UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________
`
`JVC KENWOOD CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO. KG,
`Patent Owner.
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2016-01213
`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
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`CASE IPR2016-01213 FOR
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`Page
`
`I. 
`II. 
`
`B. 
`
`2. 
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 
`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 .............................................................. 7 
`Horizontal Redundancies Across Related Petitions
`1. 
`Merit Their Denial ...................................................................... 9 
`Vertical Redundancies Within This Petition Also
`Merit Its Denial ......................................................................... 14 
`III.  The ’746 Patent And Claim Construction ..................................................... 16 
`A.  Overview Of The ’746 Patent ............................................................. 16 
`B. 
`Level Of Ordinary Skill In The Art ..................................................... 18 
`C. 
`Response To Petitioners’ Proposed Claim Constructions .................. 18 
`IV.  Petitioners Did Not Meet Their Burden To Show A Reasonable
`Likelihood Of Success On Their Grounds Of Invalidity .............................. 18 
`A. 
`Legal Standards ................................................................................... 19 
`B. 
`Petitioners Fail To Demonstrate The Challenged Claims
`Are Anticipated Based On Yamamoto ................................................ 23 
`Yamamoto Fails To Disclose Several Limitations
`1. 
`Of The Independent Claims ...................................................... 23 
`(i)  Yamamoto Does Not Disclose The ’746
`Patent’s File Transfer Limitations .................................. 25 
`(ii)  Yamamoto Does Not Disclose Processed
`And Digitized Analog Data That Is “Stored
`In A File System Of The Data Storage
`
`i
`
`

`
`2. 
`
`CASE IPR2016-01213 FOR
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`Memory As At Least One File Of Digitized
`Analog Data” As Required By Claim 1 ......................... 29 
`“Anticipation”
`Ground
`(iii)  Petitioners’
`Improperly Relies Upon Information Outside
`Yamamoto Without Establishing Inherency .................. 30 
`Yamamoto Also Fails To Disclose The Limitations
`Of At Least Dependent Claims 17–18 ...................................... 33 
`Claim 17: Petitioners Fail To Support The
`(i) 
`Conclusion That SCSI Drivers Are
`Configured On The Computer Without
`Requiring Any End User To Load Any
`Software Onto The Computer At Any Time,
`And Without Requiring Any End User To
`Interact With The Computer To Set Up A File
`System In The Analog Data Acquisition
`Device At Any Time ....................................................... 33 
`(ii)  Claim 18: Petitioners Improperly Rely On
`Material Outside Of Yamamoto For The
`Anticipation Ground ....................................................... 35 
`Petitioners Fail To Demonstrate That The Challenged
`Claims Are Obvious ............................................................................ 36 
`Petitioners’ Alternative Obviousness Ground 2
`1. 
`Based On Yamamoto In View Of The SCSI
`Specification And Yamamoto2 Is Inadequately
`Disclosed ................................................................................... 36 
`Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 38 
`
`C. 
`
`
`
`
`V. 
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`CASE IPR2016-01213 FOR
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`Cases
`Activevideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................ 20
`Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc.,
`2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 14652 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 10, 2016) .................................... 28
`Bettcher Indus., Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc.,
`661 F.3d 629 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ....................................................................... 31, 34
`Canon, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures, LLC,
`IPR2014-00535, Paper 9 (PTAB Sept. 24, 2014) ................................................ 12
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. C-Cation Techs.,
`LLC, IPR2014-00454, Paper 12 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2014) ........................ 20, 21, 22
`Cont’l Can Co., U.S.A. v. Monsanto Co.,
`948 F.2d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ............................................................................ 31
`Dell, Inc. v. Elecs & Telecommc’ns Res. Inst.,
`IPR2014-00152, Paper 12 (PTAB May 16, 2014) ............................................... 22
`Dominion Dealer Sols., LLC v. Autoalert, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00223, Paper 9 (PTAB Aug. 15, 2013) ................................................ 23
`EMC Corp. v. PersonalWeb Techs., LLC,
`IPR2013-00087, Paper 25 (PTAB June 5, 2013) ................................................... 8
`Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys., Inc.,
`773 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................ 19
`FLIR Sys., Inc. v. Leak Surveys, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00411, Paper 9 (PTAB Sept. 5, 2014) ........................................... 31, 32
`Garmin Int’l, Inc. v. Cuozzo Techs. LLC,
`IPR2012-00001, Paper 15 (PTAB Jan. 9, 2013) ........................................... 19, 30
`Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ................................................................................ 5, 19, 22, 36
`Idle Free Sys., Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc.,
`IPR2012-00027, Paper 26 (PTAB June 11, 2013) ................................................. 7
`In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule
`Patent Litig.,
`676 F.3d 1063 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................ 22
`
`iii
`
`

`
`
`
`CASE IPR2016-01213 FOR
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`
`
`In re Fritch,
`972 F.2d 1260 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ............................................................................ 38
`In re Montgomery,
`677 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................ 31
`In re NTP, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................ 22
`In re Robertson,
`169 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .............................................................................. 31
`Intri-Plex Techs., Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics
`Rencol Ltd.,
`IPR2014-00309, Paper 83 (PTAB Mar. 23, 2014) ......................................... 20, 22
`K/S HIMPP v. Hear-Wear Technologies, LLC,
`751 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ..................................................................... 28, 34
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ...................................................................................... 19, 20
`Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co.,
`CBM2012-00003, Paper 7 (PTAB Oct. 25, 2012) ....................................... passim
`Medtronic, Inc. v. Robert Bosch Healthcare Systems, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00436, Paper 17 (PTAB June 19, 2014) ............................................... 21
`SAS Inst. Inc. v. Complementsoft, LLC,
`IPR2013-00581, Paper 15 (PTAB Dec. 30, 2013) ............................................... 13
`SAS Inst. Inc. v. Complementsoft, LLC,
`IPR2013-00581, Paper 17 (PTAB Feb. 24, 2014) ............................................... 13
`Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,
`655 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................ 22
`Travelocity.com L.P. et al. v. Cronos Technologies, LLC,
`CBM2014-00082, Paper 12 ( PTAB Oct. 16, 2014) ....................................... 3, 38
`TRW Auto. US LLC v. Magna Elecs. Inc.,
`IPR2014-00258, Paper 16 (PTAB June 26, 2014) .......................................... 7, 21
`Wowza Media Sys., LLC v. Adobe Sys., Inc.,
`IPR2013-00054, Paper 12 (PTAB Apr. 8, 2013) ............................................ 6, 27
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ........................................................................................... 14, 15, 32
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................... 15, 19, 31
`35 U.S.C. § 311 .......................................................................................................... 7
`35 U.S.C. § 312 .......................................................................................................... 4
`
`iv
`
`

`
`CASE IPR2016-01213 FOR
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 313 .......................................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. § 314 .......................................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. § 315 ........................................................................................................ 12
`35 U.S.C. § 325 ................................................................................................... 3, 13
`Other Authorities
`157 Cong. Rec. S1041–42 (daily ed. Mar 1, 2011) ................................................. 14
`MPEP § 1442.04 ...................................................................................................... 14
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 41.65 ................................................................................................ 6, 27
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1 ......................................................................................................... 9
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 .............................................................................................. 4, 36
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107 ..................................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108 .................................................................................................1, 7
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22 ....................................................................................................... 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24 ..................................................................................................... 39
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6 ....................................................................................................... 39
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ....................................................................................................... 39
`77 Fed. Reg. 48756–66 (Aug. 14, 2012) ................................................................... 4
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`CASE IPR2016-01213 FOR
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`1405
`
`1406
`
`EXHIBIT NO. TITLE
`1400
`U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746 to Tasler
`1401
`U.S. Patent No. 6,088,532 (Yamamoto)
`1402
`Selected portions of ’746 patent file history
`1403
`Declaration of Paul F. Reynolds, Ph.D.
`Papst’s Opening Claim Construction Brief: Misc.
`1404
`Action No. 07-493 (RMC); Dkt. 640, MDL No. 1880
`American National Standards
`Institute, “ANSI
`X3.131-1994 - Small Computer System Interface-2,”
`(1994)
`American National Standards Institute, Procedures for
`the Development and Coordination of American
`National Standards, Approved by the ANSI Board of
`Directors (Sept. 9, 1993)
`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)
`Federal Circuit decision, In re: Papst Licensing Digital
`Cameras Patent Litigation, No. 2014-1110 (Fed. Cir.
`Feb. 2, 2015)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,758,081 to Aytac (“Aytac”)
`JP H4-15853 to Kawaguchi (“Kawaguchi”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,508,821 to Murata (“Murata”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,499,378 to McNeill, Jr. et al.
`(“McNeill”)
`Excerpt from the File History of the ’443 Application:
`March 25, 2011 – Notice Under MPEP § 1442.04
`
`1407
`1408
`1409
`
`1410
`
`2001
`2002
`2003
`2004
`
`2005
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`
`
`CASE IPR2016-01213 FOR
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`Patent Owner Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG (“Papst”) submits this
`
`Preliminary Response in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 313 and 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.107, responding to the Petition for Inter Partes Review (“Petition”) filed
`
`by the Petitioners regarding claims of United States Patent No. 8,504,746
`
`(“the ’746 patent”). Papst requests that the Board not institute inter partes
`
`review for several reasons.
`
`
`
`The Board has discretion to “deny some or all grounds for
`
`unpatentability for some or all of the challenged claims.” 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.108(b) see 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Petitioners bear the burden of
`
`demonstrating a reasonable likelihood that they would prevail in showing
`
`unpatentability on the grounds asserted in their Petition. 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.108(c).While it is not required to file a preliminary response (37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.107(a)), Papst takes this limited opportunity to explain the reasons the
`
`Board should not institute trial.
`
`First, the Board should reject the Petition because Petitioners fail to
`
`sufficiently identify and explain their precise invalidity legal theories and
`
`supporting evidence, in violation of the particularity required by the Board.
`
`Petitioners obscure whether the challenge based on the primary reference,
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,088,532 to Yamamoto (“Yamamoto”), is based on
`
`1
`
`

`
`CASE IPR2016-01213 FOR
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`
`anticipation (with or without inherency) or obviousness. The ambiguous
`
`nature of Petitioners’ theories permeates the redundant additional grounds,
`
`based on Yamamoto in combination with the secondary references. Never
`
`once conceding which claim limitations are missing from Yamamoto,
`
`Petitioners fail to clearly articulate any theory of obviousness premised on
`
`combining the teachings of Yamamoto with other sources. Their conclusory
`
`arguments consist mostly of broad assertions followed by unexplained
`
`citations.
`
`Second, the Board should reject the Petition because Petitioners
`
`propose vertically redundant grounds of invalidity without identifying how
`
`any one ground improves on any other, violating Board precedent requiring
`
`petitioners to identify differences in the proposed rejections. The proposed
`
`rejections are also horizontally redundant of grounds proposed in other inter
`
`partes review petitions filed by the identical set of Petitioners (who identify
`
`themselves collectively as Petitioners/real parties-in-interest in each asserted
`
`petition) against the ’746 patent.1 Petitioners’ six petitions against the ’746
`
`patent collectively assert various combinations of the same five prior art
`
`
`1 These same Petitioners have also filed seven petitions against a related
`
`patent, U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144.
`
`2
`
`

`
`CASE IPR2016-01213 FOR
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`
`references. Accordingly, the Board should exercise its discretion and deny the
`
`Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) and the redundancy principles established
`
`in Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co.,
`
`CBM2012-00003, Paper 7 (PTAB Oct. 25, 2012).
`
`Third, Petitioners fail to provide sufficient evidentiary support of their
`
`allegations that Yamamoto discloses every element of the claims by filling
`
`gaps in Yamamoto’s disclosure with unsupported and conclusory expert
`
`testimony.
`
`Fourth, Petitioners rarely separately set forth assertions of obviousness
`
`based on combining Yamamoto with teachings of the secondary references
`
`(only expressly regarding dependent claims 19 and 23). (Pet. at 63–64, 68–
`
`69.) 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. et al. v. Cronos Technologies, LLC, CBM2014-
`
`00082, Paper 12 at 10 (PTAB Oct. 16, 2014) (“nothing may be gleaned from
`
`the Patent Owner’s challenge or failure to challenge the grounds of
`
`3
`
`

`
`CASE IPR2016-01213 FOR
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`
`unpatentability for any particular reason”). However, the deficiencies
`
`addressed herein are dispositive, and preclude trial on any asserted ground.
`
`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). The Petition does not comply
`
`with these requirements in several respects.
`
`First, in addition to asserting grounds based on Yamamoto alone, the
`
`4
`
`

`
`CASE IPR2016-01213 FOR
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`
`Petition asserts grounds combining Yamamoto with the secondary references
`
`without clearly articulating a single difference between Yamamoto 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 Yamamoto, and a
`
`specific rationale for why Yamamoto would have been modified to
`
`incorporate the missing elements, Petitioners ambiguously assert a general
`
`assertion of obviousness against the independent claims as an alternative to
`
`anticipation. Ground 2 is raised in a section heading, but the corresponding
`
`section does not actually delineate any distinct obviousness ground or analysis
`
`of any individual claim elements and for any claim as a whole, other than for
`
`two elements of one independent claim. (Pet. at 26 (heading), 26–50
`
`(section).)
`
`Petitioners’ approach on obviousness leaves the Board and Papst to
`
`5
`
`

`
`CASE IPR2016-01213 FOR
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`
`guess which elements Petitioners contend are missing from Yamamoto, why
`
`allegedly anticipatory disclosures
`
`in Yamamoto would still require
`
`modification to arrive at the claims, where the elements are disclosed in the
`
`secondary references, what specific teachings are being combined, the
`
`rationale for why a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would make
`
`that combination, and other aspects of a proper obviousness analysis.
`
`Petitioners compound the above problems through misuse of their
`
`expert declaration (“Reynolds Declaration”). In several places, Petitioners
`
`provide support for an entire paragraph or more of argument with a cite to
`
`Yamamoto and a parallel cite to the Reynolds Declaration. In most instances,
`
`however, the corresponding paragraph in the cited expert declaration is
`
`substantively (if not word-for-word) identical to the corresponding text of the
`
`Petition. (See Pet. at 37 (where the expert’s statement “In my opinion” is
`
`apparently copied from the Reynolds Declaration) and 41–42 (showing
`
`paragraph numbers apparently copied with the text from the Reynolds
`
`Declaration).) Repeating arguments from their 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.
`
`§ 41.65(a); Wowza Media Sys., LLC v. Adobe Sys., Inc., IPR2013-00054,
`
`Paper 12 at 11 (PTAB Apr. 8, 2013); TRW Auto. US LLC v. Magna Elecs.
`
`6
`
`

`
`CASE IPR2016-01213 FOR
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`
`Inc., IPR2014-00258, Paper 16 at 15 (PTAB June 26, 2014). In other
`
`instances, Petitioners only cite to the Reynolds Declaration rather than to the
`
`asserted prior art. But a ground in an inter partes review may only be based
`
`on “prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” 35 U.S.C. § 311.
`
`Because Petitioners fail to adequately identify the specific invalidity
`
`theories, supporting evidence, and rationale relied upon to challenge specific
`
`claim elements, their 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 it raises grounds that
`
`are redundant both internally and in view of grounds in related petitions.
`
`“[M]ultiple grounds, which are presented in a redundant manner by a
`
`petitioner who makes no meaningful distinction between them, are contrary
`
`to the regulatory and statutory mandates, and therefore are not all entitled to
`
`consideration.” Liberty Mut., CBM2012-00003, Paper 7 at 2. Such
`
`redundancies place a significant burden on both the Board and the patent
`
`owner, causing unnecessary delay and compromising the ability to complete
`
`review within the statutory deadline. Id.; see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. Eliminating
`
`redundant grounds streamlines and converges the issues. Idle Free Sys., Inc.
`
`v. Bergstrom, Inc., IPR2012-00027, Paper 26 at 4–5 (PTAB June 11, 2013).
`
`7
`
`

`
`CASE IPR2016-01213 FOR
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`
`A redundancy analysis properly focuses on whether the petitioner articulated
`
`a meaningful distinction of the relative strengths and weaknesses of its
`
`application of the prior art to one or more claim limitations. EMC Corp. v.
`
`PersonalWeb Techs., LLC, IPR2013-00087, Paper 25 at 3–4 (PTAB June 5,
`
`2013).
`
`Here, the same Petitioners2 have collectively raised at least 20 grounds
`
`of unpatentability against overlapping challenged claims in six related
`
`
`2 Petitioners refer to themselves in each petition as Petitioners and “real
`
`parties-in-interest: Canon, Inc.; Canon USA, Inc.; Canon Financial Services,
`
`Inc.; Fujifilm Corporation; [FUJIFILM Holdings America Corporation;]
`
`Fujifilm North America Corporation; JVC KENWOOD Corporation;
`
`JVCKENWOOD USA Corporation; Nikon Corporation; Nikon Inc.;
`
`Olympus Corporation; Olympus America Inc.; Panasonic Corporation;
`
`Panasonic Corporation of North America; Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; and
`
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc.” (See, e.g., Pet. at 9–10.) The instant
`
`Petition appears to inadvertently omit FUJIFILM Holdings America
`
`Corporation from its list of real-parties-in-interest. However, FUJIFILM
`
`Holdings America Corporation appears in the Power of Attorney (IPR2016-
`
`1213, Paper 2), as well as the other petitions. (See, e.g., IPR2012-1202 at 10.)
`
`8
`
`

`
`CASE IPR2016-01213 FOR
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`
`petitions resulting in a total of 120 grounds.3 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 proposed grounds apply “a plurality
`
`of prior art references . . . not in combination to complement each other but as
`
`distinct and separate alternatives.” Liberty Mut., CBM2012-00003, Paper 7 at
`
`3. The references “provide essentially the same teaching to meet the same claim
`
`limitation, and the associated arguments do not explain why one reference more
`
`closely satisfies the claim limitation at issue in some respects than another
`
`reference, and vice versa.” Id.(emphasis in original).
`
`Petitioners’ grounds, filed serially across these six petitions are:
`
`PROCEEDING
`
`’746 PATENT CLAIMS
`
`GROUNDS
`
`IPR2016-1200
`
`1, 6, 15, 17–18, 31,
`
`103 (Aytac + SCSI
`
`34
`
`Specification)
`
`
`3 In reality, the number of grounds raised is multitudes larger than this when
`
`you take into account the number of possible combinations raised in
`
`Petitioners’ vague approach to their obviousness grounds in the 13 petitions
`
`against the two patents.
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`
`PROCEEDING
`
`’746 PATENT CLAIMS
`
`IPR2016-1206 1–31, 34–35
`
`
`
`CASE IPR2016-01213 FOR
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`GROUNDS
`102(b) (Murata)
`
`103 (Murata + “Admitted Art” +
`
`“Basic References”)
`
`103 (Murata + Huot)
`
`103 (Murata + Takahashi +
`
`Huot)
`
`103 (Murata + Takahashi)
`
`103 (Murata + Muramatsu)
`
`102(b) (Murata)
`
`IPR2016-1224 1, 19–21, 24, 26–28
`
`103 (Murata + “Admitted Art” +
`
`“Basic References”)
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`
`PROCEEDING
`
`’746 PATENT CLAIMS
`
`
`
`CASE IPR2016-01213 FOR
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`GROUNDS
`102(b) (Kawaguchi)
`
`103 (Kawaguchi + Matsumoto)
`
`103 (Kawaguchi + Matsumoto +
`
`Takahashi)
`
`IPR2016-1211
`
`1–12, 14–15, 17–21,
`
`103 (Kawaguchi + Matsumoto +
`
`23–31, 34–35
`
`DASM-AD14)
`
`103 (Kawaguchi + Matsumoto +
`
`Saito)
`
`103 (Kawaguchi + Matsumoto +
`
`Saito + Muramatsu)
`
`102(e) (Yamamoto)
`
`103 (Yamamoto + SCSI
`
`Specification + Yamamoto
`
`2)
`
`103 (Yamamoto + Muramatsu)
`
`102(b) (McNeill)
`
`103 (McNeill + POSITA)
`
`103 (McNeill + Muramatsu)
`
`103 (McNeill + AAPA)
`
`IPR2016-1213
`
`1–3, 6–10, 15, 17–21,
`
`25, 29, 31, 34
`
`IPR2016-1223 1–25, 27–30, 33, 35
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE IPR2016-01213 FOR
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`Each ground of a given petition is horizontally redundant to the distinct
`
`and separate grounds of the other petitions. For example, the ground
`
`challenging claims based on Yamamoto alone (IPR2016-1213) is redundant
`
`to at least 17 distinct grounds challenging overlapping claims based on using
`
`Kawaguchi, Aytac, Murata, or McNeill as the base reference. The instant
`
`Petition provides no explanation as to the differences between any of 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.
`
`Moreover, contrary to the Board’s mandate in Liberty Mutual,
`
`Petitioners rely on multiple references to provide essentially the same
`
`teaching to meet the same claim limitations, and their associated arguments
`
`do not explain why one reference more closely satisfies the claim limitation
`
`at issue than another reference, and vice versa. The Board has broad discretion
`
`to manage inter partes proceedings, including rejecting a duplicative petition.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(d); see, e.g., Canon, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures, LLC,
`
`IPR2014-00535, Paper 9 at 19–20 (PTAB Sept. 24, 2014) (denying review on
`
`12
`
`

`
`CASE IPR2016-01213 FOR
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`
`certain proposed grounds based upon duplicative nature of arguments across
`
`petitions); SAS Inst. Inc. v. Complementsoft, LLC, IPR2013-00581, Paper 15
`
`(PTAB Dec. 30, 2013) (denying four grounds as substantially similar to
`
`grounds based on other prior art and arguments in another inter partes
`
`review), reh’g denied, Paper 17 (PTAB Feb. 24, 2014) (rejecting argument
`
`that page limit requirements prevented petitioner from advancing its most
`
`salient grounds in one petition). Here, Petitioners’ grounds collectively
`
`involve the same five prior art base references, and the teachings relied on
`
`from each reference are substantially the same in each combination in which
`
`the reference is used. For instance, each of the grounds in every petition relies
`
`at least in part on references disclosing computer connections using a SCSI
`
`interface. (See, e.g., Ex. 1401 at 23:8–13 of Yamamoto; Ex. 2001 at FIG. 1 of
`
`Aytac; Ex. 2002 at FIG. 1 of Kawaguchi; Ex. 2003 at FIGS. 1, 3 of Murata;
`
`Ex. 2004 at FIGS. 1–3 of McNeill.)
`
`Related to this, the Board has discretion to reject a petition when “the
`
`same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were
`
`presented to the Office.” 35 U.S.C. § 325(d); see SAS Inst., IPR2013-00581,
`
`Paper 15. This provision helps avoid serial challenges and the resulting burden
`
`on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) in managing multiple
`
`13
`
`

`
`CASE IPR2016-01213 FOR
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`
`proceedings involving the same patent. 157 Cong. Rec. S1041–42 (daily ed.
`
`Mar. 1, 2011 (statement of Sen. Kyl).
`
`In this case, the applicant brought Yamamoto to the Examiner’s
`
`attention as part of a MPEP § 1442.04 Notice, in which Yamamoto was
`
`included in the litigants’ Final Invalidity Contentions on a related parent
`
`application. (Ex. 2005, March 25, 2011 Notice.) In those Final Invalidity
`
`Contentions, Yamamoto was identified as § 102(b) prior art. The claims of
`
`the ’746 patent were allowed over Yamamoto, which was of record and
`
`addressed in the Notice in the form of the litigant’s detailed Final Invalidity
`
`Contentions.
`
`Neither the Board nor Papst should be burdened by handling
`
`Petitioners’ duplicative proceedings involving a common set of prior art
`
`references and common declarant testimony. Accordingly, the Board should
`
`exercise its discretion to deny the Petition for these additional reasons.
`
`2.
`
`Vertical Redundancies Within This Petition Also Merit
`Its Denial
`
`Vertical redundancy “exists when there is assertion of an additional prior
`
`art reference to support another ground of unpatentability when a base ground
`
`already has been asserted against the same claim without the additional
`
`reference and the Petitioner has not explained what are the relative strength and
`
`weakness of each ground.” Liberty Mut., CBM2012-00003, Paper 7 at 12. An
`
`14
`
`

`
`CASE IPR2016-01213 FOR
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`
`example is when a proposed ground is based on one reference alone while
`
`another proposed ground against the same claim is based on that same reference
`
`plus another reference.
`
`The instant Petition includes vertically redundant grounds directed to
`
`overlapping groups of claims without any explanation or rationale as to the
`
`potential deficiency of one ground relative to another. Petitioners first advance
`
`a purported § 102(e) invalidity theory using solely Yamamoto; Petitioners
`
`then argue § 103 invalidity theories using Yamamoto in combination with
`
`other references. Each of these grounds is directed to an overlapping set of
`
`claims and limitations: Ground 1—Yamamoto anticipates claims 1–3, 6–10,
`
`15, 17–21, 25, 31 and 34; and Ground 2—Yamamoto in view of the SCSI
`
`Specification and/or Yamamoto2 render obvious the identical claim set.4 (Pet.
`
`at 5, 7.)
`
`Petitioners’ base ground is Yamamoto. Petitioners fail to provide a
`
`bidirectional analysis of perceived strengths or weaknesses in this ground
`
`relative to the redundant grounds. For instance, Petitioners fail to articulate a
`
`
`4 Petitioners’ vague references to limitations as “implicit,” “inheren