PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`In the Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
`Trial No.: Not Yet Assigned
`Issued:
`August 6, 2013
`Filed:
`September 27, 2010
`Inventor: Michael Tasler
`Assignee: Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG
`Title:
`ANALOG DATA GENERATING AND PROCESSING DEVICE
`FOR USE WITH A PERSONAL COMPUTER
`
`
`
`MAIL STOP PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.100
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`Page
`
`IV.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`D.
`
`Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. Grounds for Standing Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) .............................. 2
`III. Background Information for the ’746 Patent .................................................. 2
`A. Overview of the ’746 Patent Family and Prosecution History ............ 2
`Identification of Challenge Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ..................... 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1): Claims for Which Inter Partes
`A.
`Review Is Requested .......................................................................... 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2): The Prior Art and Specific Grounds
`on Which the Challenge to the Claims Is Based ................................ 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3): Claim Construction ................................... 7
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4): How the Construed Claims are
`Unpatentable ......................................................................................... 9
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5): Supporting Evidence ................................. 9
`E.
`V. Mandatory Notices Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1) ............................... 10
`A.
`C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1): Real Parties-In-Interest..................................... 10
`B.
`C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2): Related Matters ................................................ 11
`C.
`C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) and (4): Lead and Back-up Counsel and
`Service Information ............................................................................ 13
`VI. Detailed Grounds for Unpatentability .......................................................... 20
`A. Overview of Murata ........................................................................... 26
`VII. Grounds 1 and 2: Anticipation and obviousness of the Challenged
`Claims ........................................................................................................... 27
`A.
`Independent claims 1, 31, and 34 ....................................................... 27
`
`The preamble of claim 1 .......................................................... 27
`1.
`
` 2.
`The preambles of claims 31 and 34 ......................................... 30
`
` 3.
`A program memory of claim 1 ................................................. 31
`
` 4.
`An analog signal acquisition channel of claim 1 ..................... 32
`
` 5.
`A processor operative interfaced (claims 1, 31 and 34) .......... 33
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`
`
` 6.
`
`7.
`
`
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`
`A processor that is configured and programmed to
`implement a data generation process (claims 1, 31 and
`34) ............................................................................................ 35
`A processor that automatically causes at least one
`parameter indicative of the class of devices to be sent to a
`computer (claims 1, 31 and 34) ................................................ 38
`A processor that is further configured and programmed to
`execute a file transfer process (claims 1, 31 and 34) ............... 46
`No requirement for any user-loaded file transfer enabling
`software (claims 1, 31 and 34) ................................................. 51
`B. Dependent claim 2 (Grounds 1 and 2: Anticipation and
`obviousness) ....................................................................................... 52
`C. Dependent claim 3 (Grounds 1 and 2: Anticipation and
`obviousness) ....................................................................................... 52
`A. Dependent claims 4 and 12 (Ground 3: Obviousness) ....................... 52
`B. Dependent claims 5 and 11 (Ground 4: Obviousness) ....................... 53
`C. Dependent claim 6 (Grounds 1 and 2: Anticipation and
`obviousness) ....................................................................................... 55
`D. Dependent claims 7 and 8 (Grounds 1 and 2: Anticipation and
`obviousness) ....................................................................................... 56
`Dependent claim 9 (Grounds 1 and 2: Anticipation and
`obviousness) ....................................................................................... 57
`A. Dependent claim 10 (Ground 5: Obviousness) .................................. 58
`B. Dependent claim 13 (Ground 2: Obviousness) .................................. 59
`C. Dependent claim 14 (Grounds 1 and 2: Anticipation and
`obviousness) ....................................................................................... 60
`D. Dependent claim 15 (Grounds 1 and 2: Anticipation and
`obviousness) ....................................................................................... 60
`Dependent claims 16 and 22 (Ground 2: Obviousness) ..................... 61
`Dependent claim 17 ............................................................................ 62
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`E.
`
`E.
`F.
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`Ground 1: Anticipation ............................................................ 62
` 1.
`
`Ground 2: Obviousness ............................................................ 67
`
` 2.
`G. Dependent claim 18 ............................................................................ 69
`1.
`
`Ground 1: Anticipation ............................................................ 69
`
` 2.
`Ground 2: Obviousness ........................................................... 70
`H. Dependent claim 23 (Ground 6: Obviousness) .................................. 71
`I.
`Dependent claim 25 (Grounds 1 and 2: Anticipation and
`Obviousness) ...................................................................................... 72
`Dependent claim 29 (Grounds 2: Obviousness) ................................ 72
`J.
`K. Dependent claim 30 (Grounds 1 and 2: Anticipation and
`obviousness) ....................................................................................... 73
`A. Dependent claim 35 ............................................................................ 75
`
`Ground 1: Anticipation ............................................................ 75
`1.
`
` 2.
`Ground 5: Obviousness ............................................................ 75
`VIII. Conclusion .................................................................................................... 76 
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`APPENDIX OF EXHIBITS
`
`TITLE
`
`Reserved
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746 (“the ’746 patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,508,821 to Murata (“Murata”)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Paul F. Reynolds, Ph.D. (“Reynolds Decl.”)
`
`Papst Litigation Claim Constructions
`
`American National Standards Institute, “ANSI X3.131-1994 - Small
`Computer System Interface-2” (1994)
`
`American National Standards Institute, Procedures for the Development
`and Coordination of American National Standards, Approved by the
`ANSI Board of Directors (Sept. 9, 1993).
`
`Ray Duncan, ed., “The MS-DOS Encyclopedia,” Microsoft Press
`(1988)
`
`Frank G. Fiamingo, “Unix System Administration,” The Ohio State
`University (1996)
`
`EXHIBIT
`NO.
`
`1001-
`1100
`
`1101
`
`1102
`
`1103
`
`1104
`
`1105
`
`1106
`
`1107
`
`1108
`
`1109
`
`Declaration of Frank G. Fiamingo, Ph.D. (“Fiamingo Decl.”)
`
`1110
`
`Excerpts from Frisch, “Essential System Administration,” 2nd Edition,
`
`
`
`
`-iv-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`O’Reilly & Associates (1995).
`
`Excerpts from McKusick, et al., “Design and Implementation of the
`4.4BSD Operating System,” Addison-Wesley Longman, Inc. (1996)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,731,834 to Huot et al. (“Huot”)
`
`JP H5-344283 to Takahashi (“Takahashi”) (including original certified
`English translation thereof)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,592,256 to Muramatsu (“Muramatsu”)
`
`Excerpt from the Microsoft Computer Dictionary (2nd ed. 1994)
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 12/891,443 (“the ‘443 Application”)
`
`Excerpt from the File History of the ‘443 Application: July 22, 2011
`Non-Final Rejection
`
`Excerpt from the File History of the ‘443 Application: December 28,
`2011 Amendment
`
`Excerpt from the File History of the ‘443 Application: April 27, 2012
`Final Rejection
`
`Excerpt from the File History of the ‘443 Application: October 29,
`2012 Amendment
`
`Excerpt from the File History of the ‘443 Application: November 28,
`2012 Non-Final Rejection
`
`Excerpt from the File History of the ‘443 Application: May 28, 2013
`Amendment
`
`1111
`
`1112
`
`1113
`
`1114
`
`1115
`
`1116
`
`1117
`
`1118
`
`1119
`
`1120
`
`1121
`
`1122
`
`
`
`
`-v-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`1123
`
`1124
`
`1125
`
`Excerpt from the File History of the ‘443 Application: June 7, 2013
`Notices of Allowance and Allowability
`
`PCT Patent Application No. PCT/EP98/01187, Published as WO
`98/39710
`
`Excerpt from the File History of the ‘073 Application: December 18,
`2007 Supplemental Preliminary Amendment (“12/18/07 Suppl. Prelim.
`Amendment”)
`
`
`
`
`-vi-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`The ’746 patent describes an interface device designed to facilitate the
`
`transfer of data between a data transmit/receive device and a host computer that
`
`allegedly obviates the need for installation of driver software specific to the data
`
`transmit/receive device on the computer. Ex. 1101 at 1:37-40; 7:11-20.
`
`The ’746 patent is part of a chain of applications dating back to 1997, which
`
`were acquired in 2006 by Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG (“Papst” or the “Patent
`
`Owner”), a German patent licensing company. Papst has filed multiple patent
`
`infringement suits based on this patent family against Petitioners, and during the past
`
`decade in which those patent suits have been pending, Papst has continued to
`
`serially file continuation applications in an attempt to broaden the claims of its
`
`patents and capture Petitioner’s accused products.
`
`But the patent family to which the ’746 patent belongs does not cover the
`
`technology that Papst has accused of infringement. Papst presented claims to the
`
`Patent Office through Application No. 12/891,443 (“the ’443 application”) (Exhibit
`
`1116), from which the ’746 patent issued, that are broad in scope, go beyond what is
`
`disclosed in its specification and read directly on the prior art.
`
`Based on the presented grounds, the Board should institute inter partes review
`
`of the ’746 patent and cancel all of its claims.
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`II. Grounds for Standing Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`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 claims on the grounds identified herein.
`
`III. Background Information for the ’746 Patent
`A. Overview of the ’746 Patent Family and Prosecution History
`The ’443 application was filed on September 27, 2010, and issued almost
`
`three years later on August 6, 2013 as the ’746 patent. Ex. 1101. The ’746 patent
`
`stems from the last application filed in a family of seven U.S. non-provisional
`
`applications. The ’746 patent’s written description describes a device alleged to
`
`facilitate the transfer of data between a data transmit/receive device from which data
`
`is to be acquired and a host computer. Id. at 1:20-24. The written description states
`
`that, while interface devices were known at the time of the invention, existing
`
`devices had limitations, including disadvantageous sacrifices of data-transfer speed
`
`or a lack of flexibility as to the computers and data devices with which they were
`
`compatible. Id. at 1:28-2:21. The ’746 patent purports to describe an interface
`
`device to overcome these limitations.
`
`Normally, when a computer detects that a new device has been connected to
`
`one of its input-output (i/o) ports: 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 device; and if it does not, an appropriate driver must
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`be installed on the host and loaded into memory before proceeding. In the ’746
`
`patent family, when the interface device is connected between a data
`
`transmit/receive device 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. By purposefully mis-identifying itself to the host
`
`as to the type of device the host is communicating with, the interface device induces
`
`the host to treat it like a device already familiar to the host. Thereafter, when the
`
`host communicates with the interface device to request data from or control the
`
`operation of the data device, the host uses its customary device driver. Id. at 3:28-
`
`4:38.
`
`FIG. 1 is a block diagram of the interface device that 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. A digital signal processor 13 and a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`memory 14 manage communications between the computer and the data
`
`transmit/receive device. Id. at 4:59-5:7.
`
`
`
`The prosecution history of the ’746 patent spanned three Office Actions and
`
`corresponding responses. Exs. 1117-1122. 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. Ex. 1122. A Notice of
`
`Allowance was issued on June 7, 2013. The reasons for allowance stated: “The
`
`reasons for allowance of claims 2, 32, 33 and 35… in the instant application is that
`
`the examiner finds applicant’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. 1123 at 8. Thus, it is difficult to ascertain
`
`exactly which argument or claim limitation(s) were considered important to the
`
`Examiner’s decision.
`
`IV.
`
`
`
`
`
`Identification of Challenge Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)
`A.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1): Claims for Which Inter Partes Review
`Is Requested
`Inter Partes review is requested for claims 1-31, 34-35 (the “Challenged
`
`Claims”) of the ’746 patent.
`
`B.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2): The Prior Art and Specific Grounds on
`Which the Challenge to the Claims Is Based
`
`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 March 3, 1998, the date of the
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`PCT application to which the ’746 patent claims priority (PCT/EP98/01187). Exs.
`
`1101, 1124.
`
`
`
`Inter Partes review is requested in view of the below references and the
`
`admitted prior art in the ’746 patent (“Admitted Art”):
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,508,821 to Murata (“Murata”) (Exhibit 1102). Murata
`
`was filed on March 23, 1993 and issued on April 16, 1996, and is prior art
`
`under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(b).
`
` American National Standards Institute, “ANSI X3.131-1994 - Small
`
`Computer System Interface-2” (“SCSI Reference”) (Exhibit 1105). The
`
`SCSI Reference was published by the American National Standards
`
`Institute in 1994, more than one year before the earliest claimed priority
`
`date of the ’144 Patent. Ex. 1005 at 3; Ex. 1006 at 17-18 (detailing ANSI
`
`publication requirements met by the SCSI Specification). This reference is
`
`prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(b).
`
` The MS-DOS Encyclopedia by Ray Duncan, General Editor (“MS-DOS
`
`Reference”) (Exhibit 1107) was published in 1988 and is prior art under
`
`pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(b).
`
` Frank G. Fiamingo, “Unix System Administration,” The Ohio State
`
`University (“UNIX-A Reference”) (Ex. 1108) was published in 1996 and
`
`is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(b).
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
` Frisch, “Essential System Administration”, 2nd Edition, O’Reilly &
`
`Associates (“UNIX-B Reference”) (Ex. 1110) was published in 1995 and
`
`is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(b).
`
` McKusick, et al., “Design and Implementation of the 4.4BSD Operating
`
`System,” Addison-Wesley Longman, Inc. (“UNIX-C Reference”) (Ex.
`
`1111) was published in 1996 and is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`§102(b).
`
` JP H5-344283 to Takahashi (“Takahashi”) (Ex. 1113). Takahashi
`
`discloses a scanning device that attaches to a host computer via SCSI.
`
`Takahashi was filed on June 11, 1992 and published on December 24,
`
`1993, and is prior art under 35 U.S.C. §102(b).
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,731,834 to Huot et al. (“Huot”) (Ex. 1112). Huot was
`
`filed on June 7, 1995 and issued on March 24, 1998, and is prior art under
`
`pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(e).
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,592,256 to Muramatsu (“Muramatsu”) (Ex. 1114).
`
`Muramatsu discloses a camera photometric device that implements a fast
`
`Fourier transform during the analog data generation process. Muramatsu
`
`was filed on May 29, 1996, and issued on January 7, 1997, and is prior art
`
`under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(b).
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`Petitioners herein refer to the SCSI, MS-DOS, and UNIX-A, UNIX-B, and
`
`UNIX-C References as the “Basic SCSI/DOS/UNIX References.”
`
`Petitioners ask that the Board find:
`
`(1) claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 17, 18, 25, 30, 35, 31, 34, and 35
`
`unpatentable under §102(b) as anticipated by Murata (“Ground 1”);
`
`(2) claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 25, 29, 30, 35, 31, 34,
`
`and 35 unpatentable under §103 as obvious over Murata in view of the Admitted
`
`Art and the Basic SCSI/DOS/UNIX References (“Ground 2”);
`
`(3) claims 4 and 12 unpatentable under §103 as obvious over Murata in view
`
`of Huot (“Ground 3”);
`
`(4) claims 5 and 11 unpatentable under §103 as obvious over Murata in view
`
`of Takahashi and Huot (“Ground 4”);
`
`(5) claims 10 and 35 as unpatentable under §103 as obvious over Murata in
`
`view of Takahashi (“Ground 5”); and
`
` (7) claim 23 unpatentable under §103 as obvious over Murata in view of
`
`Muramatsu (“Ground 6”).
`
`C.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3): Claim Construction
`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
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`42.103(b)(3); In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 778 F.3d 1271, 1281 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2015). Petitioner expressly reserves its right to advance different constructions in
`
`district court litigation, which employs a different claim construction standard.
`
`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. 1104):
`
`Claim Term
`“without requiring any end user
`to load any software onto the
`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”
`“processor”
`
`Adopted BRI
`“without requiring the end user to
`install or load specific drivers or
`software for the [ADGPD/analog
`data acquisition device/analog
`data acquisition and interface
`device] beyond that included in
`the operating system or BIOS”
`
`“any kind of microprocessor,
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`including a digital signal
`processor”
`
`
`
`In addition, the term “end user” should be construed as an actual end user, as
`
`opposed to a system administrator or manufacturer. In amendments to the related
`
`application for the ‘144 Patent dated August 13, 2009, the Applicant amended the
`
`claims to change the term “user” to “end user.” These amendments were made in
`
`order to try to overcome cited prior art references (Hashimoto, Smith, Ristelhueber,
`
`Kerigan, and Shinohara), as explained by Patent Owner in the Remarks section of
`
`the Response filed on August 13, 2009, at page 25. See also Ex. 1125 at 9.
`
`D.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4): How the Construed Claims are
`Unpatentable
`
`An explanation of how the Challenged Claims are unpatentable, including
`
`identification of how each claim feature is found in the prior art, is set forth below in
`
`Sections VI and VII.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5): Supporting Evidence
`
`E.
`An Appendix of Exhibits supporting this Petition is attached. Included at
`
`Exhibit 1103 is a Declaration of Dr. Paul F. Reynolds (“Reynolds Decl.”) under 37
`
`C.F.R. § 1.68. In addition, the relevance of the evidence to the challenged claims,
`
`including an identification of the specific portions of the evidence supporting the
`
`challenge, is included in Sections VI and VII.
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`V. Mandatory Notices Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1), the mandatory notices identified in 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.8(b) are provided below as part of this Petition.
`
`A. C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1): Real Parties-In-Interest
`Petitioners identify the following 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.
`
`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 meets the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2).
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`B. 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:
`
`Case Name
`
`Case No.
`
`Court
`
`In
`
`re: Papst Licensing Digital
`
`1:07-mc-00493 D.D.C.
`
`
`Filed
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`6:15-cv-01115 E.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2015
`
`Huawei Technologies, et al.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`HP Inc.
`
`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 inter partes review of related patent U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,966,144.
`
`C. C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) and (4): Lead and Back-up Counsel and
`Service Information
`
`Petitioners provide the following designation of counsel:
`
`Lead Counsel
`Dion M. Bregman
`
`Back-up Counsel
`(pro hac vice
`Andrew V. Devkar
`
`Reg. No. 45,645
`
`application to be submitted)
`
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`
`1400 PAGE MILL ROAD, PALO ALTO, CA
`
`1601 Cloverfield Blvd., Suite 2050N
`
`94304
`
`Santa Monica, CA 90404-4082
`
`Telephone: 650.843.7519
`
`Telephone: 310-255-9070
`
`Facsimile: 650.843.4001
`
`Facsimile: 310-907-2000
`
`dion.bregman@morganlewis.com
`
`andrew.devkar@morganlewis.com
`
`
`
`Ahren C. Hsu-Hoffman
`
`Reg. No. 50,862
`
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`
`1400 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA
`
`94304
`
`Telephone: 650.843.7250
`
`Facsimile: 650.843.4001
`
`ahren.hsu-hoffman@morganlewis.com
`
`
`
`Chris Mizumoto
`
`Reg. No. 42,899
`
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`
`24th Floor, Roppongi Hills Mori Tower
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`6-10-1, Roppongi, Minato-ku
`
`Tokyo 106-6124, Japan
`
`Telephone: +83.3.4578.2505
`
`Facsimile: +81.3.4578.2501
`
`chris.mizumoto@morganlewis.com
`
`
`
`T. Vann Pearce, Jr.
`
`Reg. No. 58,945
`
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`
`1152 15th Street, N.W.
`
`Washington, DC 20005-1706
`
`Telephone: (202) 339-8400
`
`Facsimile: (202) 339-8500
`
`vpearce@orrick.com
`
`
`
`Christopher J. Higgins
`
`Reg. No. 66,422
`
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`
`1152 15th Street, N.W.
`
`Washington, DC 20005-1706
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`Telephone: (202) 339-8400
`
`Facsimile: (202) 339-8500
`
`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)
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`
`
`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
`
`Facsimile: 312-782-8585
`
`msblackman@jonesday.com
`
`
`
`David M. Maiorana (Reg. No. 41,449)
`
`JONES DAY
`
`901 Lakeside Avenue
`
`-17-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`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
`
`Telephone: (412) 394-9524
`
`Fax: (412) 394-7959
`
`mwjohnson@jonesday.com
`
`
`
`
`-18-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Nikola Colic (Reg. No. 62,412)
`
`DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
`
`1500 K Street, N.W. , Suite 1100
`
`-19-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`Telephone: 202-230-5115
`
`Facsimile: 202-842-8465
`
`Nick.Colic@dbr.com
`
`
`Powers of Attorney accompany this Petition. Please address all
`
`correspondence to lead and back-up counsel. Petitioners consent to service by email
`
`at: PapstPTABPetitioners@Jonesday.com.
`
`VI. Detailed Grounds for Unpatentability
`Independent claims 1, 31, and 34 share many similar elements, as reflected
`
`in the table below. These similar elements will be addressed together in the
`
`sections below.
`
`Claim 1
`1. An analog data
`acquisition device
`operatively
`connectable to a
`computer through a
`multipurpose
`interface of the
`computer, the
`computer having an
`operating system
`
`Claim 31
`31. An analog data
`acquisition and
`interface device for
`interfacing to a host
`device which includes
`a mass storage device
`and associated device
`driver, comprising:
`
`
`Claim 34
`34. A method for
`analog data
`acquisition and
`interfacing to a host
`device wherein the
`host device includes
`a device driver,
`comprising:
`
`
`
`
`-20-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`Claim 1
`programmed so that,
`when the computer
`receives a signal
`from the device
`through said
`multipurpose
`interface of the
`computer indicative
`of a class of devices,
`the computer
`automatically
`activates a device
`driver corresponding
`to the class of
`devices for allowing
`the transfer of data
`between the device
`and the operating
`system of the
`computer, the analog
`data acquisition
`device comprising:
`
`a) a program
`memory;
`
`Claim 31
`
`Claim 34
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-21-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`Claim 1
`
`Claim 31
`
`Claim 34
`
`
`b) an analog signal
`acquisition channel
`for receiving a signal
`from an analog
`source;
`
`c) a processor
`operatively
`interfaced with the
`multipurpose
`interface of the
`computer, the
`program memory,
`and a data storage
`memory when the
`analog data
`acquisition device is
`operational;
`d) wherein the
`processor is
`configured and
`programmed to
`implement a data
`generation process
`
`
`
`
`
`a processor configured
`to operatively
`interface with a
`memory,