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 IPR2016-01211
`Patent 8,504,746
`____________________
`
`PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO. KG’S
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01211
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`2. 
`
`B. 
`
`Introduction .............................................................................................. 1 
`I. 
`II.  The Petition Fails To Meet The Requirements For Instituting
`An Inter Partes Review ........................................................................ 4 
`The Petition Fails to Comply with 35 U.S.C.
`A. 
`§ 312(a)(3) and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2) and
`42.104(b)(4) ................................................................................ 4 
`The Board Should Not Institute Trial Based On The
`Petition’s Redundant Grounds ................................................... 9 
`Horizontal Redundancies Across Related
`1. 
`Petitions Merit Their Denial .......................................... 10 
`Vertical Redundancies Within This Petition
`Also Merit Its Denial ..................................................... 16 
`III.  The ’746 Patent And Claim Constructions ............................................ 18 
`A.  Overview Of The ’746 Patent .................................................. 18 
`B. 
`Level Of Ordinary Skill In The Art ......................................... 21 
`C. 
`Response
`to
`Petitioners’
`Proposed Claim
`Constructions ............................................................................ 22 
`IV.  Petitioners Did Not Meet Their Burden To Show A
`Reasonable Likelihood Of Success On Their Grounds Of
`Unpatentability ................................................................................... 22 
`A. 
`Legal Standards ........................................................................ 22 
`B. 
`Petitioners Fail To Demonstrate The Challenged
`Claims Are Anticipated By Kawaguchi ................................... 28 
`1. 
`Claim 1 ........................................................................... 28 
`Fourth Element: “wherein the processor
`(i) 
`is configured and programmed
`to
`implement a data generation process by
`which analog data is acquired from the
`
`i
`
`

`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01211
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`
`(ii) 
`
`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” .......................................... 28 
`Sixth element, second part: “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” .................... 30 
`(iii)  Sixth element, first part: “wherein the
`processor is further configured and
`programmed to execute at least one
`other
`instruction set stored
`in
`the
`program memory to thereby allow the at
`least one file of digitized analog data
`acquired
`from
`the analog
`signal
`acquisition channel to be transferred to
`the computer using the device driver
`corresponding to said class of devices so
`that the analog data acquisition device
`appears to the computer as if it were a
`device of the class of devices” ............................ 34 
`Independent Claim 31 .................................................... 37 
`Second element: “wherein the processor
`(i) 
`is configured to control a data generation
`process by which analog data is acquired
`from the analog source, the analog data
`is processed and digitized, and the
`processed and digitized analog data is
`stored in the memory as digitized analog
`data;” .................................................................... 37 
`Fourth element: “wherein the processor
`is configured to automatically transfer
`
`(ii) 
`
`ii
`
`2. 
`
`

`
`3. 
`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01211
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`
`the digitized analog data acquired from
`the analog source to the host device in
`response to a digital mass storage device
`data read signal from the host device, in
`a manner that causes the analog data
`acquisition and
`interface device
`to
`appear to be the mass storage device,
`while using the device driver associated
`with the mass storage device to perform
`the automatic transfer without requiring
`any user-loaded file transfer enabling
`software to be loaded on or installed in
`the computer” ...................................................... 37 
`Independent Claim 34 .................................................... 38 
`Second element: “acquiring analog data
`(i) 
`from an analog source, processing and
`digitizing the analog data, and storing
`the processed and digitized analog data
`in the memory as digitized analog data
`under control of the processor” ........................... 38 
`Fourth
`element:
`“automatically
`transferring data from the analog source
`to the host device in response to a digital
`data read command from the host
`device, in a manner that causes the
`analog data acquisition device to appear
`to be a digital device instead of as an
`analog data acquisition device, while
`using the device driver to perform the
`automatic
`transfer of
`the acquired
`digitized analog data to the host device
`without requiring any user-loaded file
`transfer enabling software to be loaded
`on or installed in the host device” ....................... 39 
`
`(ii) 
`
`iii
`
`

`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01211
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`
`C. 
`
`Petitioners Fail to Articulate a Proper Obviousness
`Ground ...................................................................................... 40 
`V.  Conclusion ............................................................................................. 46 
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01211
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`Cases
`A.R.M. Inc. v. Cottingham Agencies Ltd,
`IPR2014-00671, Paper 10 (PTAB Oct. 3, 2014) ...................................... 45
`Activevideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................. 24
`Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc.,
`2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 14652 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 10, 2016) ......................... 27
`Bettcher Indus., Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc.,
`661 F.3d 629 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................................................... 33
`BLD Services, LLC v. LMK Techs., LLC,
`IPR2014-00770, Paper 40 (PTAB Nov. 18, 2015) ................................... 45
`Canon, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures, LLC,
`IPR2014-00535, Paper 9 (PTAB Sept. 24, 2014) ..................................... 15
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC,
`IPR2014-00454, Paper 12 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2014) ................... 8, 24, 25, 26
`Conopco, Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Co.,
`IPR2013-00510, Paper 9 (PTAB Feb. 12, 2014) ........................................ 8
`Cont’l Can Co., U.S.A. v. Monsanto Co.,
`948 F.2d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ................................................................. 33
`Dell, Inc. v. Elecs. & Telecommc’ns Res. Inst.,
`IPR2014-00152, Paper 12 (PTAB May 16, 2014) .................................... 26
`Dominion Dealer Sols., LLC v. Autoalert, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00223, Paper 9 (PTAB Aug. 15, 2013) ..................................... 26
`EMC Corp. v. PersonalWeb Techs., LLC,
`IPR2013-00087, Paper 25 (PTAB June 5, 2013) ........................................ 9
`Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys., Inc.,
`773 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................. 22
`FLIR Sys., Inc. v. Leak Surveys, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00411, Paper 9 (PTAB Sept. 5, 2014) ........................... 33, 34, 37
`Garmin Int’l, Inc. v. Cuozzo Techs. LLC,
`IPR2012-00001, Paper 15 (PTAB Jan. 9, 2013) ................................. 22, 32
`
`v
`
`

`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01211
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ............................................................................... passim
`Idle Free Sys., Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc.,
`IPR2012-00027, Paper 26 (PTAB June 11, 2013) ...................................... 9
`In re Cronyn,
`890 F.2d 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ................................................................. 45
`In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent
`Litig.,
`676 F.3d 1063 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................. 26
`In re Fritch,
`972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ....................................................... 44
`In re Gleave,
`560 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ................................................................. 23
`In re Montgomery,
`677 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................. 33
`In re NTP, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................................................. 26
`In re Robertson,
`169 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ................................................................... 33
`In re Zurko,
`258 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ................................................................. 28
`Intri-Plex Techs., Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Rencol Ltd.,
`IPR2014-00309, Paper 83 (PTAB Mar. 23, 2014) .............................. 23, 26
`K/S HIMPP v. Hear-Wear Techs., LLC,
`751 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ....................................................... 6, 27, 28
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................ 23, 24
`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) .................................... 25
`Perricone v. Medicis Pharm. Corp.
`432 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ................................................................. 23
`SAS Inst. Inc. v. Complementsoft, LLC,
`IPR2013-00581, Paper 15 (PTAB Dec. 30, 2013) .................................... 14
`SAS Inst. Inc. v. Complementsoft, LLC,
`IPR2013-00581, Paper 17 (PTAB Feb. 24, 2014) .................................... 14
`
`vi
`
`

`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01211
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`
`Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,
`655 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................................................. 26
`Travelocity.com L.P. v. Cronos Techs., LLC,
`CBM2014-00082, Paper 12 (PTAB Oct. 16, 2014) .......................... 3, 6, 43
`TRW Auto. US LLC v. Magna Elecs., Inc.,
`IPR2014-00258, Paper 16 (PTAB June 26, 2014) .................................... 25
`Wowza Media Sys., LLC v. Adobe Sys., Inc.,
`IPR2013-00054, Paper 12 (PTAB Apr. 8, 2013) ........................................ 7
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ............................................................................................. 16
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................................. 16, 23, 33
`35 U.S.C. § 311 ............................................................................................... 6
`35 U.S.C. § 312 ............................................................................................... 4
`35 U.S.C. § 313 ............................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. § 314 ............................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. § 315 ......................................................................................... 2, 15
`35 U.S.C. § 325 ......................................................................................... 2, 14
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1 ............................................................................................ 10
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 .......................................................................................... 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107 .......................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108 ................................................................................ 1, 9, 14
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22 ............................................................................................ 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6 .............................................................................................. 8
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65 ............................................................................................ 7
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756–66 at 48,763 (Aug. 14, 2012) ....................................... 4
`Other Authorities
`157 Cong. Rec. S1041–42 (daily ed. Mar 1, 2011) ...................................... 15
`MPEP § 2141 ................................................................................................ 42
`
`
`
` 
`
`vii
`
`

`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01211
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`to Kazuyuki Murata
`
`viii
`
`EXHIBIT NO. TITLE
`1201
`U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746 (’746 patent)
`Memorandum Order of Judge Collyer in Misc. Action No.
`07-493 (RMC); MDL Docket No. 1880 (D.D.C., May 6,
`2008).
`Intentionally not included
`Declaration of Dr. Paul F. Reynolds
`Papst Litigation Claim Constructions
`JP H4-15853
`Certified Translation of JP H4-15853 (Kawaguchi)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,684,607 (Matsumoto)
`DASM-AD14 Product Brochure
`JP H5-344283
`Certified Translation of JP H5-344283 (Takahashi)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,592,256 (Muramatsu)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,724,155 (Saito)
`Digital Equipment Corporation Shippable Products
`Catalog
`U.S. Patent No. 5,758,081 to Haluk Aytac (“Aytac”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,088,532 to Yasuhiro Yamamoto et al.
`(“Yamamoto”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,508,821
`(“Murata”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,499,378 to Andre B. McNeill et al.
`(“McNeill”)
`Wikipedia Entry for “Compact Disc”
`Excerpt from IBM Dictionary of Computing (George
`McDaniel ed., 10th ed. 1993)
`Excerpt from MPEP § 2141 (November 2015)
`
`1202
`
`1203
`1204
`1205
`1206
`1207
`1208
`1209
`1210
`1211
`1212
`1213
`1214
`2001
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`2005
`2006
`2007
`
`
`
`

`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01211
`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 point out the reasons the
`
`Board should not institute trial.
`
`First, the Board should reject the Petition because Petitioners fail to
`
`sufficiently identify and explain their precise invalidity legal theories and
`
`supporting evidence, in violation of the particularity required by the Board.
`
`Petitioners obscure whether the challenge based on the primary reference,
`
`Japanese Application Publication No. H4-15853
`
`to Kawaguchi
`
`1
`
`

`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01211
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`(“Kawaguchi”) (Ex. 1207), is based on anticipation or obviousness. The
`
`ambiguous nature of Petitioners’ theories permeates the redundant additional
`
`ground based on Kawaguchi in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,684,607 to
`
`Matsumoto (“Matsumoto”) (Ex. 1208). Never once conceding which claim
`
`limitations are missing from Kawaguchi, Petitioners fail to clearly articulate
`
`any theory of obviousness premised on combining the teachings of
`
`Kawaguchi with other sources.
`
`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 Petitioners against the ’746 patent.1
`
`Petitioners’ six petitions against the ’746 patent collectively assert various
`
`theories based on five different primary prior art references. Accordingly, the
`
`Board should exercise its discretion and deny the Petition under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 315(d) and 325(d), and the redundancy principles established in Liberty
`
`
`1 These same Petitioners have also filed seven petitions against a related
`
`patent, U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144.
`
`2
`
`

`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01211
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`Mutual Insurance Co. v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co., CBM2012-
`
`00003, Paper 7 (Oct. 25, 2012).
`
`Third, Petitioners fail to demonstrate any likelihood that they could ever
`
`sustain their grounds over the disclosure of Kawaguchi alone. Petitioners
`
`conclude that the claims are anticipated based on Kawaguchi only by relying
`
`on unsupported speculation by the corresponding expert declaration, ignoring
`
`the claims as a whole, and misreading and/or ignoring key aspects of
`
`Kawaguchi’s disclosure.
`
`Fourth, the assertions of obviousness based on modifying Kawaguchi
`
`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 (Oct. 16, 2014) (“nothing may be gleaned from the Patent Owner’s
`
`challenge or failure to challenge the grounds of unpatentability for any
`
`particular reason”). However,
`
`the deficiencies addressed herein are
`
`dispositive, and preclude trial on any grounds asserted in the Petition.
`
`3
`
`

`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01211
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`II. The Petition Fails To Meet The Requirements For Instituting An
`Inter Partes Review
`
`Trial should not be instituted because the Petition does not comply with
`
`numerous Board requirements.
`
`A.
`
`The Petition Fails To Comply With 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) And
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2) And 42.104(b)(4)
`
`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.
`
`First, in addition to asserting a ground based on Kawaguchi alone,
`
`Petitioners assert obviousness grounds combining Kawaguchi with
`
`Matsumoto (Ground 2) without clearly articulating a single difference
`
`4
`
`

`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01211
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`between Kawaguchi 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 Kawaguchi, and a
`
`specific rationale for why Kawaguchi would have been modified to
`
`incorporate
`
`the missing
`
`limitations, Petitioners ambiguously assert
`
`obviousness as an alternative to anticipation on an obscured element-by-
`
`element basis. No part of the Petition ever specifies which combinations of
`
`these limitations are missing from Kawaguchi and would be modified into
`
`Kawaguchi as part of Ground 2 of the Petition. For example, after identifying
`
`the separate grounds against the same set of claims (Pet. at 7), Petitioners
`
`never identify which arguments apply to which grounds. The net result of this
`
`approach is that the Board and Papst are left to guess which elements
`
`Petitioners contend are missing from Kawaguchi, why the disclosures in
`
`Kawaguchi would still require modification to arrive at the claims, what
`
`5
`
`

`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01211
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`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.
`
`Thus, Petitioners’ approach
`
`in
`
`the Petition fails
`
`the Board’s
`
`requirements twice: first by failing to set forth with the required particularity
`
`the support for each of their grounds, and second by failing to identify the
`
`differences between Kawaguchi and the subject matter recited in the
`
`challenged claims and thus why a person of ordinary skill would have
`
`combined Kawaguchi with the other references in the proposed manner.
`
`Travelocity.com, CBM2014-00082, Paper 12 at 5.
`
`Petitioners compound the above problems by repeatedly providing
`
`alleged support for their arguments with citations to the expert declaration of
`
`Dr. Reynolds (Ex. 1204) (“Reynolds Declaration”), rather than to the asserted
`
`prior art. (See e.g., Pet. at 16, 18, 21–24, 26, 58.) A ground in an inter partes
`
`review may only be based on “prior art consisting of patents or printed
`
`publications.” See 35 U.S.C. § 311. While expert testimony is certainly
`
`permissible in support of a petition, it may not be used to fill in missing
`
`limitations in the prior art, particularly when the assertions are conclusory
`
`without supporting evidence. See K/S HIMPP v. Hear-Wear Techs., LLC, 751
`
`F.3d 1362, 1366-67 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (affirming Board’s rejection of party’s
`
`6
`
`

`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01211
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`obviousness contention that failed to cite any evidence to support that claim
`
`limitations were obvious and holding that “the Board cannot accept general
`
`conclusions about what is “basic knowledge” or “common sense” as a
`
`replacement for documentary evidence for core factual findings in a
`
`determination of patentability”).
`
`Petitioners repeatedly provide support for an entire paragraph or more
`
`of argument with citations to the Reynolds Declaration. (See, e.g., Pet. at 10,
`
`18, 22–23, 26–27, 33, 37–40, 43–44, 46, 48–49, 56.) However, the
`
`corresponding paragraphs in the cited expert declaration often completely lack
`
`citation of evidentiary support. Repeating arguments from the Petition
`
`verbatim without any facts, data, or analysis to support the opinion stated,
`
`does not provide support for Petitioners’ position and is entitled to little or no
`
`weight. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a); Wowza Media Sys., LLC v. Adobe Sys., Inc.,
`
`IPR2013-00054, Paper 12 at 11 (Apr. 8, 2013).
`
`
`
`Frequently, Petitioners
`
`improperly
`
`incorporate
`
`the Reynolds
`
`Declaration by reference. The Reynolds Declaration includes 97 pages of
`
`discussion including regarding the disclosures of Kawaguchi and other
`
`asserted references as they allegedly relate to the challenged claims. The
`
`Declaration presents further details of the references and expresses legal
`
`theories and arguments beyond those in the Petition. For example, the Petition
`
`7
`
`

`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01211
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`at page 26 cites to Exhibit 1204, paragraphs 127–143, which is over five pages
`
`of testimony, not including the internally referenced paragraphs cited therein
`
`(¶¶ 38, 45–48, 64–91, 112–118, 125, 168–172, 180–183). The Petition
`
`contains numerous other examples of incorporation by reference. (See e.g.,
`
`Pet. at 39 (citing ¶¶ 168–189), 56 (citing ¶¶ 119–130), 58 (citing ¶¶ 131–
`
`143).) This extraneous material should not be considered, as Petitioners only
`
`rarely explain the significance of these citations, which often do not even
`
`support Petitioners’ representations regarding
`
`the relevant
`
`teachings.
`
`Information provided in an exhibit, but not discussed in the Petition, is not
`
`incorporated into the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3). The Board has
`
`cautioned against the practice of burying arguments in an expert declaration.
`
`See, e.g., Cisco Sys., Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC, IPR2014-00454, Paper 12
`
`at 7–10 (Aug. 29, 2014) (250-page expert declaration incorporated by
`
`reference circumvents the page limits imposed on petitions while imposing on
`
`the Board’s time); Conopco, Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Co., IPR2013-00510,
`
`Paper 9 at 8 (Feb. 12, 2014) (“We decline to consider information presented
`
`in a supporting declaration, but not discussed in a petition, because, among
`
`other reasons, doing so would encourage the use of declarations to circumvent
`
`the page limits that apply to petitions.”).
`
`
`
`Because Petitioners fail to adequately identify the specific invalidity
`
`8
`
`

`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01211
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`theories, supporting evidence, and rationale relied upon for each ground, the
`
`Petition is deficient, and the Board should not institute trial.
`
`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 (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 (June 5, 2013).
`
`9
`
`

`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01211
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`Here, Petitioners have collectively raised at least 20 grounds of
`
`unpatentability against overlapping challenged claims in six related petitions
`
`resulting in a total of 120 grounds.2 The Board (and Papst) will be burdened
`
`by having to consider these redundant grounds in contravention of 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.1(b).
`
`1.
`
`Horizontal Redundancies Across Related Petitions
`Merit Their Denial
`
`Horizontal redundancy exists when a proposed grounds applies “a
`
`plurality of prior art references . . . not in combination to complement each other
`
`but as distinct and separate alternatives.” Liberty Mut., CBM2012-00003, Paper
`
`7 at 3. The references “provide essentially the same teaching to meet the same
`
`claim limitation, and the associated arguments do not explain why one
`
`reference more closely satisfies the claim limitation at issue in some respects
`
`than another reference, and vice versa.” Id. (emphasis in original).
`
`Petitioners’ grounds, filed serially across these six Petitions are:
`
`
`2 In reality, the number of grounds raised is multitudes larger than this when
`
`you take into account that the number of possible combinations raised in
`
`Petitioners’ vague approach to its obviousness grounds in their 13 petitions.
`
`10
`
`

`
`PROCEEDING
`
`IPR2016-1200
`
`’746 PATENT
`CLAIMS
`1, 6, 15, 17–18,
`
`31, 34
`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01211
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`
`GROUNDS
`
`103 (Aytac + SCSI Specification)
`
`102(b) (Murata)
`
`103 (Murata + “Admitted Art” +
`
`“Basic References”)
`
`IPR 2016-1206 1–31, 34–35
`
`103 (Murata + Huot)
`
`103 (Murata + Takahashi + Huot)
`
`103 (Murata + Takahashi)
`
`103 (Murata + Muramatsu)
`
`102(b) (Murata)
`
`103 (Murata + “Admitted Art” +
`
`“Basic References”)
`
`IPR 2016-1224
`
`1, 19–21, 24,
`
`26–28
`
`11
`
`

`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01211
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`
`PROCEEDING
`
`’746 PATENT
`CLAIMS
`
`GROUNDS
`
`102(b) (Kawaguchi)
`
`103 (Kawaguchi + Matsumoto)
`
`103 (Kawaguchi + Matsumoto +
`
`Takahashi)
`
`103 (Kawaguchi + Matsumoto +
`
`1–12, 14–15,
`
`IPR 2016-1211
`
`17–21, 23–31,
`
`34–35
`
`DASM-AD14)
`
`103 (Kawaguchi + Matsumoto +
`
`Saito)
`
`103 (Kawaguchi + Matsumoto + Saito
`
`+ Muramatsu)
`
`102(e) (Yamamoto)
`
`1–3, 6–10, 15,
`
`IPR 2016-1213
`
`17–21, 25, 29,
`
`31, 34
`
`103 (Yamamoto + SCSI Specification
`
`+ Yamamoto 2)
`
`103 (Yamamoto + Muramatsu)
`
`12
`
`

`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01211
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`
`PROCEEDING
`
`’746 PATENT
`CLAIMS
`
`GROUNDS
`
`102(b) (McNeill)
`
`IPR 2016-1223
`
`1–25, 27–30,
`
`103 (McNeill + POSITA)
`
`33, 35
`
`103 (McNeill + Muramatsu)
`
`103 (McNeill + AAPA)
`
`
`
`Treating the Murata petitions as one petition for purposes of this
`
`discussion because of their overlapping nature, each ground of a given petition
`
`is horizontally redundant to the distinct and separate grounds of the other
`
`petitions. For example, the ground challenging all claims (other than claims
`
`32 and 33) based on Murata alone is redundant to 14 distinct grounds
`
`challenging the same claims based on using Kawaguchi, Aytac, Yamamoto,
`
`or McNeill as the base reference. The instant Petition provides no explanation
`
`as to the differences between any of the grounds applying the five base
`
`references (Murata, Kawaguchi, Aytac, Yamamoto, and McNeill) or between
`
`any of the base references and the grounds applying combinations of distinct
`
`references. Nowhere do Petitioners explain which base reference or which
`
`obviousness combination using any of the base references is better (or worse)
`
`in any respect than the others for any of the challenged claims. Contrary to the
`
`13
`
`

`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01211
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`Board’s mandate in Liberty Mutual, Petitioners rely on multiple references to
`
`provide essentially the same teaching to meet the same claim limitations.
`
`Moreover, Petitioners’ associated arguments do not explain why one
`
`reference more closely satisfies the claim limitation at issue than another
`
`reference, and vice versa.
`
`
`
`Petitioners should not be permitted to evade the prohibition against
`
`unjustified horizontally re