UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`PANASONIC CORPORATION et al.
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE: Unassigned
`
`Patent No. 8,504,746
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT No.
`
`Description
`
`1301
`
`1302
`
`1303
`
`1304
`
`1305
`
`1306
`
`1307
`
`1308
`
`1309
`
`1310
`
`1311
`
`1312
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144 to Tasler.
`
`Selected portions of ’144 patent file history
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,499,378 (McNeill)
`
`DASM-AD14 Product Brochure
`
`American National Standards Institute, “ANSI X3.131-1994 –
`Small Computer System Interface-2,” (1994) (“SCSI
`Specification”)
`Declaration of Paul F. Reynolds, Ph.D., including CV
`
`Patent Owner (“Papst”)’s Opening Claim Construction Brief and
`Declaration of Robert Zeidman, filed in related litigation in the
`District of Columbia. In re: Papst Licensing Digital Camera
`Patent Litigation, MDL No. 1880, Case No. 1:07-mc-00493,
`Dkt. Nos. 630, 630-12 (June 3, 2016).
`
`Epson ActionScanner II “Getting Started” Guide (1995)
`
`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)
`IBM ThinkPad Repair Manual (April 1995)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,592,256 (Muramatsu)
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 4
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ......................................... 5
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1): Real Parties-In-Interest .......................................................... 5
`
`C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2): Related Matters ..................................................................... 6
`
`C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) and (4): Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service
`Information ............................................................................................................. 9
`
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING PURSUANT to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)............................ 14
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b): IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE ....................................... 15
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1): Claims for Which Inter Partes Review Is
`Requested ............................................................................................................. 15
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2): The Prior Art and Specific Grounds on Which
`the Challenge to the Claims Is Based .................................................................... 15
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ......................................................................... 17
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3): Claim Construction ..................................................... 17
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4): How the Construed Claims are Unpatentable .......... 19
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5): Supporting Evidence .................................................. 19
`
`V.
`
`THERE EXISTS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CHALLEGED
`CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE .................................................................................. 19
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Description of the Alleged Invention of the ‘746 Patent ....................................... 19
`
`Prosecution History of the ‘746 Patent ................................................................. 21
`
`Claims 1-12, 14-15, 17-21, 24-25, 27-30, 33 and 35 are anticipated under
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over McNeill (Ground 1); Claims 1-22, 24-25, 27-30,
`33 and 35 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in light of McNeill in view
`of the knowledge of a PHOSITA (Ground 2); and Claim 23 is obvious
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in light of McNeill in view of Muramatsu (Ground
`3) .......................................................................................................................... 22
`
`1. McNeill discloses the preamble of claim 1 .............................. 30
`
`2. McNeill discloses the preambles of claims 31 and 34 ............. 33
`
`3. McNeill discloses the program memory of claim 1 ................. 34
`
`4. McNeill discloses the analog signal acquisition channel
`of claim 1 ................................................................................. 34
`
`5. McNeill discloses a processor operative interfaced
`(claims 1, 31 and 34) ................................................................ 35
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`6. McNeill discloses a processor that is configured and
`programmed to implement a data generation process
`(claims 1, 31 and 34). ............................................................... 38
`
`7. McNeill discloses 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) ............................ 41
`
`8. McNeill discloses a processor that is further configured
`and programmed to execute a file transfer process
`(claims 1, 31 and 34) ................................................................ 45
`
`9. McNeill discloses that there is no requirement for any
`user-loaded file transfer enabling software (claims 1, 31
`and 34) ...................................................................................... 47
`
`10. Dependent Claim 2................................................................... 48
`
`11. Dependent Claim 3................................................................... 48
`
`12. Dependent Claim 4................................................................... 48
`
`13. Dependent Claim 5................................................................... 49
`
`14. Dependent Claim 6................................................................... 49
`
`15. Dependent Claims 7 and 8 ....................................................... 49
`
`16. Dependent Claim 9................................................................... 50
`
`17. Dependent Claim 10 ................................................................ 51
`
`18. Dependent Claim 11 ................................................................ 52
`
`19. Dependent Claim 12 ................................................................ 52
`
`20. Dependent Claim 14 ................................................................ 53
`
`21. Dependent Claim 15 ................................................................ 53
`
`22. Dependent Claims 17 and 18 ................................................... 54
`
`23. Dependent Claim 19 ................................................................ 56
`
`24. Dependent Claims 21, 27, 28 ................................................... 57
`
`25. Ground 3: Dependent Claim 23 is Obvious in view of
`McNeill in light of Muramatsu ................................................ 59
`
`26. Dependent Claim 24 ................................................................ 61
`
`27. Dependent Claim 25 ................................................................ 62
`
`28. Dependent Claim 26 ................................................................ 62
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`29. Dependent Claim 29 ................................................................ 63
`
`30. Dependent Claim 30 ................................................................ 63
`
`31. Dependent Claim 33 ................................................................ 64
`
`32. Dependent Claim 35 ................................................................ 65
`
`D.
`
`Ground 4: Claims 13, 16, and 22 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §
`103(a) in light of McNeill in view of AAPA ........................................... 66
`
`33. Dependent Claim 13 ................................................................ 66
`
`34. Dependent Claims 16 and 22 ................................................... 67
`
`VI.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 68
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Inter partes review is respectfully requested of claims 1-25, 27-30, 33, and 35
`
`(the “Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746 (“the ‘746 Patent”) (Ex.
`
`1301).
`
`The ’746 patent describes an interface device designed to facilitate the
`
`transfer of data between a data transmit/receive device and a host computer that
`
`allegedly obviates the need for installation of driver software specific to the data
`
`transmit/receive device on the computer. Ex. 1001 at 1:37-40; 7:11-20.
`
`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
`
`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. 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.
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`Based on the presented grounds, the Board should institute inter partes review
`
`of the ’746 patent and cancel all of its claims.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`
`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
`
`The following are the Petitioners and real parties-in-interest: Canon Inc.;
`
`Canon USA, Inc.; Canon Financial Services, Inc.; FUJIFILM Corporation;
`
`FUJIFILM Holdings Amercia 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.
`
`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
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`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).
`
`B. C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2): Related Matters
`
`To the best knowledge of Petitioners, the ’746 Patent is involved in the
`
`following litigations and matters:
`
`Case Name
`
`Case No.
`
`Court
`
`In
`
`re: Papst Licensing Digital
`
`1:07-mc-00493 D.D.C.
`
`
`Filed
`
`Nov. 16, 2007
`
`Camera Patent Litigation – MDL No.
`
`1880
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`3:16-cv-00575 N.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2016
`
`HP Inc.
`
`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
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`Case Name
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al
`
`Case No.
`
`
`Filed
`
`6:15-cv-01111 E.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2015
`
`Court
`
`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
`
`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
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`Case Name
`
`Case No.
`
`Court
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`1:15-cv-00497 D. Del.
`
`
`Filed
`
`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
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`6:15-cv-01115 E.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2015
`
`Huawei Technologies, et al.
`
`
`
`Additionally, Petitioners are 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
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`C. 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)
`
`Christopher J. Higgins
`
`Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell, LLP
`
`Reg. No. 66,422
`
`3 Park Plaza, Suite 1100
`
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`
`Irvine, CA 92614
`
`1152 15th Street, N.W.
`
`Telephone: 949-623-7200
`
`Washington, DC 20005-1706
`
`Facsimile: 949-623-7201
`
`Telephone: (202) 339-8400
`
`gcordrey@jmbm.com
`
`Facsimile: (202) 339-8500
`
`
`
`
`
`chiggins@orrick.com
`
`
`
`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
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`vpearce@orrick.com
`
`
`
`Rachel Capoccia
`
`(pro
`
`hac
`
`vice
`
`application to be submitted)
`
`Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell, LLP
`
`1900 Avenue of the Stars, 7th floor
`
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`
`Telephone: 310-203-8080
`
`Facsimile: 310-203-0567
`
`rcapoccia@jmbm.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
`
`
`
`Marc S. Blackman (Reg. No. 43,501)
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`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
`
`1601 Cloverfield Blvd., Suite 2050N
`
`Santa Monica, CA 90404-4082
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`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
`
`Fax: (216) 579-0212
`
`f.dfeeling@jonesday.com
`
`
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`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
`
`
`
`Carrie A. Beyer (Reg. No. 59,195)
`
`DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
`
`191 N. Wacker Dr., Suite 3700
`
`Chicago, IL 60606
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`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
`
`
`
`Petitioners submit Powers of Attorney with this Petition. Please address all
`
`correspondence to lead and back-up counsel. Petitioners consent to service by email
`
`at: PapstPTABPetitioners@Jonesday.com.
`
`III. 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 in this Petition. Petitioners also
`
`certify that this Petition for Inter Partes Review is timely filed under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`315(b).
`
`IV. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b): IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE
`
`A.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1): Claims for Which Inter Partes Review
`Is Requested
`
`
`
`Inter Partes review is requested for claims 1-25, 27-30, 33, and 35 of the ’746
`
`patent.
`
`B.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2): The Prior Art and Specific Grounds on
`Which the Challenge to the Claims Is Based
`
`
`
`The one-year time bar under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(b) is measured from
`
`the effective U.S. filing date of the ’746 Patent, which is no earlier than March 3,
`
`1998, the date of the PCT application to which the ’746 Patent claims priority
`
`(PCT/EP98/01187).
`
`Inter Partes review is requested in view of the following prior art references:
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,499,378 to McNeill (“McNeill”) (Exhibit 1303).
`
`McNeill discloses a system that permits a host device to access a non-
`
`SCSI device via a SCSI bus using SCSI commands, through emulation of
`
`a SCSI protocol by a target system that can communicate with either SCSI
`
`or non-SCSI devices. McNeill is a continuation of an application filed on
`
`December 20, 1991, and issued on March 12, 1996, and is prior art to the
`
`’144 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`

`
`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 `144 patent, and is prior art
`
`to the `144 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`The specific statutory grounds on which the challenge to the claims is based
`
`and the prior art relied upon for each ground are as follows:
`
`a) Ground 1: Claims 1-12, 14-15, 17-21, 24-25, 27-30, 33 and 35 are
`
`anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over McNeill1;
`
`b) Ground 2: Claims 1-22, 24-25, 27-30, 33 and 35 are obvious under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a) in light of McNeill in view of the knowledge of a PHOSITA; and
`
`c) Ground 3: Claim 23 is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in light of
`
`McNeill in view of Muramatsu.
`
`d)
`
`Ground 4: Claims 13, 16, and 22 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`in light of McNeill in view of AAPA.
`
`
`1 Unless other indicated, all citations refer to McNeill reference (Ex. 1303).
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`A person having ordinary skill in the art (“PHOSITA”) at the time when the
`
`‘746 patent effectively was filed (March 3, 1998) possessed a working knowledge of
`
`devices such as microprocessors, hard disks, and computer interfaces such as SCSI.
`
`Ex. 1306, ¶¶ 40-41. He or she would also be familiar with associated software,
`
`including MS-DOS, MS Windows 95, UNIX and SCSI software modules and
`
`drivers, associated file systems (e.g., FAT), and device drivers. Id. A person of
`
`ordinary skill at the relevant time (1996-1998) would have had at least a four-year
`
`degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or related field of study, or
`
`equivalent experience, and at least two years’ experience in studying or developing
`
`computer interfaces or peripherals. Id.
`
`D.
`
`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). Petitioners expressly reserve their right to advance different constructions in
`
`district court, 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
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`constructions proposed by Papst in related litigation in the District of Columbia
`
`(Misc. Action No. 07-493 (RMC), MDL No. 1880) (Ex.1009):
`
`Claim Term
`
`Adopted BRI
`
`“without requiring any end user
`
`“without requiring the end user to
`
`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
`
`“without requiring any user-
`
`data acquisition and interface
`
`loaded file transfer enabling
`
`device] beyond that included in
`
`software to be loaded on or
`
`the operating system or BIOS”
`
`installed in the [computer/host
`
`device] [at any time]”
`
`
`
`“whereby there is no requirement
`
`for any user-loaded file transfer
`
`enabling software to be loaded
`
`on or installed in the computer in
`
`addition to the operating system”
`
`“processor”
`
`“any kind of microprocessor,
`
`including a digital signal
`
`processor”
`
`
`
`In addition, the term “end user” should be construed as an actual end user, as
`
`opposed to a system administrator or manufacturer. In amendments dated August
`
`13, 2009, the Applicant amended the claims to change the term “user” to “end user.”
`
`
`
`-18-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`These amendments were made in order to try to overcome cited prior art references
`
`(Hashimoto, Smith, Ristelhueber, Kerigan, and Shinohara), as explained by Patent
`
`Owner in the Remarks section of the Response filed on August 13, 2009, at page 25.
`
`See Ex. 1003 at 83.
`
`E.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4): How the Construed Claims are
`Unpatentable
`
`
`
`
`
`The specific grounds for review and an explanation of why the Challenged
`
`Claims are unpatentable, including identification of where each element of each
`
`claim is found in the prior art, are provided below in Section VI.
`
`F.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5): Supporting Evidence
`
`The Declaration of Dr. Paul F. Reynolds, Ph.D. (Ex. 1004) and other
`
`supporting evidence in the Exhibit List are filed herewith. Dr. Reynolds’
`
`background and qualifications, and the information provided to him, are discussed in
`
`Ex. 1004, ¶¶ 1-20.
`
`V. THERE EXISTS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE
`CHALLEGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`
`A. Description of the Alleged Invention of the ‘746 Patent
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 12/891,443 (“the ’443 application”) was filed
`
`on September 27, 2010 and issued 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
`
`
`
`-19-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`facilitate the transfer of data between a data transmit/receive device from which data
`
`is to be acquired and a host computer. Ex. 1001 at 1:20-24. The written description
`
`states that, while interface devices were known at the time of the invention, existing
`
`devices had limitations, including disadvantageous sacrifices of data-transfer speed
`
`or a lack of flexibility as to the computers and data devices with which they were
`
`compatible. Id. at 1:28-2:21. The ’746 patent purports to describe an interface
`
`device to overcome these limitations.
`
`When a computer detects that a new device has been connected to one of its
`
`input-output (i/o) ports, a normal course of action includes these steps: the host asks
`
`the new device what type of device it is; the connected device responds; the host
`
`determines whether it already possesses drivers for the identified type of device; and
`
`if it does not, an appropriate driver must be installed on the host and loaded into
`
`memory before proceeding. In the ’746 patent family, when the interface device is
`
`connected between a data transmit/receive device and a host, the interface device
`
`responds to the host’s request for identification by stating that it is a type of device,
`
`such as a hard drive, for which the computer already has a driver. By mis-
`
`identifying itself to the host as to the type of device the host is communicating with,
`
`the interface device induces the host to treat it like a device already familiar to the
`
`host. Thereafter, when the host communicates with the interface device to request
`
`data from or control the operation of the data device, the host uses its native device
`
`
`
`-20-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`driver, and the interface device translates the communications into a form
`
`understandable by the connected data device. Ex. 1001 at 3:28-4:39.
`
`
`
`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. 1001 at 4:59-5:7.
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History of the ‘746 Patent
`
`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
`
`
`
`-21-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`allowable over the cited references. No amendments were made. A Notice of
`
`Allowance was issued on June 7, 2013. The reasons for allowance stated: “The
`
`reasons for allowance of claims 2, 32, 33 and 35… in the instant application is that
`
`the examiner finds applicant’s arguments filed on 05/28/2013 are persuasive and that
`
`the combination of all the claimed limitations is neither anticipate[d] or render[ed]
`
`obvious by the prior art of record.” Thus, it is difficult to ascertain exactly which
`
`argument or claim limitation(s) were considered important to the Examiner’s
`
`decision.
`
`C. Claims 1-12, 14-15, 17-21, 24-25, 27-30, 33 and 35 are anticipated
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over McNeill (Ground 1); Claims 1-22,
`24-25, 27-30, 33 and 35 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in light
`of McNeill in view of the knowledge of a PHOSITA (Ground 2);
`and Claim 23 is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in light of McNeill
`in view of Muramatsu (Ground 3)
`
`Independent claims 1, 31, and 34 share many similar elements, as reflected in
`
`the table below. These similar elements will be addressed together in the
`
`sections below.
`
`Claim 1
`1. An analog data
`
`Claim 31
`31. An analog data
`
`Claim 34
`A method for analog
`
`acquisition device
`
`acquisition and
`
`data acquisition and
`
`operatively
`
`interface device for
`
`interfacing to a host
`
`connectable to a
`
`interfacing to a host
`
`device wherein the
`
`
`
`-22-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`Claim 1
`computer through a
`
`Claim 31
`device which includes
`
`Claim 34
`host device includes
`
`multipurpose
`
`a mass storage device
`
`a device driver,
`
`interface of the
`
`and associated device
`
`comprising:
`
`computer, the
`
`driver, comprising:
`
`computer having an
`
`
`
`operating system
`
`programmed so that,
`
`when the computer
`
`receives a signal from
`
`the device through
`
`said multipurpose
`
`interface of the
`
`computer indicative
`
`of a class of devices,
`
`the computer
`
`automatically
`
`activates a device
`
`driver corresponding
`
`to the class of devices
`
`
`
`-23-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`Claim 31
`
`Claim 34
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 1
`for allowing the
`
`transfer of data
`
`between the device
`
`and the operating
`
`system of the
`
`computer, the analog
`
`data acquisition
`
`device comprising:
`
`
`
`a) a program
`
`memory;
`
`
`
`b) an analog signal
`
`acquisition channel
`
`for receiving a signal
`
`from an analog
`
`source;
`
`
`
`c) a processor
`
`a processor configured operatively
`
`
`
`-24-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`Claim 1
`operatively interfaced
`
`Claim 31
`to operatively interface
`
`Claim 34
`interfacing a data
`
`with the multipurpose
`
`with a memory, an
`
`acquisition device,
`
`interface of the
`
`analog source, and a
`
`including a
`
`computer, the
`
`multi-purpose interface
`
`processor and a
`
`program memory,
`
`of the host device;
`
`memory, with a
`
`and a data storage
`
`memory when the
`
`analog data
`
`acquisition device is
`
`operational;
`
`multi-purpose
`
`interface of the host
`
`device;
`
`
`
`-25-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`Claim 1
`d) wherein the
`
`Claim 31
`wherein the processor
`
`Claim 34
`acquiring analog
`
`processor is
`
`is configured to control
`
`data from an analog
`
`configured and
`
`a data generation
`
`source, processing
`
`programmed to
`
`process by which
`
`and digitizing the
`
`implement a data
`
`analog data is acquired
`
`analog data, and
`
`generation process by
`
`from the analog source,
`
`storing the processed
`
`which analog data is
`
`the analog data is
`
`and digitized analog
`
`acquired from the
`
`processed and
`
`data in the memory
`
`analog signal
`
`digitized, and the
`
`as digitized analog
`
`acquisition channel,
`
`processed and digitized
`
`data under control of
`
`the analog data is
`
`analog data is stored in
`
`the processor;
`
`processed and
`
`the memory as
`
`digitized, and the
`
`digitized analog data;
`
`processed and
`
`
`
`digitized analog data
`
`is stored in a file
`
`system of the data
`
`storage memory as at
`
`least one file of
`
`
`
`-26-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`Claim 1
`digitized analog data;
`
`Claim 31
`
`Claim 34
`
`e) wherein when the
`
`wherein the processor
`
`automatically
`
`analog acquisition
`
`is configured such that,
`
`sending under
`
`device is operatively
`
`when operatively
`
`control of the
`
`interfaced with the
`
`interfaced with the
`
`processor at least
`
`multipurpose
`
`multi-purpose
`
`one parameter to the
`
`interface of the
`
`interface, the processor
`
`multi-purpose
`
`computer, the
`
`causes at least one
`
`interface of t