UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________
`
`CANON INC.; CANON USA, INC.;
`CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.; FUJIFILM CORPORATION;
`FUJIFILM HOLDINGS AMERICA CORPORATION;
`FUJIFILM NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION; JVC KENWOOD
`CORPORATION; JVCKENWOOD USA CORPORATION;
`NIKON CORPORATION; NIKON INC.; OLYMPUS CORPORATION;
`OLYMPUS AMERICA INC.; PANASONIC CORPORATION;
`PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA;
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. AND
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO. KG,
`Patent Owner.
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2016-01223
`Patent 8,504,746
`____________________
`
`PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO. KG’S
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`

`

`
`
`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01223
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I. 
`II. 
`
`B. 
`
`2. 
`
`Introduction .......................................................................................... 1 
`The Petition Fails To Meet The Requirements For
`Instituting An Inter Partes Review ...................................................... 3 
`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) ................................................................................ 3 
`The Board Should Not Institute Trial Based On The
`Petition’s Redundant Grounds ................................................... 6 
`Horizontal Redundancies Across Related
`1. 
`Petitions Merit Their Denial ............................................ 8 
`Vertical Redundancies Within This Petition
`Also Merit Its Denial ..................................................... 14 
`III.  The Petitioners Advance Flawed Claim Constructions
`That Should Be Rejected .................................................................... 16 
`A.  Overview Of The ’746 Patent .................................................. 17 
`B. 
`Level Of Ordinary Skill In The Art ......................................... 19 
`C. 
`Response To Petitioners’ Proposed Claim
`Constructions ............................................................................ 20 
`“Without requiring any end user . . .,”
`1. 
`“without requiring any user-loaded file
`transfer enabling software
`.
`.
`.,” And
`“processor” Limitations ................................................. 20 
`“End user” ...................................................................... 20 
`2. 
`IV.  Petitioners Did Not Meet Their Burden To Show A
`Reasonable Likelihood Of Success On Their Grounds Of
`Invalidity ............................................................................................. 28 
`A. 
`Legal Standards ........................................................................ 29 
`B. 
`Petitioners Fail To Demonstrate The Challenged
`Claims Are Anticipated Based On McNeill ............................. 33 
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`
`V. 
`
`1. 
`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01223
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`Petitioners Failed To Meet Their Burden Of
`Showing That McNeill Discloses Every
`Limitation Of The Independent Claims ......................... 36 
`(i)  McNeill Does Not Disclose The
`“Analog Signal Acquisition Channel”
`Of Claim 1 ........................................................... 36 
`(ii)  McNeill Does Not Disclose The Data
`Generation Process Of Claims 1, 31,
`And 34 ................................................................. 40 
`2.  McNeill Also Fails To Disclose The
`Limitations Of All Of The Challenged
`Dependent Claims .......................................................... 43 
`Petitioners’ Obviousness Arguments Based on The
`Combination of McNeill And the Knowledge Of A
`POSITA Fail To Articulate What Is Missing From
`McNeill And How The Knowledge Of A POSITA
`Renders Claims 1, 31, and 34 Obvious .................................... 45 
`Conclusion .......................................................................................... 49 
`
`
`
`C. 
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01223
`
`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) ................................................................. 30
`Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple, Inc.,
`2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 14652 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 10, 2016) ......................... 38
`Bettcher Indus., Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc.,
`661 F.3d 629 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................................................... 39
`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) .............. 30, 31, 32
`Cont’l Can Co., U.S.A. v. Monsanto Co.,
`948 F.2d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ................................................................. 39
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`No. 15-446, 136 S. Ct. 2131 (June 20, 2016) ............................................ 16
`Dell, Inc. v. Elecs. & Telecommc’ns Res. Inst.,
`IPR2014-00152, Paper 12 (PTAB May 16, 2014) .................................... 32
`Dominion Dealer Sols., LLC v. Autoalert, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00223, Paper 9 (PTAB Aug. 15, 2013) ..................................... 33
`EMC Corp. v. PersonalWeb Techs., LLC,
`IPR2013-00087, Paper 25 (PTAB June 5, 2013) ........................................ 7
`Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys., Inc.,
`773 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................. 29
`FLIR Sys., Inc. v. Leak Surveys, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00411, Paper 9 (PTAB Sept. 5, 2014) ........................... 38, 39, 44
`Garmin Int’l, Inc. v. Cuozzo Techs. LLC,
`IPR2012-00001, Paper 15 (PTAB Jan. 9, 2013) ................................. 29, 37
`Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ...................................................................... 4, 29, 32, 46
`Idle Free Sys., Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc.,
`IPR2012-00027, Paper 26 (PTAB June 11, 2013) ...................................... 7
`In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr.,
`367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ................................................................. 16
`
`iii
`
`

`

`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01223
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`
`
`In re Bass,
`314 F.3d 575 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ................................................................... 16
`In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent
`Litig.,
`676 F.3d 1063 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................. 32
`In re Fritch,
`972 F.2d 1260 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ................................................................. 49
`In re Montgomery,
`677 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................. 39
`In re NTP, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................................................. 32
`In re Robertson,
`169 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ............................................................. 38, 39
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
`504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ................................................................. 16
`Intri-Plex Techs., Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Rencol Ltd.,
`IPR2014-00309, Paper 83 (PTAB Mar. 23, 2014) .............................. 29, 32
`K/S HIMPP v. Hear-Wear,
`751 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................. 38
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................ 29, 30
`Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.,
`CBM2012-00003, Paper 7 (PTAB Oct. 25, 2012) ............................. passim
`Medtronic, Inc. v. Robert Bosch Healthcare Sys., Inc.,
`IPR2014-00436, Paper 17 (PTAB June 19, 2014) .................................... 31
`Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc.,
`587 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ................................................................. 49
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ................................................. 16
`Prima Tek II LLC v. Polypap S.A.R.L.,
`318 F.3d 1143 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ........................................................... 17, 26
`SAS Inst. Inc. v. Complementsoft, LLC,
`IPR2013-00581, Paper 15 (PTAB Dec. 30, 2013) .................................... 12
`SAS Inst. Inc. v. Complementsoft, LLC,
`IPR2013-00581, Paper 17 (PTAB Feb. 24, 2014) .................................... 12
`Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,
`655 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................................................. 32
`
`iv
`
`

`

`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01223
`
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`Travelocity.com L.P. v. Cronos Techs., LLC,
`CBM2014-00082, Paper 12 at 10 ( PTAB Oct. 16, 2014) .................... 3, 46
`TRW Auto. US LLC v. Magna Elecs. Inc.,
`IPR2014-00258, Paper 16 (PTAB June 26, 2014) .................... 6, 31, 47, 48
`Wowza Media Sys., LLC v. Adobe Sys., Inc.,
`IPR2013-00054, Paper 12 (PTAB Apr. 8, 2013) .................................. 5, 49
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................... 13, 15, 29, 39
`35 U.S.C. § 311 ............................................................................................... 6
`35 U.S.C. § 312 ............................................................................................... 3
`35 U.S.C. § 313 ............................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. § 314 ............................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. § 315 ............................................................................................. 12
`35 U.S.C. § 325 ......................................................................................... 2, 12
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1 .............................................................................................. 8
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ........................................................................................ 16
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 .................................................................................... 3, 49
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107 .......................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108 ................................................................................ 1, 6, 12
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22 ............................................................................................ 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24 .......................................................................................... 51
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6 ............................................................................................ 51
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65 ............................................................................................ 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ............................................................................................ 51
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756–66 (Aug. 14, 2012) ....................................................... 4
`Other Authorities
`157 Cong. Rec. S1041–42 (daily ed. Mar 1, 2011) ...................................... 12
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01223
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`1305
`
`1306
`
`1307
`
`EXHIBIT NO. TITLE
`1301
`U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746 to Tasler
`1302
`Selected portions of ’144 patent file history
`1303
`U.S. Patent No. 5,499,378 (McNeill)
`1304
`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)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,088,532 to Yamamoto
`U.S. Patent No. 5,758,081 to Aytac
`JP H4-15853 to Kawaguchi
`U.S. Patent No. 5,508,821 to Murata
`File History Excerpt from ’002 Application: December
`18, 2001 Office Action
`File History Excerpt from ’002 Application: March 18,
`2002 Amendment
`File History Excerpt from ’002 Application: May 15,
`2002 Notice of Allowability
`File History Excerpt from ’443 Application: March 25,
`2011 MPEP § 1442.04 Notice
`
`1308
`
`1309
`
`1310
`
`1311
`1312
`2001
`2002
`2003
`2004
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`vi
`
`

`

`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01223
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`File History Excerpt from ’073 Application: August
`13, 2009 Amendment
`File History Excerpt from ’073 Application:
`December 30, 2008 Response, including claims
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01223
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`Patent Owner Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG (“Papst”) submits this
`
`Preliminary Response in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 313 and 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.107, responding to the Petition for Inter Partes Review (“Petition”) filed
`
`by Petitioners regarding claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746 (“the ’746
`
`patent”). Papst requests that the Board not institute inter partes review for
`
`several reasons.
`
`
`
`The Board has discretion to “deny some or all grounds for
`
`unpatentability for some or all of the challenged claims.” 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.108(b); see 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Petitioners bear the burden of
`
`demonstrating a reasonable likelihood that they would prevail in showing
`
`unpatentability on the grounds asserted in their Petition. 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.108(c). While it is not required to file a preliminary response (37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.107(a)), Papst takes this limited opportunity to explain the reasons the
`
`Board should not institute trial.
`
`First, 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 grounds. The proposed grounds are also
`
`horizontally redundant of grounds proposed in other inter partes review
`
`1
`
`

`

`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01223
`
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`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 five different prior art 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).
`
`Second, Petitioners fail to demonstrate any likelihood that they could
`
`ever sustain their grounds over the disclosure of McNeill alone. Petitioners
`
`conclude that the claims are anticipated based on McNeill only by
`
`misinterpreting claim terms, ignoring the claims as a whole, relying on
`
`information external to McNeill, and misreading and/or ignoring key aspects
`
`of McNeill’s disclosure.
`
`Third, the assertions of obviousness based on combining McNeill with
`
`the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) are mere
`
`conclusory statements. Because Petitioners fail to provide a persuasive fact-
`
`
`1 These same Petitioners have also filed seven petitions against a related
`
`patent, U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144.
`
`2
`
`

`

`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01223
`
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`based analysis with some rational underpinning to support these combination
`
`theories of obviousness, trial must be denied as to these theories.
`
`Papst does not attempt to fully address the numerous other deficiencies
`
`of the poorly articulated and underdeveloped grounds asserted in the Petition.
`
`See Travelocity.com L.P. v. Cronos Techs., LLC, CBM2014-00082, Paper 12
`
`at 10 (PTAB Oct. 16, 2014) (“nothing may be gleaned from the Patent
`
`Owner’s challenge or failure to challenge the grounds of unpatentability for
`
`any particular reason”). However, the deficiencies addressed herein are
`
`dispositive and preclude trial on any asserted grounds.
`
`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
`
`3
`
`

`

`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01223
`
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`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 a ground based on McNeill alone,
`
`Petitioners assert grounds combining McNeill with the knowledge of a
`
`POSITA without clearly articulating a single difference between McNeill and
`
`the claims on a claim by claim basis. 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 McNeill, and a specific
`
`rationale for why McNeill would have been modified to incorporate the
`
`missing elements from an individual claim, Petitioners ambiguously assert
`
`4
`
`

`

`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01223
`
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`obviousness as an alternative to anticipation on an element-by-element basis.
`
`Petitioners’ approach on obviousness leaves the Board and Papst to
`
`guess which elements Petitioners contend are missing from McNeill on a
`
`claim by claim basis, why allegedly anticipatory disclosures in McNeill would
`
`still require modification to arrive at the claims, 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 the expert
`
`declaration (“Reynolds Declaration”). In several places, Petitioners provide
`
`support for an entire paragraph or more of argument with a cite to McNeill
`
`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.
`
`(Compare, e.g., Pet. at 35 and Ex. 1306 ¶ 99; Pet. at 39 and Ex. 1306 ¶¶ 105–
`
`106.) 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. § 42.65(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. Inc., IPR2014-
`
`5
`
`

`

`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01223
`
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`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 Petitioners raise
`
`grounds that are redundant both internally and in view of grounds in related
`
`petitions.
`
`“[M]ultiple grounds, which are presented in a redundant manner by a
`
`petitioner who makes no meaningful distinction between them, are contrary
`
`to the regulatory and statutory mandates, and therefore are not all entitled to
`
`consideration.” Liberty Mut., CBM2012-00003, Paper 7 at 2. Such
`
`redundancies place a significant burden on both the Board and the patent
`
`owner, causing unnecessary delay and compromising the ability to complete
`
`review within the statutory deadline. Id.; see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. Eliminating
`
`redundant grounds streamlines and converges the issues. Idle Free Sys., Inc.
`
`6
`
`

`

`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01223
`
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`v. Bergstrom, Inc., IPR2012-00027, Paper 26 at 4–5 (PTAB June 11, 2013).
`
`A redundancy analysis properly focuses on whether the petitioner articulated
`
`a meaningful distinction of the relative strengths and weaknesses of its
`
`application of the prior art to one or more claim limitations. EMC Corp. v.
`
`PersonalWeb Techs., LLC, IPR2013-00087, Paper 25 at 3–4 (PTAB June 5,
`
`2013).
`
`Here, the same Petitioners2 collectively raised at least 20 grounds of
`
`unpatentability against overlapping challenged claims in six related petitions
`
`
`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 5.) Some of the related
`
`petitions appear to inadvertently omit FUJIFILM Holdings America
`
`Corporation from the list of real parties-in-interest. However, in those
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01223
`
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`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:
`
`
`instances, FUJIFILM Holdings America Corporation appears in the Power of
`
`Attorney. (See, e.g., IPR2016-1214, Paper 2.)
`
`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.
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01223
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`PROCEEDING
`
`IPR2016-1200
`
`’746 PATENT
`CLAIMS
`
`1, 6, 15, 17–18, 31,
`
`34
`
`GROUNDS
`
`103 (Aytac + SCSI Specification)
`
`102(b) (Murata)
`
`103 (Murata + “Admitted Art” +
`
`“Basic References”)
`
`IPR2016-1206 1–31, 34–35
`
`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”)
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`PROCEEDING
`
`’746 PATENT
`CLAIMS
`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01223
`
`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)
`
`IPR2016-1213
`
`1–3, 6–10, 15, 17–
`
`103 (Yamamoto + SCSI
`
`21, 25, 29, 31, 34
`
`Specification + Yamamoto 2)
`
`103 (Yamamoto + Muramatsu)
`
`102(b) (McNeill)
`
`103 (McNeill + POSITA)
`
`103 (McNeill + Muramatsu)
`
`103 (McNeill + AAPA)
`
`IPR2016-1223 1–25, 27–30, 33, 35
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01223
`
`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 McNeill alone is redundant to at least 16 distinct
`
`grounds challenging overlapping claims based on using Kawaguchi, Aytac,
`
`Yamamoto, or Murata as the base reference in the other petitions. 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.
`
`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.
`
`Petitioners should not be permitted to evade the prohibition against
`
`unjustified horizontally redundant grounds by spreading them among multiple
`
`petitions. This tactic only increases the burden on the Board and Papst, as well
`
`11
`
`

`

`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01223
`
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`as the prospect for unnecessary delay, contrary to 37 C.F.R. § 42.108 and
`
`Liberty Mutual.
`
`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. 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).
`
`This provision helps avoid serial challenges and the resulting burden on the
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) in managing multiple
`
`proceedings involving the same patent. 157 Cong. Rec. S1041–42 (daily ed.
`
`Mar. 1, 2011 (statement of Sen. Kyl). Similarly, 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 certain proposed grounds based upon duplicative nature
`
`of arguments across petitions). Here, Petitioners’ grounds (although each
`
`applying a distinct reference or combination) collectively involve the same
`
`12
`
`

`

`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01223
`
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`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 a
`
`base reference disclosing computer connections using a SCSI interface. (See,
`
`e.g., Ex. 2001 at 23:8–13 of Yamamoto; Ex. 2002 at FIG. 1 of Aytac; Ex.
`
`2003 at FIG. 1 of Kawaguchi; Ex. 2004 at FIGS. 1, 3 of Murata; Ex. 1303 at
`
`FIGS. 1–3 of McNeill.)
`
`In addition to the redundancies discussed above, in this case, McNeill
`
`was before the USPTO during prosecution of a patent application to which
`
`the ’746 patent claims priority, application number 09/331,002 (“the ’022
`
`application”). McNeill was cited by the Examiner in a rejection under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103 against the pending claims of the ’022 application. (Ex. 2005.)
`
`The applicant traversed the rejection, amended the claims, and the Examiner
`
`allowed the claims over McNeill. (Exs. 2006, 2007.)
`
`The applicant also brought McNeill to the Examiner’s attention during
`
`prosecution of the ’746 patent. In particular, McNeill was submitted as part of
`
`an Information Disclosure Statement which included the litigants’ Final
`
`Invalidity Contentions submitted in litigation on a related patent. (Ex. 2008.)
`
`In those Final Invalidity Contentions, the litigants identified McNeill as
`
`§ 102(b) prior art. Therefore, the claims of the ’746 patent were allowed over
`
`13
`
`

`

`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01223
`
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`McNeill, which was specifically addressed during prosecution of the related
`
`’022 application and additionally brought to the Examiner’s attention in the
`
`’746 patent itself.
`
`In light of the above, 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
`
`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(b) invalidity theory using solely McNeill; Petitioners then
`
`14
`
`

`

`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01223
`
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`argue § 103 invalidity theories using McNeill in combination with other
`
`references. Each of these grounds is directed to an