throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 12
`
`
`
` Entered: December 15, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`CANON INC., CANON U.S.A., 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.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO. KG,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01214
`Patent 8,966,144 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before JONI Y. CHANG, JENNIFER S. BISK, and
`MIRIAM L. QUINN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-01214
`Patent 8,966,144 B2
`
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`Canon Inc., Canon U.S.A., 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. (collectively “Petitioner”) filed a
`corrected Petition requesting an inter partes review of claims 1, 2–8, 13–17,
`19, 27–29, 31–40, 42–48, 52–55, 59, 61, 66, and 78–87 (“the challenged
`claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144 B2 (Ex. 1400, “the ’144 patent”).
`Paper 5 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner, Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG (“Patent
`Owner”), filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 11 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted
`unless the information presented in the petition “shows that there is a
`reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at
`least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons that follow,
`we institute an inter partes review as to the challenged claims.
`
`A. Related Matters
`
`The parties indicate that the ’144 patent is involved in Papst Licensing
`GmbH & Co. KG v. Canon Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01692 (D.D.C.) and other
`proceedings. Pet. 4–6; Paper 5, 1–3.
`
`2
`
`

`
`B. The ’144 Patent
`
`Case IPR2016-01214
`Patent 8,966,144 B2
`
`
`
`The ’144 patent describes an interface device for communication
`between a computer host device and a data transmit/receive device (e.g., a
`multi-meter, transmitting measured data to a computer). Ex. 1400, 1:18–22,
`1:54–57. According to the ’144 patent, using a specific driver to match very
`closely to an individual host system would achieve high data transfer rates
`across the interface, but the specific driver cannot be used with other host
`systems. Id. at 2:4–19. Several solutions to this problem were known in the
`art. Id. at 2:20–3:25. For example, IOtech introduced an interface device
`for laptops, using a plug-in card for converting the personal computer
`memory card association (PCMCIA) interface into a known standard
`interface (IEEE 1284). Id. at 2:23–29. The plug-in card provided a printer
`interface for enhancing data transfer rates. Id. at 2:29–33. In another
`example, a floppy disk drive interface was used for connecting a host device
`to a peripheral device. Id. at 3:10–14. The interface appeared as a floppy
`disk drive to the host, allowing a floppy disk drive and another peripheral
`device to be connected to the host device. Id. at 3:17–19.
`The ’144 patent indicates that the “invention is based on the finding
`that both a high data transfer rate and host device-independent use can be
`achieved if a driver for an input/output device customary in a host device” is
`utilized. Id. at 3:33–37. Figure 1 of the ’144 patent, reproduced below,
`illustrates a block diagram of an interface device.
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-01214
`Patent 8,966,144 B2
`
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 1 above, interface device 10 connects to a host
`device via host line 11, and to a data transmit/receive device via output line
`16. Id. at 4:62–5:10. Interface device 10 includes first connecting device
`12, second connecting device 15, digital signal processor 13, and memory
`means 14. Id. In a preferred embodiment, the interface device is attached to
`a host device via a multi-purpose interface—e.g., a small computer systems
`interface (SCSI) interface—which includes both an interface card and the
`driver for the interface card. Id. at 3:51–57, 8:42–46. According to the ’144
`patent, SCSI interfaces were known to be present on most host devices or
`laptops. Id. at 8:42–46. By using a standard interface of a host device and
`by simulating an input/output device to the host device, the interface device
`“is automatically supported by all known host systems without any
`additional sophisticated driver software.” Id. at 11:38–44.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 84, and 86 are independent.
`Claims 2–8, 13–17, 19, 27–29, 31–40, 42–48, 52–55, 59, 61, 66, and 78–83
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-01214
`Patent 8,966,144 B2
`
`
`
`depend ultimately from claim 1; claim 85 depends from claim 84; and
`claim 87 depends from claim 86. Claim 1 is illustrative:
`1. An analog data generating and processing device (ADGPD),
`comprising:
`an input/output (i/o) port;
`a program memory;
`a data storage memory;
`a sensor designed to transmit data;
`a processor operatively interfaced with the i/o port, the program
`memory, the data storage memory and the sensor;
`wherein the processor is adapted to be involved in a data
`generation process by which the sensor generates analog data,
`the analog data is processed, and the processed analog data is
`stored in the data storage memory as at least one file of digitized
`analog data;
`wherein the processor also is adapted to be involved in an
`automatic recognition process in which, when the i/o port is
`operatively interfaced with a multi-purpose interface of a
`computer, the processor executes at least one instruction set
`stored in the program memory and thereby causes at least one
`parameter which provides identification information regarding
`the ADGPD to be automatically sent through the i/o port and to
`the multipurpose interface of the computer
`(a) without requiring any end user to load any software
`onto the computer at any time,
`(b) without requiring any end user to interact with the
`computer to set up a file system in the ADGPD at any time,
`(c) before a time when the computer is able to receive the
`at least one file of digitized analog data from the data storage
`memory, and
`(d) regardless of the identity of a manufacturer of the
`5
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-01214
`Patent 8,966,144 B2
`
`
`
`computer, wherein the at least one parameter is consistent with
`the ADGPD being responsive to commands issued from a
`customary driver;
`wherein the processor is further adapted to be involved in an
`automatic file transfer process in which, when the i/o port is
`operatively interfaced with the multi-purpose interface of the
`computer, and after the at least one parameter has been received
`by the multi-purpose interface of the computer, the processor
`executes at least one other instruction set stored in the program
`memory and thereby causes the at least one file of digitized
`analog data to be transferred to the computer regardless of the
`identity of the manufacturer of the computer and without
`requiring any user-loaded file transfer enabling software to be
`loaded on or installed in the computer at any time.
`Ex. 1400, 11:56–12:36 (emphases added).
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`
`
`Petitioner relies upon the prior art references listed below.
`Yamamoto
`US 6,088,532
`Jul. 11, 2000
`(Ex. 1401)
`(filed Dec. 29, 1995)
`(Ex. 1407,
`Yamamoto
`US 6,256,452 B1 Jul. 3, 2001
`Yamamoto 2) (filed Feb. 19, 1997; continuation of an application filed
`Sep. 8, 1995)
`(Ex. 1408)
`Jan. 7, 1997
`US 5,592,256
`Muramatsu
`AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARDS INSTITUTE, INC., American
`National Standard for Information Systems – Small Computer System
`Interface-2, ANSI X3.131-1994 (1994) (Ex. 1405, “the SCSI
`Specification”).1
`
`
`1 Citations to the SCSI Specification refer to the original page numbers.
`6
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-01214
`Patent 8,966,144 B2
`
`
`
`Admitted Prior Art (see, e.g., Ex. 1400, 3:37–46, 4:20–22, 5:11–14,
`5:21–23, 5:37–47, 8:45–50, 10:26–29).
`
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability (Pet. 21, 77):
`
`Challenged Claim(s)
`
`Basis
`
`Reference(s)
`
`1, 2–8, 13–17, 19, 27–
`29, 31–40, 42–48, 52–
`55, 59, 61, and 78–87
`
`1, 2–8, 13–17, 19, 27–
`29, 31–40, 42–48, 52–
`55, 59, 61, and 78–87
`
`66
`
`66
`
`§ 102(e)2 Yamamoto
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Yamamoto, Yamamoto 2, the SCSI
`Specification, and Admitted Prior
`Art3
`
`§ 103(a) Yamamoto and Muramatsu
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Yamamoto, Yamamoto 2,
`Muramatsu, the SCSI
`Specification, and the Admitted
`Prior Art4
`
`
`2 Because the claims at issue have a filing date prior to March 16, 2013, the
`effective date of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29,
`125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”), we apply the pre-AIA version of 35 U.S.C.
`§§ 102 and 103 in this Decision.
`3 Although discussed in the Petitioner’s analysis, the Admitted Prior Art is
`omitted inadvertently from the statement of the asserted ground. Therefore,
`we treat the statement as mere harmless error and presume that Petitioner
`intended to assert that the challenged claims are unpatentable based, in part
`on the Admitted Prior Art.
`4 Petitioner asserts that claim 66, which depends from claim 1, is
`unpatentable over Yamamoto and Muramatsu, but also relies upon its
`7
`
`

`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`Case IPR2016-01214
`Patent 8,966,144 B2
`
`
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under the broadest
`reasonable interpretation standard, claim terms generally are given their
`ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary
`skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. See In re Translogic
`Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). We note that only those
`claim terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the
`extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. &
`Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The parties propose
`constructions for several claim terms. Pet. 8–10; Prelim. Resp. 20–22. For
`purposes of this Decision, we find it necessary to address only the claim
`terms identified below.
`
`“analog data generating and processing device”
`The claim term “analog data generating and processing device” or
`
`“ADGPD” appears in each independent claim of the ’144 patent. Ex. 1403,
`11:57–58, 16:11–12, 17:25–26. Apart from the title and claims, the
`
`
`analysis in connection with claim 1. Therefore, we presume that Petitioner
`also intended to assert that claim 66 is unpatentable over Yamamoto, in
`combination with Yamamoto 2, Muramatsu, the SCSI Specification, and
`Admitted Prior Art.
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-01214
`Patent 8,966,144 B2
`
`
`
`Specification does not use the term “analog data generating and processing
`device.” See generally Ex. 1400. Rather, the Specification focuses on an
`interface device for communication between a host device and a data
`transmit/receive device. See, e.g., id. at Abs., 1:18–22, 3:29–32, Figs. 1, 2.
`To bridge the gap between the disclosure of the purported invention in
`the Specification and the claim terms that are not otherwise described in the
`Specification, we turn to claims 1 and 2, which recite the structural elements
`of these devices. In claim 1, the “analog data generating and processing
`device” is required to include an input/output (i/o) port, a program memory,
`a data storage memory, a sensor designed to transmit data, and a processor.
`Id. at 11:57–12:36. Claim 2, which depends from claim 1, further recites
`“wherein the i/o port, the program memory, the data storage memory, and
`the processor form an interface device that is designed to have the analog
`data transferred to it from the sensor.” Id. at 12:37–40 (emphasis added).
`Essentially, these claims define an “analog data generating and processing
`device” as an interface device having, at least, a sensor. In that light, we
`construe the claim term “analog data generating and processing device” to
`encompass “an interface device having a sensor.” Put differently, an
`interface device and its sensors jointly form an analog data generating and
`processing device.
`
`“sensor”
`Each independent claim recites “a sensor designed to transmit data.”
`
`Ex. 1400, 11:62, 16:16, 17:30. Claim 17, which depends from claim 1,
`requires the “sensor” to comprise a “data transmit/receive device.” Id. at
`9
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-01214
`Patent 8,966,144 B2
`
`
`
`13:7–8. Apart from the claims, the term “sensor” does not appear in the
`Specification of the ’144 patent. Rather, as noted above the Specification
`focuses on an interface device for communication between a host device and
`a data transmit/receive device. Id. at 1:18–22, 3:29–32, 6:11–13, Figs. 1, 2.
`In that light, we construe a “sensor” to encompass a “data transmit/receive
`device”—a device that is capable of transmitting and/or receiving data.
`
`“multi-purpose interface”
`Each independent claim recites “the i/o port is operatively interfaced
`
`with a multi-purpose interface of a computer.” See, e.g., Ex. 1400, 12:5–7.
`At this juncture, the parties did not proffer a construction for the term
`“multi-purpose interface.” The Specification of the ’144 patent describes
`“the interface device according to the present invention is to be attached to a
`host device by means of a multi-purpose interface of the host device which
`can be implemented, for example, as a small computer systems interface
`(SCSI) interface or an enhanced printer interface.” Id. at 3:51–56 (emphases
`added). The Specification also indicates that SCSI interfaces are present on
`most host devices or laptops. Id. at 8:45–46. Petitioner’s Declarant, Paul F.
`Reynolds, Ph.D., testifies that SCSI is “a standard for attaching a range of
`peripheral device types to computers,” and “SCSI is designed to be
`multi-purpose: to both support a variety of devices and to operate with a
`variety of operating systems.” Ex. 1403 ¶ 54. In light of the Specification
`and the evidence regarding the knowledge of an ordinarily skilled artisan,
`we construe a “multi-purpose interface” to encompass a “SCSI interface.”
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-01214
`Patent 8,966,144 B2
`
`
`
`“customary driver”
`The claim term “customary driver” appears in each independent
`claim. Ex. 1400, 12:22–23, 17:10, 18:24. For instance, claim 1 recites “the
`at least one parameter is consistent with the ADGPD being responsive to
`commands issued from a customary driver.” Id. at 12:20–23 (emphasis
`added). Claim 29, which depends from claim 1, further recites “wherein the
`at least one parameter is consistent with the ADGPD being responsive to a
`SCSI inquiry command.” Id. at 13:38–40 (emphasis added).
`Petitioner proposes to construe this term as “driver normally part of
`commercially available computer systems at the time of the invention.” Pet.
`9–10. Patent Owner disagrees, arguing that Petitioner improperly adds the
`temporal limitation “at the time of the invention.” Prelim. Resp. 20–22.
`We note that “the ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is
`the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art
`in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of
`the patent application.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed.
`Cir. 2005) (en banc) (emphasis added); see also PC Connector Solutions
`LLC v. SmartDisk Corp., 406 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (meaning of
`claim “must be interpreted as of [the] effective filing date” of the patent
`application). Moreover, in this proceeding, we determine the patentability of
`the challenged claims based on prior art that is available before or at the time
`of the invention. Therefore, it is not necessary to recite expressly “at the
`time of the invention” in our claim construction of any claim term.
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-01214
`Patent 8,966,144 B2
`
`
`
`The Specification of the ’144 patent indicates that “both a high data
`transfer rate and host device-independent use can be achieved if a driver for
`an input/output device customary in a host device, normally present in most
`commercially available host devices, is utilized.” Ex. 1400, 3:33–37
`(emphases added). The Specification further explains that “[d]rivers for
`input/output devices customary in a host device which are found in
`practically all host devices are, for example, drivers for hard disks, for
`graphics devices or for printer devices.” Id. at 3:37–40 (emphases added).
`The Specification also indicates that SCSI interfaces are present on most
`host devices or laptops, and SCSI drivers are “normally included by the
`manufacturer of the multi-purpose interface.” Id. at 8:45–46, 10:23–33.
`In that light, we construe a “customary driver” to encompass “a driver
`normally present in a commercially available computer system (e.g., a hard
`disk driver or a SCSI driver).”
`
`“automatic recognition process”
`Each independent claim requires the processor to be adopted to be
`involved in an “automatic recognition process,” sending “identification
`information regarding the ADGPD” to the multi-purpose interface of the
`computer. See, e.g., Ex. 1400, 12:4–36. As an initial matter, we note that
`the word “automatic” normally does not exclude all possible human
`intervention. See WhitServe, LLC v. Computer Packages, Inc., 694 F.3d 10,
`19 (Fed. Cir. 2012); CollegeNet, Inc. v. ApplyYourself, Inc., 418 F.3d 1225,
`1235 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-01214
`Patent 8,966,144 B2
`
`
`
`For the claim term “automatic recognition process,” the parties agree
`to adopt the claim construction proposed by Patent Owner in the related
`District Court proceeding—“process by which the computer recognizes the
`ADGPD upon connection with the computer without requiring any user
`intervention other than to start the process.” Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1404);
`Prelim. Resp. 20. According to the Specification of the ’144 patent, the
`communication between the host system and the interface device “is based
`on known standard access commands as supported by all known operating
`systems (e.g., DOS®, Window®, Unix®).” Ex. 1400, 5:11–14. When the
`host system is connected to the interface device and is booted, “usual BIOS
`routines or multi-purpose interface programs issue an instruction, known by
`those skilled in the art as the INQUIRY instruction.” Id. at 5:17–23. In
`response to the INQUIRY instruction, the interface device sends a signal to
`the host system, identifying a connected hard disk drive. Id. at 5:24–30. In
`light of the Specification, we adopt the parties’ proposed construction,
`construing an “automatic recognition process” as “a process by which the
`computer recognizes the ADGPD upon connection with the computer
`without requiring any user intervention other than to start the process.”
`
`“automatic file transfer process”
`Each independent claim further requires the processor to be adapted to
`be involved in an “automatic file transfer process.” See, e.g., Ex. 1400,
`12:24–36. Petitioner suggests that this automatic process allows user
`intervention to initiate the process. Pet. 42–43; Ex. 1404, 44 (“once
`initiated, the function is performed by a machine [automatically], without
`13
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-01214
`Patent 8,966,144 B2
`
`
`
`the need for manually performing the function”). This is consistent with the
`Specification, which describes that a user interacts with the host computer to
`request transfer of the digitized analog data, and the transfer occurs
`automatically after the request is made. Ex. 1400, 6:2–5 (“If the user now
`wishes to read data from the data transmit/receive device via the line 16, the
`host device sends a command, for example ‘read file xy,’ to the interface
`device.”). Hence, we construe an “automatic file transfer process” to
`encompass a file transfer process that allows user intervention to initiate the
`process or make a transfer request. See WhitServe, 694 F.3d at 19;
`CollegeNet, 418 F.3d at 1235.
`
`“without requiring any end user to load software”
`We observe that each independent claim recites several negative
`limitations in apparatus claims. For instance, claim 1 requires the automatic
`recognition process to occur “without requiring any end user to load any
`software onto the computer at any time,” and requires the automatic file
`transfer process to occur “without requiring any user-loaded file transfer
`enabling software to be loaded on or installed in the computer at any time.”
`Ex. 1400, 12:4–36.
`For these claim limitations, the parties agree to adopt the construction
`proposed by Patent Owner in the related District Court proceeding—
`“without requiring the end user to install or load specific drivers or software
`for the ADGPD beyond that included in the operating system or BIOS.”
`Prelim. Resp. 20; Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1404) (emphasis added). However, the
`parties’ proposed claim construction may improperly exclude SCSI drivers
`14
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-01214
`Patent 8,966,144 B2
`
`
`
`and drivers for multi-purpose interfaces that are not necessarily included in
`the operating system or BIOS.
`The Specification discloses that a SCSI interface is a multi-purpose
`interface, and that a multi-purpose interface comprises “both an interface
`card and specific driver software for the interface card.” Ex. 1400, 3:51–57
`(emphasis added). Significantly, the Specification indicates that, at the time
`of the invention, multi-purpose interfaces can be, but are not necessarily,
`integrated into the BIOS system. Id. at 3:59–4:1. The Specification also
`makes clear that “communication between the host device and the
`multi-purpose interface can take place not only via drivers for input/output
`device customary in a host device which reside in the BIOS system of the
`host device but also via specific interface drivers which, in the case of SCSI
`interfaces, are known as multi-purpose interface ASPI (advanced SCSI
`programming interface) drivers.” Id. at 10:23–29 (emphases added).
`Interpreting the negative limitations to exclude the drivers for a
`multi-purpose interface would be unreasonable when the very same claim,
`claim 1, also requires a multi-purpose interface. Id. at 12:6–7. As discussed
`above, claim 29, which depends from claim 1, requires a SCSI interface and
`SCSI driver. Id. at 13:38–40. Therefore, the parties’ proposed construction
`would be inconsistent with the Specification and those claims.
`In view of the foregoing, we construe the claim phrases—“without
`requiring any end user to load software onto the computer at any time” and
`“without requiring any user-loaded file transfer enabling software to be
`loaded on or installed in the computer at any time”—as “without requiring
`
`15
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-01214
`Patent 8,966,144 B2
`
`
`
`the end user to install or load specific drivers or software for the ADGPD
`beyond that included in the operating system, BIOS, or drivers for a multi-
`purpose interface or SCSI interface,” adding “drivers for a multi-purpose
`interface or SCSI interface” to the parties’ proposed claim construction.
`
`“a first computer . . . a second computer”
`Claim 86 requires an automatic recognition process and automatic
`transfer process to occur for a “first computer” and “second computer that is
`manufactured by a company other than the company that manufactured the
`first computer.” Ex. 1400, 17:41–18:18. Both parties agree that the
`“computers” limitation, as recited in claim 86, is substantively similar to
`“regardless of the identity of a manufacturer of the computer,” as recited in
`claim 1. Pet. 56; Prelim. Resp. 29–37. Based on the present record, we
`adopt the parties’ claim construction as to the “computers” limitation, as it is
`consistent with the Specification. See Ex. 1400, 3:33–37, 11:38–44.
`
`B. Principles of Law
`
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
`the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`16
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-01214
`Patent 8,966,144 B2
`
`
`
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of
`nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`
`C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors
`may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art;
`prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are
`made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active
`workers in the field.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
`(citation omitted). In that regard, Dr. Reynolds testifies that a person having
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have had at least
`a four-year degree from a reputable university in electrical engineering,
`computer science, or related field of study, or equivalent experience, and at
`least two [years of] experience in studying or developing computer
`interfaces or peripherals.” Ex. 1403 ¶ 39. Dr. Reynolds further testifies that
`such an artisan also would “be familiar with operating systems (e.g.,
`MS-DOS, Windows, Unix) and their associated file systems (e.g., a [file
`allocation table (“FAT”)] file system), device drivers for computer
`components and peripherals (e.g., mass storage device drivers), and
`communication interfaces (e.g., SCSI and PCMCIA interfaces).” Id. Patent
`Owner confirms that Petitioner’s statements regarding the level of ordinary
`skill in the art are mostly consistent with Patent Owner’s view, but
`nonetheless contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have at least
`three years of experience, or, alternatively, five or more years of experience
`
`17
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-01214
`Patent 8,966,144 B2
`
`
`
`without a bachelor’s degree. Prelim. Resp. 21. We do not observe any
`meaningful differences between the parties’ definition of a person of
`ordinary skill in the art. Our analysis in this Decision is supported by either
`level of skill. We further note that the prior art in the instant proceeding
`reflects the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See
`Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`
`D. Obviousness over Yamamoto, in Combination with Yamamoto 2,
`the SCSI Specification, and Admitted Prior Art
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1, 2–8, 13–17, 19, 27–29, 31–40, 42–48,
`52–55, 59, 61, and 78–87 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
`obvious over Yamamoto, in Combination with Yamamoto 2, the SCSI
`Specification, and Admitted Prior Art. Pet. 22–71. Patent Owner opposes.
`Prelim. Resp. 22–45. We have carefully considered the parties’ contentions
`and supporting evidence in this record. At this juncture, we determine that
`Petitioner has established that there is reasonable likelihood that the
`petitioner would prevail with respect to this ground of unpatentability. In
`our discussion below, we first provide a brief overview of the asserted prior
`art, and then we analyze certain claim limitations in detail as examples.
`
`Overview of Yamamoto
`Yamamoto discloses an electronic camera having an image sensor for
`recording analog image data, and a hard disk that can be used as a storage
`device to an external computer via a SCSI interface. Ex. 1401, 1:7–10,
`
`18
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-01214
`Patent 8,966,144 B2
`
`
`
`4:21–30, 7:43–48, 23:8–12. Figure 30 of Yamamoto is reproduced below
`with highlights added by Petitioner (Pet. 28).
`
`
`
`As illustrated in Figure 30 of Yamamoto, the camera comprises:
`system control circuit (highlighted in pink), image sensor 44, e.g., a
`charge-coupled devices (CCD) sensor (highlighted with a red box),
`analog-to-digital (A/D) converter 62 (highlighted in yellow), image
`processing circuit 63 (highlighted in green), memory 64 (highlighted in dark
`blue), image recording device 67 (highlighted in purple), hard disk 71
`(highlighted in orange), and output terminal 17 (highlighted in light blue).
`Id. at 6:7–8:5, 22:16–67.
`
`19
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-01214
`Patent 8,966,144 B2
`
`
`
`Overview of Yamamoto 2
`
`Yamamoto 2 likewise describes an electronic camera having a sensor
`for recording image data, and a hard disk device that can be used as a
`storage device to an external computer. Ex. 1407, Abs. The hard disk
`device has a file system and file allocation table so that the user can search
`the hard disk for stored image data. Id. at 3:58–62.
`Figure 1 of Yamamoto 2 is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`As illustrated in Figure 1 of Yamamoto 2, the electronic camera
`comprises an optical system (not shown), system control circuit 11, hard
`disk device 13, solid state imaging device (CCD) 14, analog-to-digital (A/D)
`converter 16, memory 19, interface 22, and external computer 23. Id. at
`2:47–3:37. System control circuit 11 comprises a microcomputer which
`controls the entire electronic camera, and RAM 12. Id. at 2:51–53. An
`image signal corresponding to an object image is generated in CCD 14, and
`is converted into a digital signal in A/D converter 16. Id. at 2:66–3:9. The
`digital image data are stored in memory 19, and then transferred and
`20
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-01214
`Patent 8,966,144 B2
`
`
`
`recorded on a predetermined area of the hard disk mounted in hard disk
`device 13. Id. at 2:53–55, 3:26–28, 4:1–4. In one of the operational modes,
`hard disk device 13 is connected to external computer 23 through interface
`22, so that the hard disk of the electronic camera can be operated as an
`external storage device of external computer 23. Id. at 2:55–57, 3:34–36.
`
`Overview of the SCSI Specification
`
`The SCSI Specification is a technical specification published by the
`American National Standard for Information Systems to set forth the SCSI
`standards. According to the SCSI Specification, the SCSI protocol “is
`designed to provide an efficient peer-to-peer I/O bus with up to 16 devices,
`including one or more hosts.” Ex. 1405, Abs. The primary objective of the
`SCSI interface is “to provide host computers with device independence
`within a class of devices.” Id. at 6. The SCSI-2 “standard defines an
`input/output bus for interconnecting computers and peripheral devices.” Id.
`at 1. “It includes the necessary specification of the mechanical, electrical,
`and functional characteristics of the interface to allow interoperability of
`conforming devices.” Id. “SCSI-2 includes command sets for magnetic and
`optical disks, tapes, printers, processors, CD-ROMs, scanners, medium
`changers, and communications devices.” Id. at Abs. “The command set
`definitions allow a sophisticated operating system to obtain all required
`initialization information from the attached SCSI-2 devices.” Id. at 6.
`
`21
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-01214
`Patent 8,966,144 B2
`
`
`
`Overview of the Admitted Prior Art
`According to the ’144 patent, drivers for hard disks were known to be
`customary drivers “in practically all host devices,” and support for hard
`disks was known to be “implemented as standard in all commercially
`available host system.” Ex. 1400, 3:37–46, 4:20–22. The ’144 patent also
`indicates that SCSI interfaces and SCSI drivers were known in the art at

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket