 ............................................................................................ 37
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`

`
`EXHIBIT NO. TITLE
`1001
`Declaration of Dr. Paul F. Reynolds, Ph.D.
`1002
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Paul F. Reynolds, Ph.D.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746 to Michael Tasler (“the ’746
`1003
`Patent”).
`U.S. Patent No. 5,758,081 to Haluk M. Aytac (“Aytac” or
`“the ’081 Patent”).
`American National Standard for Information Systems,
`Small Computer System Interface-2, ANSI X3.131-1994
`(1994) (“SCSI Specification”).
`Prosecution History of the ’081 Patent.
`Excerpts from the Prosecution History of the ’746 Patent.
`MPEP 6th ed., Rev. 1, Sept. 1, 1995, § 608.05.
`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).
`Ray Duncan, ed., “The MS-DOS Encyclopedia,”
`Microsoft Press (1988).
`Federal Circuit decision, In re: Papst Licensing Digital
`Camera Patent Litigation, No. 2014-1110 (Fed. Cir. Feb.
`2, 2015).
`American National Standards Institute, Procedures for the
`Development and Coordination of American National
`Standards, Approved by the ANSI Board of Directors
`(Sept. 9, 1993).
`Japanese Published Application H4-15853 to Kawaguchi
`(“Kawaguchi”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,088,532 to Yasuhiro Yamamoto et al.
`(“Yamamoto”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,508,821
`(“Murata”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,499,378 to Andre B. McNeill et al.
`(“McNeill”)
`File History Excerpt: August 13, 2009 Amendment
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`1007
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`2005
`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01200
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`to Kazuyuki Murata
`
`vi
`
`

`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01200
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`Patent Owner Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG (“Papst”) submits this
`
`Preliminary Response in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 313 and 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.107, responding to the Petition for Inter Partes Review (the “Petition”)
`
`filed by the Petitioners regarding claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746 (“the
`
`’746 patent”). Papst requests that the Board not institute inter partes review
`
`for several reasons.
`
`
`
`The Board has discretion to “deny some or all grounds for
`
`unpatentability for some or all of the challenged claims.” 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.108(b); see 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Petitioners bear the burden of
`
`demonstrating a reasonable likelihood that they would prevail in showing
`
`unpatentability on the grounds asserted in their Petition. 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.108(c). While it is not required to file a Preliminary Response (37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.107(a)), Papst takes this limited opportunity to point out the reasons the
`
`Board should not institute trial.
`
`First, the Board should reject the Petition because Petitioners fail to
`
`sufficiently identify and explain their precise invalidity legal theories and
`
`supporting evidence, in violation of the particularity required by the Board.
`
`Petitioners obscure the source of the alleged teachings of the prior art, and
`
`even rely on non-prior art teachings of the challenged ’746 patent in support
`
`1
`
`

`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01200
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`of their ground of invalidity. (See, e.g., Pet. at 67–68.) Although the single
`
`ground of invalidity is alleged to be based on Aytac (Ex. 1004) in view of the
`
`SCSI Specification (Ex. 1005), Petitioners fail to provide a proper
`
`obviousness analysis, including considering each claimed invention as a
`
`whole, identification of the limitations not disclosed by Aytac, identification
`
`of where those limitations are taught by the SCSI Specification, and why and
`
`how the particular combination would have been made, i.e., an articulated
`
`reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the conclusion of
`
`obviousness. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007); Graham
`
`v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966).
`
`Instead, Petitioners treat the SCSI Specification as an incorporated part
`
`of the Aytac disclosure, even though Aytac merely refers to, but does not
`
`incorporate the SCSI Specification by reference. (See Ex. 1004 at 4:51–53.)
`
`The result is that the Petition effectively alleges anticipation based on two
`
`separate references instead of obviousness of the challenged claims. Indeed,
`
`in its analysis of the claims, the word “obvious” does not even appear once.
`
`(See Pet. at 37–70.) Never once conceding which claim limitations are missing
`
`from Aytac, Petitioners fail to clearly articulate any theory of obviousness
`
`premised on combining the teachings of Aytac and the SCSI Specification.
`
`Second, the Board should reject the Petition because Petitioners
`
`2
`
`

`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01200
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`propose a ground that is horizontally redundant of grounds proposed in other
`
`inter partes review petitions filed by Petitioners against the ’746 patent.1
`
`Petitioners’ six petitions against the ’746 patent collectively assert various
`
`grounds using five different primary prior art references. Accordingly, the
`
`Board should exercise its discretion and deny the Petition under 35 U.S.C. §§
`
`315(d) and 325(d), and the redundancy principles established in Liberty
`
`Mutual Insurance Co. v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co., CBM2012-
`
`00003, Paper 7 (PTAB Oct. 25, 2012).
`
`Papst does not attempt to fully address the numerous other deficiencies
`
`of the poorly articulated and underdeveloped grounds asserted in the Petition.
`
`See Travelocity.com L.P. v. Cronos Techs., LLC, CBM2014-00082, Paper 12
`
`at 10 (PTAB Oct. 16, 2014) (“nothing may be gleaned from the Patent
`
`Owner’s challenge or failure to challenge the grounds of unpatentability for
`
`any particular reason”). However, the deficiencies addressed herein are
`
`dispositive and preclude trial on any grounds asserted in the Petition.
`
`
`1 These same Petitioners have also filed seven petitions against a related
`
`patent, U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144.
`
`3
`
`

`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01200
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`II. The Petition Fails To Meet The Requirements For Instituting An
`Inter Partes Review
`
`Trial should not be instituted because the Petition does not comply with
`
`numerous Board requirements.
`
`A.
`
`The Petition Fails To Comply With 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) And
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2) And 42.104(b)(4)
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) requires, among other things, that Petitioners
`
`specify the statutory grounds upon which each claim is challenged, where
`
`each element of the claim is found in the prior art, and the specific portions of
`
`the evidence supporting the challenge. Similarly, 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2)
`
`requires that each petition include “a detailed explanation of the significance
`
`of the evidence including material facts, and the governing law, rules, and
`
`precedent.” The Office Patent Trial Practice Guide cautions that petitioners
`
`should “avoid submitting a repository of all the information that a judge could
`
`possibly consider, and instead focus on concise, well organized, easy-to-
`
`follow arguments supported by readily identifiable evidence of record.” 77
`
`Fed. Reg. 48,756–66 at 48,763 (Aug. 14, 2012). The Petition does not comply
`
`with these requirements in several respects.
`
`First, Petitioners repeatedly provide alleged support for their arguments
`
`with citations to the expert declaration of Dr. Reynolds (Ex. 1001) (“Reynolds
`
`Declaration”), rather than to the asserted prior art. (See, e.g., Pet. at 43, 47, 52,
`
`4
`
`

`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01200
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`67.) A ground in an inter partes review may only be based on “prior art
`
`consisting of patents or printed publications.” See 35 U.S.C. § 311. While
`
`expert testimony is certainly permissible in support of a Petition, it may not
`
`be used to fill in missing limitations in the prior art, particularly when the
`
`assertions are conclusory without supporting evidence. See K/S HIMPP v.
`
`Hear-Wear Techs., LLC, 751 F.3d 1362, 1366–67 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (affirming
`
`Board’s rejection of party’s obviousness contention that failed to cite any
`
`evidence to support that claim limitations were obvious and holding that “the
`
`Board cannot accept general conclusions about what is “basic knowledge” or
`
`“common sense” as a replacement for documentary evidence for core factual
`
`findings in a determination of patentability”).
`
`Petitioners repeatedly provide support for an entire paragraph or more
`
`of argument with citations to the Reynolds Declaration. (See, e.g., Pet. at 27–
`
`31, 35–37, 43–44, 47, 55–56, 58–59.) However, the corresponding paragraphs
`
`in the cited expert declaration are either substantively (if not word-for-word)
`
`identical to the corresponding text of the Petition (see, e.g., Pet. at 54–55; Ex.
`
`1001 ¶ 92) or completely lack citation of evidentiary support. Repeating
`
`arguments from a petition verbatim without any facts, data, or analysis to
`
`support the opinion stated does not provide support for Petitioners’ position
`
`and is entitled to little or no weight. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a); TRW Auto. US LLC
`
`5
`
`

`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01200
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`v. Magna Elecs. Inc., IPR2014-00258, Paper 16 at 15 (PTAB June 26, 2014);
`
`Wowza Media Sys., LLC v. Adobe Sys., Inc., IPR2013-00054, Paper 12 at 11
`
`(PTAB Apr. 8, 2013).
`
`
`
`When Petitioners do not resort to having their expert regurgitate their
`
`arguments word-for-word, they instead improperly incorporate the Reynolds
`
`Declaration by reference. The Reynolds Declaration includes 70 pages of
`
`discussion including explanation regarding the disclosures of the asserted
`
`Aytac and SCSI Specification references as they allegedly relate to the
`
`challenged claims. The Reynolds Declaration presents further details of the
`
`references and expresses legal theories and arguments beyond those in the
`
`Petition. For example, the Petition at page 52 states: “When SCSI connector
`
`213 of CaTbox is operatively interfaced with the multi-purpose interface
`
`(SCSI interface) of host PC 101 via SCSI bus 113, the host PC acquires
`
`identification and file system information from CaTbox by engaging in the
`
`automated SCSI protocol outlined above. Ex. 1001, ¶¶ 57, 65-66, 85-87.”
`
`None of these cited paragraphs even contain a single citation to the Aytac
`
`patent. Instead, these unexplained citations either do not support the premise
`
`for which they are cited (¶ 65), lack citation to the prior art or any other source
`
`(¶¶ 57, 65–66), contain a citation to a secondary reference not mentioned in
`
`the corresponding argument in the Petition (implicating obviousness without
`
`6
`
`

`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01200
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`providing the proper Graham analysis) (¶ 85), contain further incorporation
`
`by reference (¶ 87 (citing ¶¶ 41–44 and 46–55)), discuss the disclosure of the
`
`’746 patent (¶ 86), or misrepresent an alleged admission in the ’746 patent
`
`(¶ 86). The Petition contains numerous other examples of incorporation by
`
`reference. (See, e.g., Pet. at 67 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 85–87, 111–115, 56–57,
`
`68, and 71).) This extraneous material should not be considered, as Petitioners
`
`only rarely explain the significance of these citations, which often do not even
`
`support their representations regarding the relevant teachings. Information
`
`provided in an exhibit, but not discussed in the Petition, is not incorporated
`
`into the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3); Symantec Corp. v. RPost Comms.
`
`Ltd., IPR2014-00353, Paper 15 at 16, (PTAB July 15, 2014) (Petition that
`
`failed to cite to prior art in support of obviousness argument and instead cited
`
`only to expert declaration was insufficient under 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) and
`
`contrary to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3), even though cited portion of declaration
`
`cited to prior art). The Board has cautioned against this practice of burying
`
`arguments in an expert declaration. See, e.g., Cisco Sys., Inc. v. C-Cation
`
`Techs., LLC, IPR2014-00454, Paper 12 at 7–10 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2014) (250-
`
`page expert declaration incorporated by reference circumvents the page limits
`
`imposed on petitions while imposing on the Board’s time); Conopco, Inc. v.
`
`Procter & Gamble Co., IPR2013-00510, Paper 9 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 12, 2014)
`
`7
`
`

`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01200
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`(“We decline to consider information presented in a supporting declaration,
`
`but not discussed in a petition, because, among other reasons, doing so would
`
`encourage the use of declarations to circumvent the page limits that apply to
`
`petitions”).
`
`
`
`Petitioners assert a single obviousness ground combining Aytac with
`
`the so-called SCSI Specification without clearly articulating a single
`
`difference between Aytac and the claims. However, the “[d]ifferences
`
`between the claimed invention and the prior art are a critically important
`
`underlying factual inquiry for any obviousness analysis. Graham v. John
`
`Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966).” Liberty Mut., CBM2012-
`
`00003, Paper 7 at 2–3. Therefore, a petition that does not state the differences
`
`between a challenged claim and the prior art, and relies instead on the patent
`
`owner and the Board to determine those differences, fails to adequately state
`
`a ground of obviousness and risks having the claim excluded from trial. Id. at
`
`3.
`
`
`
`Instead of clearly articulating what is lacking in Aytac, and a specific
`
`rationale for why Aytac would have been modified to incorporate the missing
`
`limitations, Petitioners ambiguously assert that Aytac, in view of the 465-page
`
`SCSI specification, meet the limitations of the claims, without ever providing
`
`a single Graham obviousness analysis with respect to a specific claim. (See
`
`8
`
`

`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01200
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`Pet. at 37–70.) Making matters worse, with respect to the independent claims,
`
`the Petition addresses
`
`limitations from each of
`
`the
`
`three claims
`
`simultaneously, without explaining how each limitation is met, and without
`
`clearly addressing distinctions between the limitations or explaining why the
`
`differing limitations should be construed identically. (See, e.g., Pet. at 41–44
`
`(regarding the data generation process limitations).) Accordingly, Petitioners
`
`fail to present a single viable obviousness argument. The net result of this
`
`approach is that the Board and Papst are left to guess which elements
`
`Petitioners contend are missing from Aytac, why the disclosures in Aytac
`
`would still require modification to arrive at the claims, what specific teachings
`
`are being combined, the rationale for why a person of ordinary skill would
`
`make that combination, and other aspects of a proper obviousness analysis.
`
`
`
`By failing to identify the differences between Aytac and the subject
`
`matter recited in the challenged claims, Petitioners have failed to demonstrate
`
`why a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have combined
`
`Aytac with the SCSI Specification in the manner proposed. Travelocity.com,
`
`CBM2014-00082, Paper 12 at 5.
`
`Because Petitioners fail to adequately identify the specific invalidity
`
`theories, supporting evidence, and rationale relied upon to challenge specific
`
`claim elements, the Petition is deficient and the Board should not institute
`
`9
`
`

`
`trial.
`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01200
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`
`B.
`
`The Board Should Not Institute Trial Based On The
`Petition’s Redundant Grounds
`
`The Board should also reject this Petition because Petitioners raise
`
`grounds that are redundant in view of grounds in related petitions.
`
`“[M]ultiple grounds, which are presented in a redundant manner by a
`
`petitioner who makes no meaningful distinction between them, are contrary
`
`to the regulatory and statutory mandates, and therefore are not all entitled to
`
`consideration.” Liberty Mut., CBM2012-00003, Paper 7 at 2. Such
`
`redundancies place a significant burden on both the Board and the patent
`
`owner, causing unnecessary delay and compromising the ability to complete
`
`review within the statutory deadline. Id.; see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. Eliminating
`
`redundant grounds streamlines and converges the issues. Idle Free Sys., Inc.
`
`v. Bergstrom, Inc., IPR2012-00027, Paper 26 at 4–5 (PTAB June 11, 2013).
`
`A redundancy analysis properly focuses on whether the petitioner articulated
`
`a meaningful distinction of the relative strengths and weaknesses of its
`
`application of the prior art to one or more claim limitations. EMC Corp. v.
`
`PersonalWeb Techs., LLC, IPR2013-00087, Paper 25 at 3–4 (PTAB June 5,
`
`2013).
`
`10
`
`

`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01200
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`Here, the same Petitioners2 have collectively raised at least 20 grounds
`
`of unpatentability against overlapping challenged claims in six related
`
`Petitions resulting in a total of 120 grounds.3 The Board (and Papst) will be
`
`
`2 Petitioners refer to themselves in each petition as Petitioners and “real
`
`parties-in-interest: Canon Inc.; Canon USA, Inc.; Canon Financial Services,
`
`Inc.; FUJIFILM Corporation; FUJIFILM Holdings America Corporation;
`
`FUJIFILM North America Corporation; JVC KENWOOD Corporation;
`
`JVCKENWOOD USA Corporation; 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.” (See, e.g., Pet. at 5–6.) Some of the
`
`related petitions appear to inadvertently omit FUJIFILM Holdings America
`
`Corporation from the list of real parties-in-interest. However, in those
`
`instances, FUJIFILM Holdings America Corporation appears in the Power of
`
`Attorney. (See, e.g., IPR2016-01214, Paper 2.)
`
`3 In reality, the number of grounds raised is multitudes larger than this when
`
`you take into account that the number of possible combinations raised in
`
`Petitioners’ vague approach to its obviousness grounds in the 13 petitions.
`
`11
`
`

`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01200
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`burdened by having to consider these redundant grounds in contravention of
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b).
`
`Horizontal redundancy exists when a proposed ground applies “a
`
`plurality of prior art references . . . not in combination to complement each other
`
`but as distinct and separate alternatives.” Liberty Mut., CBM2012-00003, Paper
`
`7 at 3. The references “provide essentially the same teaching to meet the same
`
`claim limitation, and the associated arguments do not explain why one
`
`reference more closely satisfies the claim limitation at issue in some respects
`
`than another reference, and vice versa.” Id. (emphasis in original).
`
`Petitioners’ grounds, filed serially across these six petitions are:
`
`PROCEEDING
`
`’746 PATENT CLAIMS
`
`GROUNDS
`
`IPR2016-01200
`
`1, 6, 15, 17–18, 31,
`
`103 (Aytac + SCSI
`
`34
`
`Specification)
`
`IPR 2016-01206 1–31, 34–35
`
`102(b) (Murata)
`
`103 (Murata + “Admitted Art”
`
`+ “Basic References”)
`
`103 (Murata + Huot)
`
`12
`
`

`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01200
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`
`PROCEEDING
`
`’746 PATENT CLAIMS
`
`GROUNDS
`103 (Murata + Takahashi +
`
`Huot)
`
`103 (Murata + Takahashi)
`
`103 (Murata + Muramatsu)
`
`102(b) (Murata)
`
`IPR 2016-01224 1, 19–21, 24, 26–28
`
`103 (Murata + “Admitted Art”
`
`+ “Basic References”)
`
`13
`
`

`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01200
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`
`PROCEEDING
`
`’746 PATENT CLAIMS
`
`GROUNDS
`102(b) (Kawaguchi)
`
`103 (Kawaguchi + Matsumoto)
`
`103 (Kawaguchi + Matsumoto
`
`+ Takahashi)
`
`IPR 2016-01211
`
`1–12, 14–15, 17–21,
`
`103 (Kawaguchi + Matsumoto
`
`23–31, 34–35
`
`+ DASM-AD14)
`
`103 (Kawaguchi + Matsumoto
`
`+ Saito)
`
`103 (Kawaguchi + Matsumoto
`
`+ Saito + Muramatsu)
`
`102(e) (Yamamoto)
`
`103 (Yamamoto + SCSI
`
`Specification + Yamamoto
`
`2)
`
`103 (Yamamoto + Muramatsu)
`
`IPR 2016-01213
`
`1–3, 6–10, 15, 17–21,
`
`25, 29, 31, 34
`
`14
`
`

`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01200
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`
`PROCEEDING
`
`’746 PATENT CLAIMS
`
`IPR 2016-01223 1–25, 27–30, 33, 35
`
`GROUNDS
`102(b) (McNeill)
`
`103 (McNeill + POSITA)
`
`103 (McNeill + Muramat