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.: IPR2016-01211
`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
`
`
`CORRECTED PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.100
`
`In response to the Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition mailed on June
`
`24, 2016, this corrected petition is being timely filed to make the corrections
`
`requested by the Board. Specifically, footnotes 2 and 3 that appear on pages 8 and
`
`14, respectively, have been double-spaced.
`
`Inter partes review is respectfully requested for claims 1-12, 14-15, 17-21,
`
`23-31, 34-35 (the “Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746 (“the ’746
`
`patent”), attached hereto as Exhibit 1201.
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`
`
`The undersigned representative of Petitioners authorizes the Patent Office to
`
`charge the $23,000 Petition Fee to Deposit Account 501432, ref: 876346-605001.
`
`30 claims are being reviewed, so $8,000 excess claim fees are due. The undersigned
`
`representative further authorizes payment for any additional fees that may be due in
`
`connection with this Petition to be charged to the above-referenced Deposit
`
`Account.
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`Page
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`D. 
`
`B. 
`
`Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1 
`I. 
`Grounds for Standing Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................ 2 
`II. 
`III.  Background Information for ’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) ....................... 5 
`A. 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1): Claims for Which Inter Partes
`Review Is Requested ............................................................................ 5 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2): The Prior Art and Specific Grounds
`on Which the Challenge to the Claims Is Based ................................... 5 
`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 
`E. 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5): Supporting Evidence .................................. 9 
`There Is a Reasonable Likelihood That The Challenged Claims of the
`’746 Patent Are Unpatentable ....................................................................... 10 
`A. 
`Prior Art .............................................................................................. 10 
`1. 
`Kawaguchi ............................................................................... 10 
`2.  Matsumoto ............................................................................... 11 
`Kawaguchi, Matsumoto, DASM-AD14, Takahashi,
`3. 
`Saito, and Muramatsu are Properly Combinable ..................... 12 
`Level of Skill ............................................................................ 15 
`4. 
`Challenged Claims ............................................................................. 15 
`1. 
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................ 15 
`2. 
`Dependent Claim 2 .................................................................. 27 
`3. 
`Dependent Claim 3 .................................................................. 28 
`4. 
`Dependent Claim 4 .................................................................. 28 
`5. 
`Dependent Claim 5 .................................................................. 29 
`6. 
`Dependent Claim 6 .................................................................. 30 
`7. 
`Dependent Claims 7, 8, 26 ....................................................... 31 
`-i-
`
`
`IV. 
`
`V. 
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`Dependent Claim 9 .................................................................. 32 
`8. 
`Dependent Claim 10 ................................................................ 34 
`9. 
`10.  Dependent Claims 11, 12 ......................................................... 35 
`11.  Dependent Claim 14 ................................................................ 36 
`12.  Dependent Claim 15 ................................................................ 37 
`13.  Dependent Claims 17, 18 ......................................................... 38 
`14.  Dependent Claim 19 ................................................................ 41 
`15.  Dependent Claim 20 ................................................................ 43 
`16.  Dependent Claims 21, 27 and 28 ............................................. 44 
`17.  Dependent Claim 23 ................................................................ 48 
`18.  Dependent Claim 24 ................................................................ 50 
`19.  Dependent Claim 25 ................................................................ 52 
`20.  Dependent Claim 29 ................................................................ 53 
`21.  Dependent Claim 30 ................................................................ 53 
`22. 
`Independent Claim 31 .............................................................. 54 
`23. 
`Independent Claim 34 .............................................................. 59 
`24.  Dependent Claim 35 ................................................................ 61 
`VI.  Mandatory Notices Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1) ................................. 63 
`A. 
`C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1): Real Party-In-Interest ........................................ 63 
`B. 
`C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2): Related Matters ................................................. 64 
`C. 
`C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) and (4): Lead and Back-up Counsel and
`Service Information ............................................................................ 66 
`VII.  Conclusion .................................................................................................... 70 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`The ’746 patent specification describes an interface device designed to
`
`facilitate the transfer of data between an input/output (“i/o”) device and a host
`
`computer that allegedly obviates the need for installation of driver software on the
`
`computer. Ex. 1201 at 1:37-40; 7:11-20.
`
`The ’746 patent is owned by Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG (“Papst” or
`
`the “Patent Owner”). The District Court judge in a litigation involving an ancestor
`
`of the ’746 patent described Papst by stating that “the business of Papst is litigation,
`
`not invention or production.” Ex. 1202 (Memorandum Order of Judge Collyer) at 6
`
`(emphasis in original). Papst acquired the patent family, including the five earlier
`
`applications and two issued patents related to application no. 12/891,443 (“the ’443
`
`application”) from which the ’746 patent issued, nine years after the filing date of
`
`the earliest application in the chain. See USPTO Assignment Record executed Mar.
`
`8, 2006, at 17314-114. The ’443 application was filed and prosecuted entirely under
`
`Papst’s control during the pendency of patent infringement litigation filed by Papst
`
`against the Petitioners and others based on the two earlier-issued patents.
`
`Filed in 2010, the ’443 application, issued in 2013. During prosecution of the
`
`’443 application, Papst presented nearly 600 references for the Examiner to consider
`
`via Information Disclosure Statements – a near impossible task for a tightly time
`
`constrained examination. As a result, the Examiner did not focus on certain highly
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`relevant prior art. 1 Based on the presented grounds, the Board should institute inter
`
`partes review of the ’746 patent and cancel the challenged claims.
`
`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 ’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. 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. Ex. 1201 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.
`
`
`1 Some of this relevant art was buried in the nearly 600 references submitted
`
`to the Examiner via IDSs.
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`Id. at 1:28-2:21. The ’746 patent purports to describe an interface device to
`
`overcome these limitations.
`
`When a computer detects that a new device has been connected to one of its
`
`input-output (i/o) ports, a normal course of action includes these steps: 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 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 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
`
`driver, and the interface device translates the communications into a form
`
`understandable by the connected data device. Ex. 1004, ¶¶37-38,64-84; Ex. 1201 at
`
`3:28-4:38.
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`
`
`
`
`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 memory 14 manage communications between the computer and
`
`the data transmit/receive device. Ex. 1201 at 4:59-5:7. See also, Ex. 1204, ¶¶21-36.
`
`The prosecution history of the ’746 patent spanned three Office Actions and
`
`corresponding responses. 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. No amendments were made. 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
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`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.” 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 1-12, 14-15, 17-21, 23-31, 34-35
`
`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
`
`PCT application to which the ‘746 patent claims priority (PCT/EP98/01187).
`
`Inter Partes review is requested in view of the following prior art references:
`
` JP H4-15853 to Kawaguchi (“Kawaguchi”) (Exhibit 1006). Kawaguchi
`
`was filed on May 9, 1990 and published on January 21, 1992, and is prior
`
`art to the ’746 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,684,607 to (“Matsumoto”) (Exhibit 1007). Matsumoto
`
`was filed on November 4, 1994, and issued on November 4, 1997, and is
`
`prior art to the ’746 patent under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and/or 102(e).
`
` The DASM-AD14 product brochure (DASM-AD14) (Exhibit 1008).
`
`DASM-AD14 is a data sheet for the DASM-AD14 product dated 1992.
`
`The DASM-AD14 product was available for purchase in 1992, as
`
`evidenced by the Digital Equipment Corporation Shippable Products
`
`Catalog, submitted as Exhibit 1214 at page 23. Because the DASM-AD14
`
`Product Brochure was freely available to the public five years prior to the
`
`earliest possible priority data of the patent at issue, the DASM-AD14
`
`Product Brochure is a publication under 35 U.S.C. §102(b). DASM-AD14
`
`was published in March 1992 and is prior art to the ’746 patent under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
` JP H5-344283 to Takahashi (“Takahashi”) (Exhibit 1009). Takahashi was
`
`filed on June 11, 1992 and published on December 24, 1993, and is prior
`
`art to the ’746 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,592,256 to Muramatsu (“Muramatsu”) (Exhibit 1012).
`
`Muramatsu was filed on May 29, 1996, and issued on January 7, 1997, and
`
`is prior art to the ’746 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,724,155 to Saito (“Saito”) (Exhibit 1013). Saito was
`
`filed on December 30, 1994, and issued on March 3, 1998, and is prior art
`
`to the ’746 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and/or 102(e).
`
`The specific statutory grounds on which the challenge to the claims is based
`
`and the prior art relied upon for each ground are as follows:
`
`a) Claims 1-12, 14-15, 17-19, 26, 29-31, 34-35 are anticipated by
`
`Kawaguchi;
`
`b) Claims 1-12, 14-15, 17-19, 26, 29-31, 34-35 are unpatentable under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kawaguchi in view of Matsumoto;
`
`c) Claim 14 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kawaguchi in
`
`view of Matsumoto and Takahashi;
`
`d) Claims 21, 24-25, 27-28 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`
`Kawaguchi in view of Matsumoto and DASM-AD14;
`
`e) Claims 20 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kawaguchi in
`
`view of Matsumoto and Saito;
`
`f) Claim 23 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kawaguchi in
`
`view of Matsumoto, Saito, and Muramatsu.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3): Claim Construction
`
`C.
`Claims are to be given their “broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`specification.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). The constructions proposed below are
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`intended to aid in this proceeding, and should not be understood as waiving any
`
`arguments that may be raised in any litigation. Further, because the standard for
`
`claim construction at the Patent Office is different from that used during a U.S.
`
`District Court litigation, see In re Am. Acad. Of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364,
`
`1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004); MPEP § 2111, Petitioners expressly reserve the right to argue
`
`a different claim construction in litigation for any term of the ’746 patent. For
`
`purposes of this proceeding only, and without conceding that these are the correct
`
`constructions under the standard that controls in the litigation, Petitioners propose
`
`adopting the claim constructions presented by Papst in related litigation in the
`
`District of Columbia: Misc. Action No. 07-493 (RMC); MDL No. 1880 (Ex. 1005),
`
`as follows: 2
`
`Claim Term
`“without requiring any end user to load
`any software onto
`the [first/second]
`computer at any time”
`
`“without requiring any user-loaded file
`
`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
`
`
`2 Petitioners have proposed competing constructions in the district court
`
`proceedings, including that the term “processor” requires a means-plus-function
`
`construction.
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`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”
`
`the operating system or BIOS”
`
`“any kind of microprocessor, including a
`digital signal processor”
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`Section V.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5): Supporting Evidence
`
`E.
`An Appendix of Exhibits supporting this Petition is attached. Included at
`
`Exhibit 1004 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 Section V.
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`V.
`
`There Is a Reasonable Likelihood That The Challenged Claims of the
`’746 Patent Are Unpatentable
`
`A.
`
`Prior Art
`1. Kawaguchi
`As illustrated in Fig. 1 shown below, Kawaguchi discloses a SCSI device
`
`converter (3) having a SCSI interface (7) for connecting a peripheral device (4, 5, 6)
`
`to a SCSI interface (2) on an engineering workstation (EWS (1)). The SCSI device
`
`converter (3) inputs and outputs data to the SCSI interface (2) of an EWS using the
`
`same standards as a SCSI interface for a hard disk. The SCSI device converter
`
`communicates with the EWS’s SCSI hard disk driver and emulates a hard disk. Data
`
`from peripheral devices is retrieved by the control unit (16) via the device interfaces
`
`(8, 9, 10), converted into SCSI standard data by a code converting unit (15), and
`
`stored in data reading units (12, 14) from which the EWS can retrieve the data. An
`
`A/D converter (19) may also be installed to receive analog data from an analog
`
`device (18) such as a sensor. Data from the EWS to peripheral devices is written to
`
`data writing units (11, 13) and transferred by the control unit to the peripheral
`
`devices via the device interfaces. See Ex. 1204, ¶¶41-51.
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`
`
`2. Matsumoto
`Matsumoto discloses that a “facsimile apparatus having a scanner for reading
`
`original images, a memory for storing images, a printer for recording images, and a
`
`communication control section for controlling the transmission/reception of data
`
`with a receiving communication apparatus is connected to a host computer via a
`
`small computer system interface (SCSI).” Ex. 1208, Abstract. Matsumoto also
`
`discloses that a “file management section 10 manages documents created inside a
`
`facsimile apparatus . . . [wherein the] operation for entering and storing a file is
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`performed by the file management section 10.” Ex. 1208, 3:20-22, 5:55-56. See
`
`also, Ex. 1204, ¶¶52-59.
`
`
`3. Kawaguchi, Matsumoto, DASM-AD14, Takahashi, Saito,
`and Muramatsu are Properly Combinable
`
`Both Kawaguchi and Matsumoto provide teachings, suggestions, and
`
`motivations to combine their respective disclosures with one another because, inter
`
`alia, they both teach interfacing a peripheral device to a host computer using SCSI.
`
`Given the similarities of their subject matter and teachings, a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art (POSA) would be motivated to combine features of each reference to
`
`provide the advantages achieved by those added features.
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`For example, combining file management features taught by Matsumoto to
`
`the Kawaguchi system to allow processed analog data to be stored in the data
`
`storage memory as at least one file, to allow the processor to automatically send file
`
`system information to the host to enable the host to retrieve the at least one file, to
`
`allow an indication of the type of a file system that is used to store the at least one
`
`file of digitized analog data in the data storage memory, and to allow file allocation
`
`table information containing a start location of a file allocation table to be sent to the
`
`i/o port along with a virtual boot sequence that includes at least information that is
`
`representative of a number of sectors of a storage disk, would have been obvious.
`
`Organization and naming benefits can be achieved using a file system.
`
`DASM-AD14 discloses an A/D converter that attaches to a host computer via
`
`SCSI and emulates a disk drive. Takahashi discloses a scanning device that attaches
`
`to a host computer via SCSI. Saito discloses an electronic imaging system for
`
`capturing image data and filing the image data over a personal computer network via
`
`SCSI. Each of the references provide teachings, suggestions and motivations to
`
`combine their respective disclosures with Kawaguchi and Matsumoto and with one
`
`another.
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`Combining the features of Matsumoto discussed above and others3, as well as
`
`combining the teachings of DASM-AD14, Takahashi and Saito with Kawaguchi and
`
`each other is proper because (a) it involves combining prior art elements according
`
`to known methods to yield predictable results, (b) the combination results in a
`
`simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results,
`
`(c) the combination involves the use of a known technique to improve similar
`
`devices, methods, or products in the same way, (d) the combination involves
`
`applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for
`
`improvement to yield predictable results, (e) the combination is obvious to try – it
`
`involves choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a
`
`reasonable expectation of success, and (f) the combination is proper because known
`
`work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same
`
`field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces because the
`
`variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
`
`In summary, each of the references disclose using standard SCSI commands
`
`and/or drivers for the host to communicate with the relevant target device. Given
`
`
`3 It is also proper to combine the sensor (facsimile device) feature, stand-alone
`
`device feature and the use of a cable to connect SCSI interfaces feature taught by
`
`Matsumoto in the Kawaguchi system for these reasons as well.
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`the similarities of their subject matter and teachings, it would have been readily
`
`apparent and obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of each of the
`
`references. Id., ¶¶85-91
`
`Level of Skill
`
`4.
`A person of ordinary skill in the field, at the time the ’144 patent was
`
`effectively
`
`filed, possessed a working knowledge of devices such as
`
`microprocessors, hard disks, and computer interfaces such as SCSI. Ex. 1204, ¶ 39.
`
`He or she would also be familiar with associated software, including MS-DOS, MS
`
`Windows 95, UNIX and SCSI software modules and drivers, associated file systems
`
`(e.g., FAT), and device drivers. Ex. 1204, ¶ 39. A person of ordinary skill at the
`
`relevant time (1996-1998) would have had at least a four-year degree in electrical
`
`engineering, computer science, or related field of study, or equivalent experience,
`
`and at least two years’ experience in studying or developing computer interfaces or
`
`peripherals. Ex. 1204, ¶¶ 39-40.
`
`B.
`
`Challenged Claims
`1.
`
`Independent Claim 1
`
`(a)
`
`Preamble
`
`(i)
`
`First part – “An analog data acquisition device
`operatively connectable to a computer through
`a multipurpose interface of the computer”
`
`Kawaguchi discloses “a SCSI device converter comprising: a SCSI interface
`
`connected to a SCSI interface in an engineering workstation (EWS) . . . a device
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`interface for connecting a peripheral device . . . [and] a control unit for controlling
`
`the transmission/reception of data between the EWS and the peripheral device . . .”
`
`Ex. 1207, claim 1. Kawaguchi further discloses that the “EWS includes, as a
`
`standard interface, a SCSI interface used to connect hard disks and magnetic disk
`
`drives.” Id. at p. 3. The Kawaguchi SCSI device converter in cooperation with the
`
`connected peripheral devices forms an analog data acquisition device that is
`
`operatively connectable to a computer (i.e., EWS) through a multipurpose interface
`
`(i.e., SCSI interface) of the computer. Ex. 1204, ¶¶92-99.
`
`(ii)
`
`Second part – “the computer having an
`operating system 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:”
`
`As recited in Kawaguchi: “The following is an explanation of the operations
`
`performed by a SCSI driver (software) of the EWS (1) . . . The SCSI driver of the
`
`EWS has been developed as a driver for connecting a hard disk. Therefore, the
`
`apparatus in the present invention [i.e., the SCSI device converter] operates in a
`
`manner emulating the hard disk. This processing procedure is performed according
`
`to a flowchart shown in FIG. 2. In this flowchart, steps from ‘Start’ to ‘Mode Sense’
`
`represent an initialization process for a hard disk, ‘Inquiry’ represents reporting of
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`attribute information of a target and logical units (identification code of a device
`
`type), . . . In this way, the writing units and reading units (11) (12) (13) (14) can be
`
`activated for the EWS (1). After the initialization process, the EWS (1) performs
`
`writing to or reading from the writing units and reading units (11) (12) (13) (14).”
`
`Ex. 1207, p. 7. Kawaguchi discloses that the EWS has an operating system that is
`
`programmed to automatically activate its hard disk driver to allow data transfer with
`
`the SCSI device converter’s writing and reading units after receiving a response to
`
`the inquiry command through the EWS’s SCSI interface indicating that hard disks
`
`are attached. Ex. 1204, ¶¶64-72,85-91.
`
`(b)
`
`First element – a program memory;
`
`Kawaguchi recites that “the SCSI device converter (3) also implements a data
`
`writing unit (11), a data reading unit (12), a control data writing unit (13), an
`
`interrupt data reading unit (14), a code converting unit (15), a control unit (16) and
`
`an interrupt control unit (17) by using a microcomputer, ROM and RAM.” Ex. 1207,
`
`p. 5. The ROM and RAM provide program memory for the microcomputer. Ex.
`
`1204, ¶¶100-102.
`
`(c)
`
`Second element – an analog signal acquisition channel
`for receiving a signal from an analog source;
`
`As illustrated in Fig. 1, Kawaguchi discloses a plurality of analog signal
`
`acquisition channels: an I/O interface (9) for receiving a signal from Input device 5
`
`and a channel that includes A/D converter (19) for “receiv[ing] analog data from an
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`analog device (18) such as a sensor.” Ex. 1207, p. 5 and Fig. 1. The Sensor 18
`
`connected to A/D 19 and the Input device 5 connected to Device interface 9 are all
`
`analog sources – they all generate analog data that is then digitized. Ex. 1204, ¶¶
`
`103-104.
`
`(d) Third element – “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;”
`
`Kawaguchi discloses a microcomputer, program memory, and data storage
`
`memory within the SCSI device controller 3: “the SCSI device converter (3) also
`
`implements a data writing unit (11), a data reading unit (12), a control data writing
`
`unit (13), an interrupt data reading unit (14), a code converting unit (15), a control
`
`unit (16) and an interrupt control unit (17) by using a microcomputer, ROM and
`
`RAM.” Ex. 1207, p. 5. A microcomputer is a processor. Ex. 1204, ¶106.
`
`Kawaguchi discloses a processor (microcomputer), program memory (ROM and
`
`RAM), and data storage memory (RAM).
`
`Because a microcomputer inherently and implicitly executes program
`
`instructions which are stored in program memory such as ROM and/or RAM and
`
`inherently and implicitly stores data in data storage memory such as RAM,
`
`Kawaguchi discloses that when the analog data acquisition device (SCSI device
`
`converter) is operational, the processor is operatively interfaced with the program
`
`memory and a data storage memory. Ex. 1204, ¶¶105-107.
`
`
`
`-18-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`Kawaguchi discloses
`
`that “the control unit (16) controls
`
`the data
`
`transmission/reception between the EWS and the peripheral devices.” Ex. 1207, p.
`
`5. Because the control unit (16) is implemented using a processor (microcomputer),
`
`Kawaguchi also discloses that when the analog data acquisition device (SCSI device
`
`converter)
`
`is operational
`
`the processor
`
`is operatively
`
`interfaced with
`
`the
`
`multipurpose interface of the computer (SCSI interface 2 of the EWS). Ex. 1204,
`
`¶¶105-107.
`
`(e)
`
`is
`the processor
`Fourth element – “wherein
`configured and programmed to implement a data
`generation process by which analog data is acquired
`from the analog signal acquisition channel, the analog
`data is processed and digitized, and the processed and
`digitized analog data is stored in a file system of the
`data storage memory as at least one file of digitized
`analog data”
`
`Kawaguchi discloses that sensor 18 generates analog data that are received
`
`and processed by the A/D 19: “For example, an A/D converter (19) may be installed
`
`to receive analog data from an analog device (18) such as a sensor.” Ex. 1207, p 5.
`
`and Fig. 1. Peripheral device 5, which is a sensor, also generates analog data that are
`
`received and processed. Ex. 1204, ¶103 Kawaguchi discloses that analog data is
`
`acquired from the analog signal acquisition channel. Id.
`
`Kawaguchi discloses that the processor-implemented control unit contro