IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In the Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
`
`Trial No.: Not Yet Assigned
`
`Issued:
`
`August 6, 2013
`
`Filed:
`
`September 27, 2010
`
`Inventor: Michael Tasler
`
`Assignee: Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG
`
`ANALOG DATA GENERATING AND PROCESSING DEVICE
`Title:
`FOR USE WITH A PERSONAL COMPUTER
`
`
`
`MAIL STOP PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.100
`
`
`
` DB2/ 30328135.17
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`II. Grounds for Standing Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) .............................. 2
`
`III. Background Information for the ’746 Patent .................................................. 2
`
`A. Overview of the ’746 Patent Family and Prosecution History ............ 2
`
`IV.
`
`Identification of Challenge Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ..................... 5
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`
`A.
`
`C.
`
`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
`
`D.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5): Supporting Evidence ................................. 9
`
`V. Mandatory Notices Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1) ................................. 9
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1): Real Parties-In-Interest....................................... 9
`
`C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) and (4): Lead and Back-up Counsel and
`Service Information ............................................................................ 13
`
`VI. Detailed Grounds for Unpatentability .......................................................... 20
`
`A. Overview of Yamamoto ..................................................................... 20
`
`B. Grounds 1 and 2: independent Claims 1, 31, 34 are anticipated
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) by Yamamoto. Alternatively, the
`claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Yamamoto in
`view of the SCSI Specification andYamamoto2. ............................... 25
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`The preamble of claim 1 .......................................................... 31
`
`The preambles of claims 31 and 34 ......................................... 35
`
`A program memory of claim 1................................................. 35
`
`An analog signal acquisition channel of claim 1 ..................... 36
`
`A processor operative interfaced (claims 1, 31 and 34) .......... 37
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`A processor that is configured and programmed to
`implement a data generation process (claims 1, 31 and
`34) ............................................................................................ 39
`
`A processor that automatically causes at least one
`parameter indicative of the class of devices to be sent to a
`computer (claims 1, 31 and 34)................................................ 42
`
`A processor that is further configured and programmed to
`execute a file transfer process (claims 1, 31 and 34) ............... 45
`
`C. Grounds 1 and 2: Dependent Claims 2, 3, 6-10, 15, 17-21, 25,
`29, and 35 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) by
`Yamamoto, or in the Alternative, the claims are obvious under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Yamamoto in view of the SCSI
`Specification and/or Yamamoto2. ...................................................... 50
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Dependent claim 2 ................................................................... 50
`
`Dependent Claim 3................................................................... 50
`
`Dependent Claim 6................................................................... 51
`
`Dependent Claims 7 and 8 ....................................................... 51
`
`Dependent Claim 9................................................................... 52
`
`Dependent Claim 10 ................................................................ 53
`
`Dependent Claim 15 ................................................................ 54
`
`Dependent Claim 17 ................................................................ 54
`
`Dependent Claim 18 ................................................................ 58
`
`10. Dependent Claim 19 ................................................................ 59
`
`(a)
`
`File Allocation Table Information ................................. 59
`
`(b) Virtual Boot Sequence and Start Location of File
`Allocation Table ............................................................ 62
`
`(c)
`
`In the alternative, if this element is not found in
`Yamamoto, it would have obvious over Yamamoto
`in view of Yamamoto2 .................................................. 63
`
`11. Dependent Claim 21 ................................................................ 65
`
`
`DB2/ 30328135.17
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`12. Dependent Claims 24 and 25 ................................................... 66
`
`13. Dependent Claim 35 ................................................................ 67
`
`D. Ground 3: Dependent Claim 23 is Obvious over Yamamoto in
`view of U.S. Patent No. 5,592,256 to Muramatsu ............................. 68
`
`II.
`
`Conclusion .................................................................................................... 70
`
`
`DB2/ 30328135.17
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Exhibit No. Title
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`1400
`
`1401
`
`1402
`
`1403
`
`1404
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746 to Tasler
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,088,532 (Yamamoto)
`
`Selected portions of ’746 patent file history
`
`Declaration of Paul F. Reynolds, Ph.D.
`
`Papst’s Opening Claim Construction Brief: Misc. Action No. 07-493
`
`(RMC); Dkt. 640, MDL No. 1880
`
`1405
`
`American National Standards Institute, “ANSI X3.131-1994 - Small
`
`Computer System Interface-2,” (1994)
`
`1406
`
`American National Standards Institute, Procedures for the
`
`Development and Coordination of American National Standards,
`
`Approved by the ANSI Board of Directors (Sept. 9, 1993)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,256,452 (Yamamoto2)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,592,256 (Muramatsu)
`
`Ray Duncan, ed., “The MS-DOS Encyclopedia,” Microsoft Press
`
`(1988)
`
`1407
`
`1408
`
`1409
`
`1410
`
`Federal Circuit decision, In re: Papst Licensing Digital Cameras
`
`Patent Litigation, No. 2014-1110 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 2, 2015)
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioners1 respectfully request inter partes review of claims 1-3, 6-10, 15,
`
`17-21, 24, 25, 29, 31, and 34 (“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
`
`(the “’746 Patent”) (Ex. 1400).
`
`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. 1400, 1:35-38; 7:17-26. For example, the ’746 patent describes
`
`connection of a diagnostic radiology system to a field service technician’s laptop for
`
`troubleshooting using an interface device as an intermediary.
`
`The ’746 Patent is part of a chain of applications dating back to 1997, which
`
`were acquired in 2006 by Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG (“Papst” or the “Patent
`
`Owner”), a German patent licensing company. Papst has filed multiple patent
`
`infringement suits based on this patent family against Petitioners, and during the past
`
`decade in which those patent suits have been pending, Papst has continued to
`
`serially file continuation applications in an attempt to broaden the claims of its
`
`
` Petitioners for this Inter Partes Review Petition comprise the real parties in
`
` 1
`
`interest identified in section V.A.
`
`
`
`
` DB2/ 30328135.17
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`patents and capture Petitioner’s accused products.
`
`But the patent family to which the ’746 Patent belongs does not cover the
`
`technology that Papst has accused of infringement. Thus, Papst presented claims to
`
`the Patent Office through Application No. 12/891,443 (“the ’443 application”), from
`
`which the `746 Patent issued, that are broad in scope, go beyond what is disclosed in
`
`its specification and read directly on the prior art.
`
`Based on the presented grounds, the Board should institute Inter Partes
`
`Review of the ’746 patent and cancel 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 THE ’746 PATENT
`
`A. Overview of the ’746 Patent Family and Prosecution History
`
`The ’443 application was filed on September 27, 2010, and issued almost
`
`three years later on August 6, 2013 as the ’746 patent. 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. 1400, 1:20-24. The written description states that, while
`
`
`(
`DB2/ 30328135.17
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`interface devices were known at the time of the invention, existing devices had
`
`limitations, including disadvantageous sacrifices of data-transfer speed or a lack of
`
`flexibility as to the computers and data devices with which they were compatible.
`
`Id. at 1:28-2:21. The ’746 patent purports to describe an interface device to
`
`overcome these limitations.
`
`Normally, when a computer detects that a new device has been connected to
`
`one of its input-output (i/o) ports: the host asks the new device what type of device it
`
`is; the connected device responds; the host determines whether it already possesses
`
`drivers for the identified type of device; and if it does not, an appropriate driver must
`
`be installed on the host and loaded into memory before proceeding. In the ’746
`
`patent family, when the interface device is connected between a data
`
`transmit/receive device and a host, the interface device responds to the host’s request
`
`for identification by stating that it is a type of device, such as a hard drive, for which
`
`the computer already has a driver. By purposefully mis-identifying itself to the host
`
`as to the type of device the host is communicating with, the interface device induces
`
`the host to treat it like a device already familiar to the host. Thereafter, when the
`
`host communicates with the interface device to request data from or control the
`
`operation of the data device, the host uses its customary device driver. Ex. 1400,
`
`3:28-4:38.
`
`
`(
`DB2/ 30328135.17
`
`
`
`-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. 1400, 4:59-5:7.
`
`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, which stated: “The reasons for allowance of
`
`claims 2, 32, 33 and 35 . . . in the instant application is that the examiner finds
`
`applicant’s arguments filed on 05/28/2013 are persuasive and that the combination
`
`of all the claimed limitations is neither anticipate[d] or render[ed] obvious by the
`
`prior art of record.” Ex. 1402, at 7. Thus, it is difficult to ascertain exactly which
`
`
`(
`DB2/ 30328135.17
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`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 1-3, 6-10, 15, 17-21, 25, 29, 31,
`
`and 34 (“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746 (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 earliest claimed priority date for the ’746 Patent is March 4, 1997, the
`
`filing date of its German application. Ex. 1400. Inter partes review is requested in
`
`view of the below references and the prior art discussed in the ’746 patent
`
`(“Admitted Art”):
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,088,532 to Yamamoto (“Yamamoto”) (Exhibit 1401).
`
`Yamamoto discloses a still video camera that stores digitized images on a
`
`hard disk drive, and connects with an external computer through a SCSI
`
`interface to permit the computer to access the data images on the hard
`
`drive. Yamamoto was filed on Dec. 29, 1995, and issued on July 11,
`
`2000, and is prior art to the ’746 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
` American National Standard for Information Systems, Small Computer
`
`System Interface-2, ANSI X3.131-1994 (1994) (“SCSI Specification”).
`
`
`(
`DB2/ 30328135.17
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`The SCSI Specification was published by the American National
`
`Standards Institute in 1994, more than one year before the earliest claimed
`
`priority date of the ’746 Patent. Ex. 1405, at 3; Ex. 1400, at 17-18
`
`(detailing ANSI publication requirements met by the SCSI Specification).
`
`
`
`Accordingly, the SCSI Specification was reasonably accessible to those of
`
`ordinary skill in the art before the earliest claimed priority of the ’746
`
`Patent, and therefore qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. §102(b).
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,256,452 to Yamamoto (“Yamamoto2”) (Exhibit 1408).
`
`Yamamoto2 discloses an electronic camera that stores digitized images on
`
`a hard disk drive and connects with an external computer to permit the
`
`computer to access the data images on the hard drive. Yamamoto2 is a
`
`continuation of an application filed on February 8, 1995, and it issued on
`
`July 3, 2002. It is prior art to the ’746 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`
`(
`DB2/ 30328135.17
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,592,256 to Muramatsu (“Muramatsu”) (Exhibit 1408).
`
`Muramatsu discloses a camera photometric device that implements a fast
`
`Fourier transform during an analog data generation process. Muramatsu is
`
`a continuation of an application filed on May 20, 1994, more than one year
`
`before the earliest claimed priority date for the ’746 patent, and is prior art
`
`to the `746 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Petitioners ask that the Board find all Challenged Claims unpatentable under
`
`both: §102(e) as anticipated by Yamamoto (“Ground 1”), and (2) §103 as obvious
`
`over Yamamoto in view of the SCSI Specification and Yamamoto2 (“Ground 2”).
`
`
`A.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3): Claim Construction
`
`A claim subject to inter partes review shall be given by the Patent Office “its
`
`broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it
`
`appears” to one of ordinary skill in the art. 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.100(b) and
`
`42.103(b)(3); In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 778 F.3d 1271, 1281 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2015). Petitioner expressly reserves its right to advance different constructions in
`
`district court litigation, which employs a different claim construction standard.
`
`For purposes of this proceeding only, Petitioners propose adopting, as the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim terms, the following claim
`
`constructions proposed by Papst in related litigation in the District of Columbia
`
`(Misc. Action No. 07-493 (RMC), MDL No. 1880) (Ex.1009):
`
`
`(
`DB2/ 30328135.17
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`Claim Term
`
`Adopted BRI
`
`“without requiring any end user to
`
`“without requiring the end user to
`
`load any software onto the
`
`install or load specific drivers or
`
`computer at any time”
`
`software for the [ADGPD/analog data
`
`
`
`acquisition device/analog data
`
`“without requiring any user-loaded
`
`acquisition and interface device]
`
`file transfer enabling software to
`
`beyond that included in the operating
`
`be loaded on or installed in the
`
`system or BIOS”
`
`[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”
`
`“any kind of microprocessor,
`
`including a digital signal processor”
`
`
`
`
`(
`DB2/ 30328135.17
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`C.
`
`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 VI.
`
`D.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5): Supporting Evidence
`
`An Appendix of Exhibits supporting this Petition is attached. Included at
`
`Exhibit 1403 is a Declaration of Dr. Paul F. Reynolds (“Ex. 1403,”) 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.
`
`V. MANDATORY NOTICES PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1)
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1), the mandatory notices identified in 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.8(b) are provided below as part of this Petition.
`
`A.
`
`C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1): Real Parties-In-Interest
`
`Petitioners identify the following real parties-in-interest: Canon, Inc.; Canon
`
`USA, Inc.; Canon Financial Services, Inc.; Fujifilm Corporation; Fujifilm 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.
`
`
`(
`DB2/ 30328135.17
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`In addition, out of an abundance of caution, Petitioners bring to the Board’s
`
`attention Hanwha Techwin Co. Ltd. (f/k/a Samsung Techwin Co., Ltd.); Samsung
`
`Opto-Electronics America, Inc.; Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd.; Sanyo North America
`
`Corp.; and HP Inc. (f/k/a/ Hewlett-Packard Company), who are co-defendants with
`
`some of the Petitioners in the pending multi-district litigation identified below but
`
`are not real parties-in-interest to this proceeding. None of these parties financed or
`
`controlled this petition (or had the opportunity to exercise control over this petition)
`
`or otherwise meets the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2). C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2):
`
`Related Matters
`
`The ’746 patent is currently the subject of patent infringement lawsuits
`
`brought by the assignee of the ’746 patent, Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG, and
`
`declaratory judgment actions initiated by accused infringers. See:
`
`Case Name
`
`Case No.
`
`Court
`
`Filed
`
`
`
`
`
`In re: Papst Licensing Digital Camera
`
`1:07-mc-00493 D.D.C.
`
`Nov. 16, 2007
`
`Patent Litigation – MDL No. 1880
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`3:16-cv-00575 N.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2016
`
`HP Inc.
`
`
`(
`DB2/ 30328135.17
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`6:15-cv-01095 E.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2015
`
`Apple Inc.
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`6:15-cv-01099 E.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2015
`
`LG Electronics, Inc. et al
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`6:15-cv-01100 E.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2015
`
`ZTE Corporation et al
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`6:15-cv-01102 E.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2015
`
`Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`6:15-cv-01111 E.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2015
`
`Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`1:15-cv-01692 D.D.C.
`
`Oct. 15, 2015
`
`Canon Inc. et al
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`1:15-cv-01693 D.D.C.
`
`Oct. 15, 2015
`
`FUJIFILM Corporation et al
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`1:15-cv-01747 D.D.C.
`
`Oct. 15, 2015
`
`JVCKENWOOD Corporation et al
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`1:15-cv-01748 D.D.C.
`
`Oct. 15, 2015
`
`Nikon Corporation et al
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`1:15-cv-01749 D.D.C.
`
`Oct. 15, 2015
`
`
`(
`DB2/ 30328135.17
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`Olympus Corporation et al
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`1:15-cv-01750 D.D.C.
`
`Oct. 15, 2015
`
`Panasonic Corporation et al
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`1:15-cv-00495 D. Del.
`
`June 15, 2015
`
`Canon Inc. et al
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`1:15-cv-00496 D. Del.
`
`June 15, 2015
`
`FUJIFILM Corporation et al
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`1:15-cv-00497 D. Del.
`
`June 15, 2015
`
`HP Inc.
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`1:15-cv-00498 D. Del.
`
`June 15, 2015
`
`JVCKENWOOD Corporation et al
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`1:15-cv-00499 D. Del.
`
`June 15, 2015
`
`Nikon Corporation et al
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`1:15-cv-00500 D. Del.
`
`June 15, 2015
`
`Olympus Corporation et al
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`1:15-cv-00501 D. Del.
`
`June 15, 2015
`
`Panasonic Corporation et al
`
`Hewlett-Packard Company v. Papst
`
`3:15-cv-02101 N.D. Cal. May 8, 2015
`
`Licensing GmbH & Co. KG
`
`
`
`
`(
`DB2/ 30328135.17
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`Additionally, Petitioners are also filing additional petitions for inter partes
`
`review of the ’746 patent, and for the following patent, which is related to the ’746
`
`patent: U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144.
`
`B.
`
`C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) and (4): Lead and Back-up Counsel and
`
`Service Information
`
`Petitioners provide the following designation of counsel:
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`
`Gregory S. Cordrey (Reg. No. 44,089)
`
`Rachel Capoccia (pro hac vice
`
`Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell, LLP
`
`application to be submitted)
`
`3 Park Plaza, Suite 1100
`
`Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell, LLP
`
`Irvine, CA 92614
`
`1900 Avenue of the Stars, 7th floor
`
`Email: gcordrey@jmbm.com
`
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`
`Telephone: 949-623-7200
`
`Email: rcapoccia@jmbm.com
`
`Facsimile: 949-623-7201
`
`Telephone: 310-203-8080
`
`Facsimile: 310-203-0567
`
`
`
`David L. Witcoff (Reg. No. 31,443)
`
`JONES DAY
`
`77 West Wacker
`
`Chicago, Illinois 60601-1692
`
`
`(
`DB2/ 30328135.17
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`Email: dlwitcoff@jonesday.com
`
`Telephone: 312- 269-4259
`
`Facsimile: 312- 782-8585
`
`
`
`Marc S. Blackman (Reg. No. 43,501)
`
`JONES DAY
`
`77 West Wacker
`
`Chicago, Illinois 60601-1692
`
`Email: msblackman@jonesday.com
`
`Telephone: 312- 269-4369
`
`Facsimile: 312-782-8585
`
`
`
`T. Vann Pearce, Jr.
`
`Reg. No. 58,945
`
`Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
`
`1152 15th Street, N.W.
`
`Washington, DC 20005-1706
`
`Telephone: (202) 339-8400
`
`Facsimile: (202) 339-8500
`
`
`(
`DB2/ 30328135.17
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`vpearce@orrick.com
`
`
`
`Christopher J. Higgins
`
`Reg. No. 66,422
`
`Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
`
`1152 15th Street, N.W.
`
`Washington, DC 20005-1706
`
`Telephone: (202) 339-8400
`
`Facsimile: (202) 339-8500
`
`chiggins@orrick.com
`
`
`
`David L. Witcoff (Reg. No. 31,443)
`
`JONES DAY
`
`77 West Wacker
`
`Chicago, Illinois 60601-1692
`
`Telephone: 312- 269-4259
`
`Facsimile: 312- 782-8585
`
`dlwitcoff@jonesday.com
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`
`(
`DB2/ 30328135.17
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`Marc S. Blackman (Reg. No. 43,501)
`
`JONES DAY
`
`77 West Wacker
`
`Chicago, Illinois 60601-1692
`
`Telephone: 312- 269-4369
`
`Facsimile: 312-782-8585
`
`msblackman@jonesday.com
`
`
`
`Dion Bregman (Reg. No. 45,645)
`
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`
`1400 Page Mill Rd.
`
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`
`Telephone: 650-843-4000
`
`Facsimile: 650-843-4001
`
`dion.bregman@morganlewis.com
`
`
`
`Andrew V. Devkar (pro hac vice
`
`application to be submitted)
`
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`
`
`(
`DB2/ 30328135.17
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`1601 Cloverfield Blvd., Suite 2050N
`
`Santa Monica, CA 90404-4082
`
`Telephone: 310-255-9070
`
`Facsimile: 310-907-2000
`
`andrew.devkar@morganlewis.com
`
`
`
`David M. Maiorana (Reg. No. 41,449)
`
`JONES DAY
`
`901 Lakeside Avenue
`
`Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1190
`
`Telephone: (216) 586-7499
`
`Fax: (216) 579-0212
`
`dmaiorana@jonesday.com
`
`
`
`F. Drexel Feeling (Reg. No. 40,602)
`
`JONES DAY
`
`901 Lakeside Avenue
`
`Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1190
`
`Telephone: (216) 586-7199
`
`
`(
`DB2/ 30328135.17
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`Fax: (216) 579-0212
`
`f.dfeeling@jonesday.com
`
`
`
`Matthew W. Johnson (Reg. No. 59,108)
`
`JONES DAY
`
`500 Grant Street, Suite 4500
`
`Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2514
`
`Telephone: (412) 394-9524
`
`Fax: (412) 394-7959
`
`mwjohnson@jonesday.com
`
`
`
`Brian C. Rupp (Reg. No. 35,665)
`
`DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
`
`191 N. Wacker Dr., Suite 3700
`
`Chicago, IL 60606
`
`Telephone: 312-569-1000
`
`Facsimile: 312-569-3000
`
`Brian.Rupp@dbr.com
`
`
`
`-18-
`
`
`
`
`(
`DB2/ 30328135.17
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`Carrie A. Beyer (Reg. No. 59,195)
`
`DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
`
`191 N. Wacker Dr., Suite 3700
`
`Chicago, IL 60606
`
`Telephone: 312-569-1000
`
`Facsimile: 312-569-3000
`
`Carrie.Beyer@dbr.com
`
`
`
`Nikola Colic (Reg. No. 62,412)
`
`DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
`
`1500 K Street, N.W. , Suite 1100
`
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`Telephone: 202-230-5115
`
`Facsimile: 202-842-8465
`
`Nick.Colic@dbr.com
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), Powers of Attorney accompany this
`
`Petition. Please address all correspondence to lead and back-up counsel at the
`
`address above. Petitioners consent to electronic service by email at:
`
`PapstPTABPetitioners@jonesday.com.
`
`
`
`
`(
`DB2/ 30328135.17
`
`
`
`-19-
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`VI. DETAILED GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY
`
`Petitioners submit that the challenged claims are anticipated under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(e) by Yamamoto. To the extent one or more limitations of the claims are
`
`deemed not anticipated by Yamamoto, the relevant disclosures—relating to basic
`
`fundamentals of a SCSI interface or MS-DOS file system— would have been
`
`obvious to one of skill in the art (“POSITA”)2 in light of the combination of
`
`Yamamoto with the SCSI Specification and/or Yamamoto2. Ex. 1403, ¶21.
`
`A. Overview of Yamamoto
`
`Yamamoto discloses an “image signal reading operation control device” that
`
`can be applied to a “still video camera” to electronically develop an image on a
`
`
`
` A POSITA at the relevant time (1996-1998) would have had at least a four-year
`
` 2
`
`degree from a reputable university 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. A POSITA would
`
`also be familiar with operating systems (e.g., DOS, Windows, Unix) and their
`
`associated file systems (e.g., FAT file system), and device drivers for computer
`
`components and peripherals (e.g., mass storage device drivers) and communication
`
`interfaces (e.g., SCSI and PCMCIA interfaces). See Ex. 1403, ¶40.
`
`
`(
`DB2/ 30328135.17
`
`
`
`-20-
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`recording medium, and then permit the image to be stored in memory or transferred
`
`to an external computer, via a SCSI bus. Ex. 1401, 1:7-10; 4:21-30; 7:43-48; 23:8-
`
`12. Yamamoto describes an analog data acquisition device, which is a camera that
`
`can be connected to an external computer through an “interface cable connected to
`
`the camera’s output terminal 17. See Ex. 1401, Fig. 1, shown below and 22:38. The
`
`camera also has a removable hard disk 71 that can be mounted or removed from an
`
`image recording device 67. Ex. 1401, 22:15-20 and Fig. 30. Ex. 1403, ¶42.
`
`The camera can operate in either of three modes depending on whether a
`
`computer is attached, whether the hard disk is mounted, and the position of a mode
`
`switch 19. Ex. 1401, Fig. 29. The modes are as follows: 1) normal camera mode if
`
`no computer is attached; 2) hard disk mode if the computer is attached, the hard disk
`
`is mounted and the mode switch 19 is hard disk mode position; and 3) scan mode
`
`otherwise (a computer is attached but either the hard disk is not mounted or the
`
`mode switch 19 is in scan mode position). Ex. 1401, 22-23. Ex. 1403, ¶43.
`
`
`(
`DB2/ 30328135.17
`
`
`
`
`
`-21-
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`
`
`Thus the camera can interact with the computer in either of two modes. First,
`
`in hard disk mode (aka “the first mode”) the camera stores image data on the hard
`
`disk and enables the computer to access the camera’s hard disk as if it were its own
`
`external hard disk. The camera can also store image data on the hard disk, if it is
`
`mounted, in normal camera mode, but the computer cannot access the images until it
`
`is attached. Second, in scan mode (“the second mode”), the computer sees the
`
`camera as a scanner. In scan mode the camera sends image data to the computer
`
`which appears to the computer to be it’s a scanner that can accept SCSI commands.
`
`Ex. 1403, ¶44.
`
`Yamamoto discloses that the interface between the camera and the computer
`
`may be a SCSI interface. Ex. 1401, 23:8-43). Furthermore, Yamamoto describes
`
`the computer’s use of the SCSI INQUIRY command to acquire identification
`
`information from the camera and a response from the camera. Ex. 1401, 22:8-14,
`
`22:33-36. When in scan mode, the camera sends a response from which “the
`
`computer recognizes that the camera is set to the scanner mode” (Ex. 1401, 23:8-14)
`
`and when in hard disk mode, the camera sends a response from which “the computer
`
`treats it as a hard disk.” (Ex. 1401, 2:30-40, 23:44-48). From this description a
`
`POSITA would know that the camera in the first instance responds with a code that
`
`indicates it is a “scanner device” and in the second that it is a “direct access” device.
`
`
`(
`DB2/ 30328135.17
`
`
`
`-22-
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`Ex. 1403, ¶45.
`
`In this embodiment, as illustrated in Yamamoto’s Fig. 30, shown here, the
`
`camera has multiple sensors including line sensors 44 which may be CCD sensors
`
`(Ex. 1401, 6:66-7:4), a processor, which may be a microprocessor, as part of the
`
`system control circuit 20. (Ex.1401, Fig. 2 and 6:7-10), several memories, a hard
`
`disk on which it may store image data, and an output terminal 17 through which can
`
`be connected to a computer. Ex. 1403, ¶46.
`
`
`
`As shown in Fig. 29, the Yamamoto camera includes an output terminal 17
`
`through which image data may be “outputted to an external computer (not shown) . .
`
`. .” Ex. 1401, 7:47. It also includes a mode switch 19, which permits the camera to
`
`be used either in scan mode, which transfers image data directly to the external
`
`
`(
`DB2/ 30328135.17
`
`
`
`-23-
`
`
`