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 IPR2016-01206
`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
`
`

`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`2. 
`
`
`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01206 FOR
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I. 
`II. 
`
`Introduction .......................................................................................... 1 
`The Petition Fails To Meet The Requirements For
`Instituting An Inter Partes Review ...................................................... 4 
`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) ................................................................................ 4 
`The Board Should Not Institute Trial Based On The
`Petition’s Redundant Grounds ................................................. 10 
`1. 
`Horizontal Redundancies Across Related
`Petitions Merit Their Denial .......................................... 12 
`Vertical Redundancies Within This Petition
`Also Merit Its Denial ..................................................... 16 
`The Petition Fails To Comply With 35 U.S.C.
`§ 325(d) .................................................................................... 18 
`III.  The Petitioners Advance Flawed Claim Constructions That
`Should Be Rejected ............................................................................ 23 
`A.  Overview Of The ’746 Patent .................................................. 24 
`B. 
`Level Of Ordinary Skill In The Art ......................................... 26 
`C. 
`Response
`to Petitioners’ Proposed Claim
`Constructions ............................................................................ 27 
`“1.  The “without requiring any end[-]user . . .,”
`And “processor” Limitations ......................................... 27 
`“End user” ...................................................................... 27 
`2. 
`IV.  Petitioners Did Not Meet Their Burden To Show A
`Reasonable Likelihood Of Success On Their Grounds Of
`Invalidity ............................................................................................. 36 
`A. 
`Legal Standards ........................................................................ 36 
`
`i
`
`

`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01206 FOR
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`B. 
`
`Petitioners Fail To Demonstrate The Challenged
`Claims Are Anticipated Based On Murata .............................. 41 
`1. 
`As The USPTO Recognized, Murata Fails To
`Disclose Several Limitations Of The
`Independent Claims ....................................................... 41 
`(i)  Murata Fails To Disclose That The
`Computer “Automatically Activates A
`Device Driver . . .” As Required By
`Claim 1 ................................................................ 42 
`(ii)  Murata Fails To Disclose That The
`Processor “Automatically Causes At
`Least One Parameter Indicative Of The
`Class Of Devices To Be Sent To The
`Computer . . .” As Required By Claim 1
` ............................................................................. 44 
`(iii)  Murata Fails To Disclose That There Is
`“No Requirement For Any User-Loaded
`File Transfer Enabling Software To Be
`Loaded On Or
`Installed
`In The
`Computer” As Required By Claim 1 ................... 47 
`2.  Murata Also Fails To Disclose The Limitations
`Of All Of The Challenged Dependent Claims ............... 49 
`Petitioners Fail To Demonstrate That The
`Challenged Claims Are Obvious Based On Murata
`In View Of The Secondary References .................................... 49 
`Conclusion .......................................................................................... 51 
`
`C. 
`
`
`
`V. 
`
`ii
`
`

`
`
`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01206 FOR
`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) ................................................................. 37
`Am. Hoist & Derrick Co. v. Sowa & Sons,
`725 F.2d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ................................................................. 22
`Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple, Inc.,
`2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 14652 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 10, 2016) ......................... 45
`Bettcher Indus., Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc.,
`661 F.3d 629 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................................................... 46
`Canon, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures, LLC,
`IPR2014-00535, Paper 9 (PTAB Sept. 24, 2014) ..................................... 19
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC,
`IPR2014-00454, Paper 12 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2014) ............................. 38, 39
`Cont’l Can Co., U.S.A. v. Monsanto Co.,
`948 F.2d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ........................................................... 45, 46
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`No. 15-446, 136 S. Ct. 2131 (June 20, 2016) ............................................ 23
`Dell, Inc. v. Elecs. & Telecommc’ns Res. Inst.,
`IPR2014-00152, Paper 12 (PTAB May 16, 2014) .................................... 40
`Dominion Dealer Sols., LLC v. Autoalert, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00223, Paper 9 (PTAB Aug. 15, 2013) ..................................... 40
`EMC Corp. v. PersonalWeb Techs., LLC,
`IPR2013-00087, Paper 25 (PTAB June 5, 2013) ...................................... 10
`Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys., Inc.,
`773 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................. 36
`FLIR Sys., Inc. v. Leak Surveys, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00411, Paper 9 (PTAB Sept. 5, 2014) ................................. 46, 47
`Garmin Int’l, Inc. v. Cuozzo Techs. LLC,
`IPR2012-00001, Paper 15 (PTAB Jan. 9, 2013) ....................................... 36
`Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ...................................................................... 5, 36, 39, 50
`
`iii
`
`

`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01206 FOR
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`
`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) ................................................................. 23
`In re Bass,
`314 F.3d 575 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ................................................................... 23
`In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent
`Litig.,
`676 F.3d 1063 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................. 39
`In re Fritch,
`972 F.2d 1260 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ........................................................... 49, 51
`In re Montgomery,
`677 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................. 46
`In re NTP, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................................................. 39
`In re Robertson,
`169 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ................................................................... 46
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
`504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ................................................................. 23
`Intri-Plex Techs., Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Rencol Ltd.,
`IPR2014-00309, Paper 83 (PTAB Mar. 23, 2014) .............................. 37, 39
`K/S HIMPP v. Hear-Wear Techs., LLC,
`751 F3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................. 45
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................ 36, 37
`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) .................................... 38
`Neil Ziegman, N.P.Z., Inc. v. Stephens,
`IPR2015-01860, Paper 11 (PTAB Feb. 24, 2016) .................................... 22
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ................................................. 23
`PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile U.S.A., Inc.,
`522 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................. 22
`
`iv
`
`

`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01206 FOR
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`
`Prima Tek II LLC v. Polypap S.A.R.L.,
`318 F.3d 1143 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ........................................................... 24, 33
`SAS Inst. Inc. v. Complementsoft, LLC,
`IPR2013-00581, Paper 15 (PTAB Dec. 30, 2013) .............................. 16, 19
`SAS Inst. Inc. v. Complementsoft, LLC,
`IPR2013-00581, Paper 17 (PTAB Feb. 24, 2014) .................................... 16
`Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,
`655 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................................................. 39
`Travelocity.com L.P. v. Cronos Techs. LLC,
`CBM2014-00082, Paper 12 at 10 ( PTAB Oct. 16, 2014) .................... 3, 50
`TRW Auto. US LLC v. Magna Elecs. Inc.,
`IPR2014-00258, Paper 16 (PTAB June 26, 2014) ................................ 8, 39
`Wowza Media Sys., LLC v. Adobe Sys., Inc.,
`IPR2013-00054, Paper 12 (PTAB Apr. 8, 2013) .................................. 8, 43
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ....................................................................................... 17, 47
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................................. 17, 36, 37
`35 U.S.C. § 312 ............................................................................................... 4
`35 U.S.C. § 313 ............................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. § 314 ............................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. § 315 ......................................................................................... 3, 19
`35 U.S.C. § 325 ................................................................................... 3, 18, 22
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1 ...................................................................................... 12, 15
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ........................................................................................ 23
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 .......................................................................................... 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107 .......................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108 ........................................................................ 1, 10, 15, 16
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22 ............................................................................................ 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24 .................................................................................... 14, 53
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6 ............................................................................................ 53
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65 ...................................................................................... 8, 43
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ............................................................................................ 53
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756–66 at 48,763 (Aug. 14, 2012) ....................................... 4
`
`v
`
`

`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01206 FOR
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`
`Other Authorities
`157 Cong. Rec. S1041–42 (daily ed. Mar 1, 2011) ...................................... 19
`
`
`vi
`
`

`
`
`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01206 FOR
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`1106
`
`1107
`
`1108
`1109
`1110
`
`1111
`
`EXHIBIT NO. TITLE
`1101
`U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
`1102
`U.S. Patent No. 5,508,821 to Murata
`1103
`Declaration of Dr. Paul F. Reynolds, Ph.D.
`1104
`Papst Litigation Claim Constructions
`American National Standards Institute, “ANSI X3.131-
`1105
`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)
`Declaration of Frank G. Fiamingo, Ph.D.
`Frisch, “Essential System Administration,” 2nd Edition,
`O’Reilly & Associates (1995).
`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
`JP H5-344283 to Takahashi
`U.S. Patent No. 5,592,256 to Muramatsu
`Excerpt from the Microsoft Computer Dictionary (2nd ed.
`1994)
`U.S. Patent Application No. 12/891,443
`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
`
`1112
`1113
`1114
`1115
`1116
`1117
`
`1118
`
`1119
`
`1120
`
`vii
`
`

`
`
`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01206 FOR
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`1121
`
`1122
`
`1123
`
`1124
`
`1125
`
`2001
`2002
`2003
`2004
`2005
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`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
`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
`U.S. Patent No. 6,088,532 to Yamamoto
`U.S. Patent No. 5,758,081 to Aytac
`JP H4-15853 to Kawaguchi
`U.S. Patent No. 5,499,378 to McNeill
`U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144 to Tasler
`File History Excerpt: May 1, 2008 Examiner Interview
`Summary
`Excerpt from the File History of the ’073 Application:
`May 1, 2008 List of References Considered and Initialed
`by Examiner
`Excerpt from the File History of the ’073 Application:
`August 24, 2006 Preliminary Amendment And
`Information Disclosure Statement
`Excerpt from the File History of the ’073 Application:
`July 17, 2007 Office Action Response
`Excerpt from the File History of the ’073 Application:
`August 13, 2009 Amendment
`
`
`viii
`
`

`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01206 FOR
`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 (“Petition”) filed
`
`by 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 explain 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 whether the challenge based on the primary reference,
`
`U.S. Patent Number 5,508,821 to Murata (“Murata”), is based on anticipation
`
`1
`
`

`
`
`or obviousness. The ambiguous nature of Petitioners’ theories permeates the
`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01206 FOR
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`redundant additional grounds, based on Murata in combination with various
`
`secondary references. Never once conceding which claim limitations are
`
`missing from Murata, Petitioners fail to clearly articulate any theory of
`
`obviousness premised on combining the teachings of Murata with other
`
`sources. Their conclusory arguments consist mostly of broad assertions
`
`followed by unexplained or unsupported citations.
`
`Second, the Board should reject the Petition because Petitioners
`
`propose vertically redundant grounds of invalidity without identifying how
`
`any one ground improves on any other, violating Board precedent requiring
`
`petitioners to identify differences in the proposed rejections. The proposed
`
`rejections are also horizontally redundant of grounds proposed in other inter
`
`partes review petitions filed by the identical set of Petitioners (who identify
`
`themselves collectively as Petitioners/real parties-in-interest in each asserted
`
`petition) against the ’746 patent.1 Petitioners’ six petitions against the ’746
`
`patent collectively assert various grounds of invalidity based on five different
`
`primary prior art references. Accordingly, the Board should exercise its
`
`
`1 These same Petitioners have also filed seven petitions against a related
`
`patent, U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144 (“the ’144 patent”).
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`discretion and deny the Petition under 35 U.S.C. §§ 315(d) and 325(d) and the
`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01206 FOR
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`redundancy principles established in Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v.
`
`Progressive Casualty Insurance Co., CBM2012-00003, Paper 7 (PTAB Oct.
`
`25, 2012).
`
`Third, Petitioners’ arguments are premised on a flawed claim
`
`construction and are therefore legally unsustainable.
`
`Fourth, Petitioners fail to demonstrate any likelihood that they could
`
`ever sustain their ground over the disclosure of Murata alone. Petitioners
`
`conclude that the claims are anticipated based on Murata only by
`
`misinterpreting the meaning of a claim term, ignoring the claims as a whole,
`
`and misreading and/or ignoring key aspects of Murata’s disclosure.
`
`Fifth, the assertions of obviousness based on combining Murata with
`
`teachings of the secondary references are mere conclusory statements.
`
`Because Petitioners fail to provide a persuasive fact-based analysis with some
`
`rational underpinning to support these combination theories of obviousness,
`
`trial must be denied as to these theories.
`
`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
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`Owner’s challenge or failure to challenge the grounds of unpatentability for
`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01206 FOR
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`any particular reason”). However, the deficiencies addressed herein are
`
`dispositive and preclude trial on any asserted grounds.
`
`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)
`
`Title 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). Petitioners do not
`
`comply with these requirements in several respects.
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01206 FOR
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`First, in addition to asserting the ground based on Murata alone,
`
`Petitioners assert grounds combining Murata with (1) the so-called “Admitted
`
`Art” and “Basic References” (Ground 2); Murata in view of Huot (Ground 3);
`
`Murata in view of Takahashi and Huot (Ground 4); Murata in view of
`
`Takahashi (Ground 5); and Murata in view of Muramatsu (Ground 6), without
`
`ever clearly articulating a single difference between Murata 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 Murata, and a specific
`
`rationale for why Murata would have been modified to incorporate the
`
`missing elements, Petitioners ambiguously assert obviousness as an
`
`alternative to anticipation on an obscured element-by-element basis. For the
`
`independent claims alone, Petitioners appear to assert obviousness for at least
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`eight separate limitations.2 (Pet. at 27, 30 (preamble of each independent
`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01206 FOR
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`claim), 31 (program memory), 32 (analog signal acquisition channel), 33
`
`(processor operatively interfaced), 35 (processor configured and programmed
`
`to implement a data generation process), 38–40 & 43 (processor that
`
`automatically causes at least one parameter indicative of the class of devices
`
`to be sent to a computer), 46–47 & 50 (processor that is further configured
`
`and programmed to execute a file transfer process), 51 (user-loaded file
`
`transfer enabling software).) No part of the Petition ever specifies which
`
`combinations of these limitations (one? two? five? all eight?) are missing from
`
`Murata and would be modified into Murata as part of Grounds 2–6 of the
`
`Petition. Thus, instead of setting forth the particular modification of Murata
`
`that one of ordinary skill in the art would undertake as required, Petitioners
`
`essentially set forth at least eight factorial (i.e., 40,320) potential combinations
`
`and modifications of Murata.
`
`
`2 This list omits other allegations throughout the Petition that certain elements
`
`or teachings are, for example, “implicit and obvious” or “implicit, inherent
`
`and would have been obvious” (See, e.g., Pet. at 32, 45, ; see also id. at 35
`
`(“[A] POSITA would have recognized that CPU 50 necessarily (and
`
`obviously) executes program instructions . . .”).)
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01206 FOR
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`The net result of this approach is that the Board and Papst are left to
`
`guess which elements Petitioners contend are missing from Murata, why
`
`allegedly anticipatory disclosures in Murata would still require modification
`
`to arrive at the claims, what specific teachings are being combined, the
`
`rationale for why a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would make
`
`that combination, and other aspects of a proper obviousness analysis.
`
`Petitioners compound the above problems through misuse of the expert
`
`declaration of Dr. Reynolds (“Reynolds Declaration”). In several places,
`
`Petitioners provide support for an entire paragraph or more of argument with
`
`a cite to Murata and a parallel cite to the Reynolds Declaration. In most
`
`instances, however, the corresponding paragraph in the cited expert
`
`declaration
`
`is substantively (if not word-for-word)
`
`identical
`
`to
`
`the
`
`corresponding text of the Petition. (See, e.g., Pet. at 27–31 (regarding the
`
`preambles) and Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 86–93; Pet. at 31–32 (regarding the “implicit and
`
`inherent” aspects of the processor) and Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 94–95; Pet. at 32–33
`
`(regarding the analog signal acquisition channel) and Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 97–98; Pet.
`
`at 36–37 and Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 102–103; Pet. at 37 (paragraph starting “Therefore,
`
`regarding claim 1 . . .”) and Ex. 1103 ¶ 106; Pet. at 40 (paragraph starting
`
`“Murata discloses the same . . .”) and Ex. 1103 ¶ 108; Pet. at 40 (paragraph
`
`starting “The ’746 patent itself . . .”) and Ex. 1103 ¶ 110; Pet. at 41 (sentence
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`starting “Indeed, the SCSI recognition process . . .”) and Ex. 1103 ¶ 109; Pet.
`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01206 FOR
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`at 41 (paragraph starting “Therefore, Murata teaches . . .”) and Ex. 1103
`
`¶ 114; Pet. at 42 (paragraph starting “Regarding claim 1 . . .”) and Ex. 1103
`
`¶ 115; Pet. at 42 (paragraph starting “Regarding claim 31 . . .”) and Ex. 1103
`
`¶¶ 116–17; Pet. at 43–45 (entire obviousness analysis) and Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 119–
`
`122; Pet. at 47 (paragraph starting “The ’746 patent discloses . . .”) and Ex.
`
`1103 ¶ 124; Pet. at 31–32 (starting with “Specifically, Murata teaches . . .”)
`
`and Ex. 1103 ¶ 126; Pet. at 49 (sentence starting “Regarding the claim 1 . . .”)
`
`and Ex. 1103 ¶ 133; Pet. at 50–51 (entire obviousness analysis) and Ex. 1103
`
`¶ 134; Pet. at 51 (entire discussion of claim element) and Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 136–
`
`37.) Repeating arguments from a petition verbatim without any facts, data, or
`
`analysis to support the stated opinion does not provide support for Petitioners’
`
`position and is entitled to little or no weight. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a); Wowza
`
`Media Sys., LLC v. Adobe Sys., Inc., IPR2013-00054, Paper 12 at 11 (PTAB
`
`Apr. 8, 2013); TRW Auto. US LLC v. Magna Elecs. Inc., IPR2014-00258,
`
`Paper 16 at 15 (PTAB June 26, 2014).
`
`When Petitioners do not resort to having their expert regurgitate their
`
`arguments word-for-word, they often provide citations to the Reynolds
`
`Declaration that upon a closer inspection reach unsupported conclusions. For
`
`example, Dr. Reynolds discusses anticipation by Murata of the “processor that
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`automatically causes at least one parameter indicative of the class of devices
`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01206 FOR
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`to be sent to a computer” in paragraphs 107–118. Dr. Reynolds provides no
`
`support for his conclusion that an exchange “happens automatically, without
`
`user intervention” (¶ 111) and that the processor in Murata’s scanner
`
`“necessarily executes instructions stored in program memory” (¶ 112). Dr.
`
`Reynolds also cites to other paragraphs of his declaration (¶¶ 55–63) in
`
`support of his conclusion that the Murata scanner would respond to a SCSI
`
`INQUIRY with some unidentified parameter that he asserts meets the claims
`
`“one parameter” requirement (¶ 111). Those paragraphs are completely
`
`devoid of citation to Murata and instead concern the SCSI Specification (Ex.
`
`1105), thus further exposing the impropriety of the alleged anticipation
`
`argument (which is also discussed further below). Petitioners’ failures to
`
`provide support for their position further demonstrate that the Reynolds
`
`Declaration should also be entitled to little or no weight.
`
`Because Petitioners fail to adequately identify the specific invalidity
`
`theories, supporting evidence, and rationale it relies on to challenge specific
`
`claim elements, their Petition is deficient, and the Board should not institute
`
`trial.
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01206 FOR
`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 both internally and 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 IPR2016-01206 FOR
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`Here, the same Petitioners3 have collectively raised at least 20 grounds
`
`of unpatentability against overlapping challenged claims in six related
`
`Petitions resulting in a total of 120 grounds.4 The Board (and Papst) will be
`
`
`3 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
`
`Samsun Electronics America, Inc.” (See, e.g., Pet. at 10.) 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., IPR2016-1214, Paper 2.)
`
`4 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 their obviousness ground is eight factorial.
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`burdened by having to consider these redundant grounds in contravention of
`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01206 FOR
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b).
`
`1.
`
`Horizontal Redundancies Across Related Petitions
`Merit Their Denial
`
`Horizontal redundancy exists when proposed grounds apply “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
`
`IPR2016-1200
`
`’746 PATENT
`CLAIMS
`
`1, 6, 15, 17–18, 31,
`
`34
`
`IPR 2016-1206 1–31, 34–35
`
`GROUNDS
`
`103 (Aytac + SCSI Specification)
`
`102(b) (Murata)
`
`103 (Murata + “Admitted Art” +
`
`“Basic References”)
`
`103 (Murata + Huot)
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01206 FOR
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`PROCEEDING
`
`’746 PATENT
`CLAIMS
`
`GROUNDS
`
`103 (Murata + Takahashi + Huot)
`
`103 (Murata + Takahashi)
`
`10