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

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`Page
`
`IV. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`D. 
`
`Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1 
`I. 
`II.  Grounds for Standing Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) .............................. 2 
`III.  Background Information for the ’746 Patent .................................................. 2 
`A.  Overview of the ’746 Patent Family and Prosecution History ............ 2 
`Identification of Challenge Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ..................... 4 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1): Claims for Which Inter Partes
`A. 
`Review Is Requested .......................................................................... 4 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2): The Prior Art and Specific Grounds
`on Which the Challenge to the Claims Is Based ................................ 4 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3): Claim Construction ................................... 6 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4): How the Construed Claims are
`Unpatentable ......................................................................................... 8 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5): Supporting Evidence ................................. 8 
`E. 
`V.  Mandatory Notices Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1) ................................. 8 
`A. 
`C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1): Real Parties-In-Interest....................................... 8 
`B. 
`C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2): Related Matters .................................................. 9 
`C. 
`C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) and (4): Lead and Back-up Counsel and
`Service Information ............................................................................ 12 
`VI.  Detailed Grounds for Unpatentability .......................................................... 15 
`A.  Overview of Murata ........................................................................... 16 
`VII.  Grounds 1 and 2: Anticipation and obviousness of the Challenged
`Claims ........................................................................................................... 17 
`A. 
`Independent claim 1 ........................................................................... 17 
`1. 
`The preamble of claim 1 .......................................................... 17 
`2. 
`A program memory of claim 1 ................................................. 19 
`3. 
`An analog signal acquisition channel of claim 1 ..................... 21 
`4. 
`A processor operative interfaced of claim 1 ............................ 21 
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`6. 
`
`7. 
`
`8. 
`
`
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`5.  Murata discloses a processor that is configured and
`programmed to implement a data generation process of
`claim 1 ...................................................................................... 23 
`A processor that automatically causes at least one
`parameter indicative of the class of devices to be sent to a
`computer of claim 1 ................................................................. 25 
`A processor that is further configured and programmed to
`execute a file transfer process of claim 1 ................................. 31 
`No requirement for any user-loaded file transfer enabling
`software of claim 1 ................................................................... 34 
`B.  Dependent claim 19 ............................................................................ 35 
`1. 
`Ground 1: Anticipation ............................................................ 35 
`2. 
`Ground 2: Obviousness ............................................................ 39 
`C.  Dependent claim 20 (Ground 2: Obviousness) .................................. 40 
`D.  Dependent claim 21 (Grounds 1 and 2: Anticipation and
`obviousness) ....................................................................................... 41 
`Dependent claim 24 (Grounds 1 and 2: Anticipation and
`obviousness) ....................................................................................... 41 
`Dependent claim 26 (Grounds 1 and 2: Anticipation and
`obviousness) ....................................................................................... 42 
`G.  Dependent claims 27 and 28 (Grounds 1 and 2: Anticipation
`and obviousness) ................................................................................ 43 
`VIII.  Conclusion .................................................................................................... 44 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`EXHIBIT
`NO.
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`TITLE
`
`1101
`
`1102
`
`1103
`
`1104
`
`1105
`
`1106
`
`1107
`
`1108
`
`1109
`
`1110
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746 (“the ’746 patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,508,821 to Murata (“Murata”)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Paul F. Reynolds, Ph.D.
`
`Papst Litigation Claim Constructions
`
`American National Standards Institute, “ANSI X3.131-1994 - Small
`Computer System Interface-2,” (1994)
`
`American National Standards Institute, Procedures for the
`Development and Coordination of American National Standards,
`Approved by the ANSI Board of Directors (Sept. 9, 1993).
`
`Frank G. Fiamingo, “Unix System Administration,” The Ohio State
`University (1996).
`
`Ray Duncan, ed., “The MS-DOS Encyclopedia”, Microsoft Press
`(1988)
`
`Declaration of Frank G. Fiamingo, Ph.D. (“Fiamingo Decl.”)
`
`Frisch, “Essential System Administration”, 2nd Edition, O’Reilly &
`Associates (1995).
`
`1111 McKusick, et al., “Design and Implementation of the 4.4BSD Operating
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`System”, Addison-Wesley Longman, Inc. (1996).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,731,834 to Huot et al. (“Huot”)
`
`JP H5-344283 to Takahashi (“Takahashi”) (including original
`certified English translation thereof)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,592,256 to Muramatsu (“Muramatsu”)
`
`Excerpt from the Microsoft Computer Dictionary (2nd ed. 1994)
`
`1112
`
`1113
`
`1114
`
`1115
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iv-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`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. 1101 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.
`
`Based on the presented grounds, the Board should institute inter partes review
`
`of the ’746 patent and cancel all of its claims.
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`II. Grounds for Standing Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`Petitioners certify that the ’746 patent is available for inter partes review and
`
`that Petitioners are not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review
`
`challenging the claims on the grounds identified herein.
`
`III. Background Information for the ’746 Patent
`A. Overview of the ’746 Patent Family and Prosecution History
`
`The ’443 application was filed on September 27, 2010, and issued almost
`
`three years later on August 6, 2013 as the ’746 patent. The ’746 patent stems from
`
`the last application filed in a family of seven U.S. non-provisional applications. The
`
`’746 patent’s written description describes a device alleged to facilitate the transfer
`
`of data between a data transmit/receive device from which data is to be acquired and
`
`a host computer. Ex. 1101 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.
`
`Normally, when a computer detects that a new device has been connected to
`
`one of its input-output (i/o) ports: the host asks the new device what type of device it
`
`is; the connected device responds; the host determines whether it already possesses
`
`drivers for the identified type of device; and if it does not, an appropriate driver must
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`be installed on the host and loaded into memory before proceeding. In the ’746
`
`patent family, when the interface device is connected between a data
`
`transmit/receive device and a host, the interface device responds to the host’s request
`
`for identification by stating that it is a type of device, such as a hard drive, for which
`
`the computer already has a driver. By purposefully mis-identifying itself to the host
`
`as to the type of device the host is communicating with, the interface device induces
`
`the host to treat it like a device already familiar to the host. Thereafter, when the
`
`host communicates with the interface device to request data from or control the
`
`operation of the data device, the host uses its customary device driver. Ex. 1101 at
`
`3:28-4:38.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`memory 14 manage communications between the computer and the data
`
`transmit/receive device. Ex. 1101 at 4:59-5:7; Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 28-44.
`
`
`
`The prosecution history of the ’746 patent spanned three Office Actions and
`
`corresponding responses. The final response before allowance included thirteen
`
`pages of arguments presenting a number of alleged reasons why the claims were
`
`allowable over the cited references. No amendments were made. A Notice of
`
`Allowance was issued on June 7, 2013. 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.
`
`IV.
`
`Identification of Challenge Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)
`
`A.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1): Claims for Which Inter Partes Review
` Is Requested
`Inter Partes review is requested for claims 1, 19, 20, 21, 24, and 26-28 (the
`
`
`
`“Challenged Claims”) 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
`
`
`
`For purposes of this petition, 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
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`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 below references and the
`
`admitted prior art in the ’746 patent (“Admitted Art”):
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,508,821 to Murata (“Murata”) (Ex. 1102). Murata was
`
`filed on March 23, 1993 and issued on April 16, 1996, and is prior art
`
`under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
` American National Standards Institute, “ANSI X3.131-1994 - Small
`
`Computer System Interface-2” (“SCSI Reference”) (Ex. 1105) was
`
`published in 1994 and is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
` The MS-DOS Encyclopedia by Ray Duncan, General Editor (“MS-DOS
`
`Reference”) (Ex. 1108) was published in 1988 and is prior art under pre-
`
`AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
` Frank G. Fiamingo, “Unix System Administration,” The Ohio State
`
`University (“UNIX-A Reference”) (Ex. 1107) was published in 1996 and
`
`is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
` Frisch, “Essential System Administration”, 2nd Edition, O’Reilly &
`
`Associates (“UNIX-B Reference”) (Ex. 1110) was published in 1995 and
`
`is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
` McKusick, et al., “Design and Implementation of the 4.4BSD Operating
`
`System,” Addison-Wesley Longman, Inc. (“UNIX-C Reference”) (Ex.
`
`1111) was published in 1996 and is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(b).
`
`Petitioners herein refer to the SCSI, MS-DOS, and UNIX-A, UNIX-B, and
`
`UNIX-C References as the “Basic SCSI/DOS/UNIX References.” See Ex. 1103
`
`¶¶ 51-85.
`
`Petitioners ask that the Board find:
`
`(1) claims 1, 19, 21, 24, and 26-28 unpatentable under § 102(b) as
`
`anticipated by Murata (“Ground 1”);
`
`(2) claims 1, 19-21, 24, and 26-28 unpatentable under § 103 as obvious over
`
`Murata in view of the Admitted Art and the Basic SCSI/DOS/UNIX References
`
`(“Ground 2”).
`
`C.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3): Claim Construction
`A claim subject to inter partes review shall be given by the Patent Office “its
`
`broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it
`
`appears” to one of ordinary skill in the art. 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.100(b) and
`
`42.103(b)(3); In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 778 F.3d 1271, 1281 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2015). Petitioner expressly reserves its right to advance different constructions in
`
`district court litigation, which employs a different claim construction standard.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`For purposes of this proceeding only, Petitioners propose adopting, as the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim terms, the following claim
`
`constructions proposed by Papst in related litigation in the District of Columbia
`
`(Misc. Action No. 07-493 (RMC), MDL No. 1880) (Ex. 1104):
`
`Claim Term
`“without requiring any end user
`to load any software onto the
`computer at any time”
`
`“without requiring any user-
`loaded file transfer enabling
`software to be loaded on or
`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”
`
`Adopted BRI
`“without requiring the end user to
`install or load specific drivers or
`software for the [ADGPD/analog
`data acquisition device/analog
`data acquisition and interface
`device] beyond that included in
`the operating system or BIOS”
`
`“any kind of microprocessor,
`including a digital signal
`processor”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`D.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4): How the Construed Claims are
`Unpatentable
`
`An explanation of how the Challenged Claims are unpatentable, including
`
`identification of how each claim feature is found in the prior art, is set forth below in
`
`Section VII.
`
`E.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5): Supporting Evidence
`
`An Appendix of Exhibits supporting this Petition is attached. Included at
`
`Exhibit 1103 is a Declaration of Dr. Paul F. Reynolds (“Reynolds Decl.”) under 37
`
`C.F.R. § 1.68. In addition, the relevance of the evidence to the challenged claims,
`
`including an identification of the specific portions of the evidence supporting the
`
`challenge, is included in Section VII.
`
`V. Mandatory Notices Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1), the mandatory notices identified in 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.8(b) are provided below as part of this Petition.
`
`A. C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1): Real Parties-In-Interest
`
`Petitioners identify the following real parties-in-interest: Canon Inc.; Canon
`
`USA, Inc.; Canon Financial Services, Inc.; FUJIFILM Corporation; FUJIFILM
`
`Holdings America Corporation; FUJIFILM North America Corporation; JVC
`
`KENWOOD Corporation; JVCKENWOOD USA Corporation; Nikon Corporation;
`
`Nikon Inc.; Olympus Corporation; Olympus America, Inc.; Panasonic Corporation;
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`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
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`6:15-cv-01095 E.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2015
`
`Apple Inc.
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`6:15-cv-01099 E.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2015
`
`LG Electronics, Inc. et al
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`6:15-cv-01100 E.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2015
`
`ZTE Corporation et al
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`6:15-cv-01102 E.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2015
`
`Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`6:15-cv-01111 E.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2015
`
`Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`6:15-cv-01115 E.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2015
`
`Huawei Technologies, et al.
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`1:15-cv-01692 D.D.C.
`
`Oct. 15, 2015
`
`Canon Inc. et al
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`1:15-cv-01693 D.D.C.
`
`Oct. 15, 2015
`
`FUJIFILM Corporation et al
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`1:15-cv-01747 D.D.C.
`
`Oct. 15, 2015
`
`JVCKENWOOD Corporation et al
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v. 1:15-cv-01748 D.D.C.
`
`Oct. 15, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`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
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`1:15-cv-00497 D. Del.
`
`June 15, 2015
`
`HP Inc.
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`1:15-cv-00498 D. Del.
`
`June 15, 2015
`
`JVCKENWOOD Corporation et al
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`1:15-cv-00499 D. Del.
`
`June 15, 2015
`
`Nikon Corporation et al
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`1:15-cv-00500 D. Del.
`
`June 15, 2015
`
`Olympus Corporation et al
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`1:15-cv-00501 D. Del.
`
`June 15, 2015
`
`Panasonic Corporation et al
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`Hewlett-Packard Company v. Papst
`
`3:15-cv-02101 N.D. Cal. May 8, 2015
`
`Licensing GmbH & Co. KG
`
`
`Additionally, Petitioners are filing additional petitions for inter partes review
`
`of the ’746 patent, and for inter partes review of related patent U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,966,144.
`
`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
`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
`
`Back-up Counsel
`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
`
`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
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`Facsimile: (202) 339-8500
`vpearce@orrick.com
`
`Christopher J. Higgins
`Reg. No. 66,422
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`1152 15th Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20005-1706
`Telephone: (202) 339-8400
`Facsimile: (202) 339-8500
`chiggins@orrick.com
`
`Gregory S. Cordrey (Reg. No. 44,089)
`Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell, LLP
`3 Park Plaza, Suite 1100
`Irvine, CA 92614
`Telephone: 949-623-7200
`Facsimile: 949-623-7201
`gcordrey@jmbm.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)
`JONES DAY
`77 West Wacker
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`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
`
`(pro hac vice
`Andrew V. Devkar
`application to be submitted)
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`1601 Cloverfield Blvd., Suite 2050N
`Santa Monica, CA 90404-4082
`Telephone: 310-255-9070
`Facsimile: 310-907-2000
`andrew.devkar@morganlewis.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
`Telephone: 312-569-1000
`Facsimile: 312-569-3000
`Carrie.Beyer@dbr.com
`
`Nikola Colic (Reg. No. 62,412)
`DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`1500 K Street, N.W. , Suite 1100
`Washington, DC 20005
`Telephone: 202-230-5115
`Facsimile: 202-842-8465
`Nick.Colic@dbr.com
`
`
`Powers of Attorney accompany this Petition. Please address all
`
`correspondence to lead and back-up counsel. Petitioners consent to service by email
`
`at: PapstPTABPetitioners@Jonesday.com.
`
`VI. Detailed Grounds for Unpatentability
`Petitioners submit that the Challenged Claims are anticipated under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(b) by Murata. However, to the extent one or more limitations of the
`
`claims are deemed not anticipated by Murata, the relevant disclosures—relating to
`
`basic fundamentals of a SCSI interface and/or a UNIX or MS-DOS file system—
`
`would have been obvious to one of skill in the art (“PHOSITA”)1 in light of the
`
`combination of Murata with the Admitted Art and the Basic SCSI /DOS/UNIX
`
`References. Ex. 1103 ¶ 25.
`
`
`1 A PHOSITA 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. A PHOSITA would also be familiar with
`
`operating systems (e.g., DOS, Windows, Unix) and their associated file systems
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`A. Overview of Murata
`
`Murata discloses an image scanner connected to an external host computer
`
`via SCSI bus. The scanner includes an image sensor for capturing image data from
`
`a document, an image memory for storing the captured image data, and an SCSI
`
`interface for transferring the captured image data to the computer.
`
` (Scanner appears as a hard disk.)
`
`Fig. 1 (annotation added). The scanner further includes a file system emulator
`
`which emulates a file system of a standard hard disc, such that the scanner appears
`
`as and behaves as if it were a hard disc. The host computer can read the image
`
`data stored in the image memory by use of the computer’s native hard disc driver.
`
`See Ex. 1102 at Abstract, Figs. 1-3, 1:55-2:25, Ex. 1103 at ¶¶ 45-50.
`
`
`(e.g., FAT file system), and device drivers for computer components and
`
`peripherals (e.g., mass storage device drivers) and communication interfaces (e.g.,
`
`SCSI and PCMCIA interfaces). See Ex. 1104, ¶ 21.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`VII. Grounds 1 and 2: Anticipation and obviousness of the Challenged
`Claims
`
`A.
`
`Independent claim 1
`1.
`
`The preamble of claim 1
`(a) Grounds 1 and 2: Anticipation and obviousness
`The preamble of claim 1 recites “an analog data acquisition device
`
`
`
`operatively connectable to a computer through a multipurpose interface of the
`
`computer, the 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 for allowing the transfer of
`
`data between the device and the operating system of the computer, the analog data
`
`acquisition device.”
`
`
`
`To the extent the preamble limits the claim, it is disclosed by Murata. The
`
`“analog data acquisition device” is an image scanner 20, except the portion
`
`including CCD 31 (which is the “analog source” recited later in the claim).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`Ex. 1102 at Fig. 1 (red coloring added.).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The image scanner 20 (shown in brown below) is operatively connected to
`
`the “computer,” a workstation 21: “ . . . there is shown in FIG. 1 an image scanner
`
`20 embodying the present invention. The image scanner 20 is connected to an
`
`external host computer via an SCSI bus 22. In FIG. 1, the external host computer is
`
`a workstation 21 having the ‘UNIX’ as an operating system.” Ex. 1102 at 2:61-65.
`
`
`The workstation 21 and the image scanner 20 are operatively connected via
`
`
`
`the SCSI interface of workstation 21 (“a multipurpose interface of the computer”),
`
`the counterpart to the SCSI controller 64 (shown in blue in Fig. 3 in the next
`
`section) of image scanner 21. “A computer is generally operatively connected to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-18-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`several peripheral devices such as, for example, a magnetic disc, a magnetic tape, a
`
`printer or the like. Recently, a small computer system interface (SCSI) is
`
`standardized as an interface means for carrying out high-speed data transfer.
`
`Through the standardization, the SCSI is in wide practical use today as an interface
`
`for various computers.” Ex. 1102 at 1:15-21.
`
`
`
`When the workstation 21 receives a signal from the image scanner 20
`
`through the SCSI interface of the workstation 21 indicative of a class of storage
`
`devices including hard discs, the workstation automatically activates the
`
`corresponding device driver for allowing the transfer of data between the device
`
`and the operating system of workstation 21. For example, “the control of the
`
`apparatus or the transfer of image data can be carried out using the device driver
`
`for existing hard discs.” Ex. 1102 at 2:8-12 (emphasis added). “The image
`
`scanner 20 emulates the file system of the ‘UNIX’ as if it were a hard disc.
`
`Accordingly, the image scanner 20 looks like the hard disc from the workstation 21
`
`and can be handled as the hard disc.” Ex. 1102 at 4:20-23. Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 86-90.
`
`2.
`
`A program memory of claim 1
`(a) Grounds 1 and 2: Anticipation and obviousness
`Claim 1 recites “a program memory.”
`
`-19-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`
`
`
`
`Murata discloses this element because Murata’s nonvolatile memory 63 in
`
`Fig. 3 (shown in orange above) would contain program memory. It is also implicit,
`
`and also inherent and obvious, that Murata’s CPU 50 (shown in purple above)
`
`executes program instructions that are stored in program memory. It was well-
`
`known and would have been obvious to a PHOSITA that any CPU operates based
`
`at least in part on program instructions stored in a nonvolatile (persistent) memory.
`
`Ex. 1103 at ¶ 95. It is implicit, inherent and would have been obvious to a
`
`PHOSITA that Murata’s scanner has a program memory, such as the nonvolatile
`
`memory 63, for storing such program instructions, which can be read by the CPU
`
`50. Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 94-96.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-20-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`3.
`
`An analog signal acquisition channel of claim 1
`(a) Grounds 1 and 2: Anticipation and obviousness
`Claim 1 recites “an analog signal acquisition channel for receiving a signal
`
`from an analog source.”
`
`The analog source is CCD 31 (shown in pink above). “As shown in FIG. 3,
`
`the CCD 31 reads the reflected light from the document 2 at a resolution of 400
`
`dpi, converts it to the electric signal, and outputs an analogue image signal 32.”
`
`Ex. 1102 at 3:24-27. The analog signal is then received by an analog signal
`
`acquisition channel (amplifier 33 and A/D converter 34). “The analogue image
`
`signal 32 is then amplified by an amplifier 33 and is converted to a digital image
`
`signal by an 8-bit A/D converter 34.” Ex. 1102 at 3:27-29. Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 97-98.
`
`4.
`
`A processor operative interfaced of claim 1
`(a) Grounds 1 and 2: Anticipation and obviousness
`Claim 1 recites “a processor operatively interfaced with the multipurpose
`
`
`
`interface of the computer, the program memory, and a data storage memory when
`
`the analog data acquisition device is operational.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-21-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`
`
`Murata discloses a CPU 50 in Fig. 3 (shown in purple above) that is
`
`operatively interfaced with the SCSI interface of the workstation (multipurpose
`
`interface of the computer) via the SCSI controller 64 (the i/o port), the nonvolatile
`
`memory 63 (the program memory), the image memory 62 (the data storage
`
`memory) and the CCD 31 (the analog source). See