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 IPR2016-01224
`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
`
`

`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`2. 
`
`
`
`CASE IPR2016-01224 FOR
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I. 
`II. 
`
`Introduction .......................................................................................... 1 
`The Petition Fails To Meet The Requirements For
`Instituting An Inter Partes Review ...................................................... 4 
`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) ................................................................................ 4 
`The Board Should Not Institute Trial Based On The
`Petition’s Redundant Grounds ................................................... 9 
`1. 
`Horizontal Redundancies Across Related
`Petitions Merit Their Denial .......................................... 11 
`Vertical Redundancies Within This Petition
`Also Merit Its Denial ..................................................... 16 
`The Petition Fails To Comply With 35 U.S.C.
`§ 325(d) .................................................................................... 18 
`III.  The ’746 Patent and Claim Constructions .......................................... 22 
`A.  Overview Of The ’746 Patent .................................................. 22 
`B. 
`Level Of Ordinary Skill In The Art ......................................... 24 
`C. 
`Response
`to
`Petitioners’
`Proposed Claim
`Constructions ............................................................................ 24 
`IV.  Petitioners Did Not Meet Their Burden To Show A
`Reasonable Likelihood Of Success On Their Grounds Of
`Invalidity ............................................................................................. 25 
`A. 
`Legal Standards ........................................................................ 25 
`B. 
`Petitioners Fail To Demonstrate The Challenged
`Claims Are Anticipated Based On Murata .............................. 30 
`1. 
`As The USPTO Recognized, Murata Fails To
`Disclose Several Limitations Of The
`Independent Claims ....................................................... 30 
`
`i
`
`

`
`CASE IPR2016-01224 FOR
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`(i)  Murata Fails To Disclose That The
`Computer “Automatically Activates A
`Device Driver . . .” As Required By
`Claim 1 ................................................................ 31 
`(ii)  Murata Fails To Disclose That The
`Processor “Automatically Causes At
`Least One Parameter Indicative Of The
`Class Of Devices To Be Sent To The
`Computer . . .” As Required By Claim 1
` ............................................................................. 33 
`(iii)  Murata Fails To Disclose That There Is
`“No Requirement For Any User-Loaded
`File Transfer Enabling Software To Be
`Loaded On Or
`Installed
`In The
`Computer” As Required By Claim 1 ................... 36 
`2.  Murata Also Fails To Disclose The Limitations
`Of All Of The Challenged Dependent Claims ............... 38 
`Petitioners Fail To Demonstrate That The Challenged
`Claims Are Obvious Based On Murata In View Of
`The “Admitted Art” And “Basic References” ......................... 38 
`Conclusion .......................................................................................... 40 
`
`C. 
`
`
`
`V. 
`
`ii
`
`

`
`
`
`CASE IPR2016-01224 FOR
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`Cases
`Activevideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................. 26
`Am. Hoist & Derrick Co. v. Sowa & Sons,
`725 F.2d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ................................................................. 22
`Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple, Inc.,
`2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 14652 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 10, 2016) ......................... 34
`Bettcher Indus., Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc.,
`661 F.3d 629 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................................................... 35
`Canon, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures, LLC,
`IPR2014-00535, Paper 9 (PTAB Sept. 24, 2014) ..................................... 18
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. C-Cation Techs.,
`LLC, IPR2014-00454, Paper 12 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2014) .................... 27, 28
`Cont’l Can Co., U.S.A. v. Monsanto Co.,
`948 F.2d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ........................................................... 34, 35
`Dell, Inc. v. Elecs. & Telecommc’ns Res. Inst.,
`IPR2014-00152, Paper 12 (PTAB May 16, 2014) .................................... 29
`Dominion Dealer Sols., LLC v. Autoalert, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00223, Paper 9 (PTAB Aug. 15, 2013) ..................................... 29
`EMC Corp. v. PersonalWeb Techs., LLC,
`IPR2013-00087, Paper 25 (PTAB June 5, 2013) ...................................... 10
`Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys., Inc.,
`773 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................. 25
`FLIR Sys., Inc. v. Leak Surveys, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00411, Paper 9 (PTAB Sept. 5, 2014) ................................. 34, 35
`Garmin Int’l, Inc. v. Cuozzo Techs. LLC,
`IPR2012-00001, Paper 15 (PTAB Jan. 9, 2013) ....................................... 25
`
`iii
`
`

`
`CASE IPR2016-01224 FOR
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ...................................................................... 5, 25, 28, 38
`Idle Free Sys., Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc.,
`IPR2012-00027, Paper 26 (PTAB June 11, 2013) .................................... 10
`In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent
`Litig.,
`676 F.3d 1063 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................. 28
`In re Fritch,
`972 F.2d 1260 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ................................................................. 39
`In re Montgomery,
`677 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................. 34
`In re NTP, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................................................. 28
`In re Robertson,
`169 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ................................................................... 34
`Intri-Plex Techs., Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Rencol Ltd.,
`IPR2014-00309, Paper 83 (PTAB Mar. 23, 2014) .............................. 26, 28
`K/S HIMPP v. Hear-Wear Techs., LLC,
`751 F3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................. 34
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................ 25, 26
`Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co.,
`CBM2012-00003, Paper 7 (PTAB Oct. 25, 2012) ............................. passim
`Medtronic, Inc. v. Robert Bosch Healthcare Systems, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00436, Paper 17 (PTAB June 19, 2014) .................................... 27
`Neil Ziegman, N.P.Z., Inc. v. Stephens,
`IPR2015-01860, Paper 11 (PTAB Feb. 24, 2016) .................................... 21
`PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile U.S.A., Inc.,
`522 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ........................................................... 21, 22
`SAS Inst. Inc. v. Complementsoft, LLC,
`IPR2013-00581, Paper 15 (PTAB Dec. 30, 2013) .............................. 16, 18
`
`iv
`
`

`
`CASE IPR2016-01224 FOR
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`
`SAS Inst. Inc. v. Complementsoft, LLC,
`IPR2013-00581, Paper 17 (PTAB Feb. 24, 2014) .................................... 16
`Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,
`655 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................................................. 28
`Travelocity.com L.P. et al. v. Cronos Technologies, LLC,
`CBM2014-00082, Paper 12 at 10 ( PTAB Oct. 16, 2014) .................... 3, 39
`TRW Auto. US LLC v. Magna Elecs. Inc.,
`IPR2014-00258, Paper 16 (PTAB June 26, 2014) ................................ 8, 28
`Wowza Media Sys., LLC v. Adobe Sys., Inc.,
`IPR2013-00054, Paper 12 (PTAB Apr. 8, 2013) .................................. 8, 32
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ....................................................................................... 17, 36
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................................. 17, 25, 26
`35 U.S.C. § 312 ............................................................................................... 4
`35 U.S.C. § 313 ............................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. § 314 ............................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. § 315 ......................................................................................... 3, 18
`35 U.S.C. § 325 ................................................................................... 3, 18, 22
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1 ...................................................................................... 11, 15
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 .......................................................................................... 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107 .......................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108 ........................................................................ 1, 10, 15, 16
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22 ............................................................................................ 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24 .................................................................................... 14, 41
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6 ............................................................................................ 41
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65 ...................................................................................... 8, 32
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ............................................................................................ 41
`
`v
`
`

`
`CASE IPR2016-01224 FOR
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756–66 at 48,763 (Aug. 14, 2012) ....................................... 4
`Other Authorities
`157 Cong. Rec. S1041–42 (daily ed. Mar 1, 2011) ...................................... 18
`
`
`vi
`
`

`
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`CASE IPR2016-01224 FOR
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`1106
`
`1107
`
`1108
`1109
`1110
`
`EXHIBIT NO. TITLE
`1101
`U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
`1102
`U.S. Patent No. 5,508,821 to Murata
`1103
`Declaration of Dr. Paul F. Reynolds, Ph.D.
`1104
`Papst Litigation Claim Constructions
`American National Standards Institute, “ANSI X3.131-
`1105
`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.
`Frisch, “Essential System Administration,” 2nd Edition,
`O’Reilly & Associates (1995).
`McKusick, et al., “Design and Implementation of the
`4.4BSD Operating System,” Addison-Wesley Longman,
`Inc. (1996)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,731,834 to Huot et al.
`JP H5-344283 to Takahashi
`U.S. Patent No. 5,592,256 to Muramatsu
`Excerpt from the Microsoft Computer Dictionary (2nd ed.
`1994)
`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. 5,499,378 to McNeill
`U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144 to Tasler
`File History Excerpt: May 1, 2008 Examiner Interview
`Summary
`File History Excerpt: May 1, 2008 List of References
`Considered and Initialed by Examiner
`
`1111
`
`1112
`1113
`1114
`1115
`2001
`2002
`2003
`2004
`2005
`2006
`
`2007
`
`vii
`
`

`
`
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`CASE IPR2016-01224 FOR
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`File History Excerpt: August 24, 2006 Preliminary
`Amendment And Information Disclosure Statement
`File History Excerpt: July 17, 2007 Office Action
`Response
`File History Excerpt: December 18, 2007 Office Action
`Response
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`CASE IPR2016-01224 FOR
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`Patent Owner Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG (“Papst”) submits this
`
`Preliminary Response in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 313 and 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.107, responding to the Petition for Inter Partes Review (“Petition”) filed
`
`by 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 fail to
`
`sufficiently identify and explain their precise invalidity legal theories and
`
`supporting evidence in violation of the particularity required by the Board.
`
`Petitioners obscure whether the challenge based on the primary reference,
`
`U.S. Patent Number 5,508,821 to Murata (“Murata”), is based on anticipation
`
`1
`
`

`
`
`or obviousness. The ambiguous nature of Petitioners’ theories permeates the
`
`CASE IPR2016-01224 FOR
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`redundant additional grounds, based on Murata in combination with the
`
`“Admitted Art” or the “Basic References.” Never once conceding which claim
`
`limitations are missing from Murata, Petitioners fail to clearly articulate any
`
`theory of obviousness premised on combining the teachings of Murata with
`
`other sources. Their conclusory arguments consist mostly of broad assertions
`
`followed by unexplained or unsupported citations.
`
`Second, the Board should reject the Petition because Petitioners
`
`propose vertically redundant grounds of invalidity without identifying how
`
`any one ground improves on any other, violating Board precedent requiring
`
`petitioners to identify differences in the proposed rejections. The proposed
`
`rejections are also horizontally redundant of grounds proposed in other inter
`
`partes review petitions filed by the identical set of Petitioners (who identify
`
`themselves collectively as Petitioners/real parties-in-interest in each asserted
`
`petition) against the ’746 patent.1 Petitioners’ six petitions against the ’746
`
`patent collectively assert various grounds of invalidity based on five different
`
`primary prior art references. Accordingly, the Board should exercise its
`
`
`1 These same Petitioners have also filed seven petitions against a related
`
`patent, U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144 (“the ’144 patent”).
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`discretion and deny the Petition under 35 U.S.C. §§ 315(d) and 325(d) and the
`
`CASE IPR2016-01224 FOR
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`redundancy principles established in Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v.
`
`Progressive Casualty Insurance Co., CBM2012-00003, Paper 7 (PTAB Oct.
`
`25, 2012).
`
`Third, Petitioners fail to demonstrate any likelihood that they could ever
`
`sustain their ground over the disclosure of Murata alone. The Petition
`
`concludes that the claims are anticipated based on Murata only by ignoring
`
`the claims as a whole and misreading and/or ignoring key aspects of Murata’s
`
`disclosure.
`
`Fourth, the assertions of obviousness based on combining Murata with
`
`teachings of the secondary references are mere conclusory statements.
`
`Because Petitioners fail to provide a persuasive fact-based analysis with some
`
`rational underpinning to support these combination theories of obviousness,
`
`trial must be denied as to these theories.
`
`Papst does not attempt to fully address the numerous other deficiencies
`
`of the poorly articulated and underdeveloped grounds asserted in the Petition.
`
`See Travelocity.com L.P. et al. v. Cronos Technologies, LLC, CBM2014-
`
`00082, Paper 12 at 10 (PTAB Oct. 16, 2014) (“nothing may be gleaned from
`
`the Patent Owner’s challenge or failure to challenge the grounds of
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`unpatentability for any particular reason”). However, the deficiencies
`
`CASE IPR2016-01224 FOR
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`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 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). Petitioners do not
`
`comply with these requirements in several respects.
`
`First, in addition to asserting the ground based on Murata alone,
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`Petitioners assert grounds combining Murata with the so-called “Admitted
`
`CASE IPR2016-01224 FOR
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`Art” and “Basic References” without clearly articulating a single difference
`
`between Murata and the claims. However, the “[d]ifferences between the
`
`claimed invention and the prior art are a critically important underlying factual
`
`inquiry for any obviousness analysis. Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas
`
`City, 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966).” Liberty Mut., CBM2012-00003, Paper 7 at 2–3.
`
`Therefore, a petition that does not state the differences between a challenged
`
`claim and the prior art, and relies instead on the patent owner and the Board
`
`to determine those differences, fails to adequately state a ground of
`
`obviousness and risks having the claim excluded from trial. Id. at 3.
`
`
`
`Instead of clearly articulating what is lacking in Murata, and a specific
`
`rationale for why Murata would have been modified to incorporate the
`
`missing elements, Petitioners ambiguously assert obviousness as an
`
`alternative to anticipation on an obscured element-by-element basis. For the
`
`independent claims alone, Petitioners appear to assert obviousness for at least
`
`eight separate limitations.2 (Pet. at 17 (preamble), 19 (program memory), 21
`
`
`2 This list omits other allegations throughout the Petition that certain elements
`
`or teachings are, for example, “implicit and obvious” or “implicit, inherent
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`(analog signal acquisition channel; processor), 23 (processor configured and
`
`CASE IPR2016-01224 FOR
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`programmed to implement a data generation process), 25 & 28 (processor that
`
`automatically causes at least one parameter indicative of the class of devices
`
`to be sent to a computer); 31 & 34 (processor that is further configured and
`
`programmed to execute a file transfer process); 34 (user-loaded file transfer
`
`enabling software.)) No part of the Petition ever specifies which combinations
`
`of these limitations (one? two? five? all eight?) are missing from Murata and
`
`would be modified into Murata as part of Ground 2 of the Petition. Thus,
`
`instead of setting forth the particular modification of Murata that one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would undertake as required, Petitioners essentially
`
`set forth at least eight factorial (i.e., 40,320) potential combinations and
`
`modifications of Murata.
`
`The net result of this approach is that the Board and Papst are left to
`
`guess which elements Petitioners contend are missing from Murata, why
`
`allegedly anticipatory disclosures in Murata would still require modification
`
`to arrive at the claims, what specific teachings are being combined, the
`
`
`and would have been obvious” (See Pet. at 20, 30, 37, 42; see also id. at 23
`
`(“[A] PHOSITA would have recognized that CPU 50 necessarily (and
`
`obviously) executes program instructions . . .”).)
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`rationale for why a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would make
`
`CASE IPR2016-01224 FOR
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`that combination, and other aspects of a proper obviousness analysis.
`
`Petitioners compound the above problems through misuse of the expert
`
`declaration of Dr. Reynolds (“Reynolds Declaration”). In several places,
`
`Petitioners provide support for an entire paragraph or more of argument with
`
`a cite to Murata and a parallel cite to the Reynolds Declaration. In most
`
`instances, however, the corresponding paragraph in the cited expert
`
`declaration
`
`is substantively (if not word-for-word)
`
`identical
`
`to
`
`the
`
`corresponding text of the Petition. (See, e.g., Pet. at 17–19 (regarding the
`
`preamble) and Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 87–90; Pet. at 21 (regarding the analog signal
`
`acquisition channel) and Ex. 1103 ¶ 98; Pet. at 24 (paragraph starting
`
`“Second, Murata discloses . . .”) and Ex. 1103 ¶ 103; Pet. at 24–25 (paragraph
`
`starting “Therefore, Murata . . .”) and Ex. 1103 ¶ 106; Pet. at 26 (paragraph
`
`starting “Murata discloses the same . . .”) and Ex. 1103 ¶ 108; Pet. at 26
`
`(paragraph starting “The ’746 patent itself . . .”) and Ex. 1103 ¶ 110; Pet. at
`
`26 (sentence starting “Indeed, the SCSI recognition process . . .”) and Ex.
`
`1103 ¶ 109; Pet. at 27 and Ex. 1103 ¶ 114; Pet. at 28 (paragraph starting
`
`“Regarding claim 1 . . .”) and Ex. 1103 ¶ 115; Pet. at 28–30 (entire
`
`obviousness analysis) and Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 119–122; Pet. at 31 (paragraph starting
`
`“The ’746 patent discloses . . .”) and Ex. 1103 ¶ 124; Pet. at 31–32 (starting
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`with “Specifically, Murata discloses . . .”) and Ex. 1103 ¶ 126; Pet. at 33
`
`CASE IPR2016-01224 FOR
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`(sentence starting “Regarding the claim 1 . . .”) and Ex. 1103 ¶ 133; Pet. at 34
`
`(entire obviousness analysis) and Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 134; Pet. at 34 (paragraph
`
`starting “Murata discloses . . .”) and Ex. 1103 ¶ 137.) Repeating arguments
`
`from a petition verbatim without any facts, data, or analysis to support the
`
`stated opinion 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., IPR2014-00258, Paper 16 at 15 (PTAB June
`
`26, 2014).
`
`When Petitioners do not resort to having their expert regurgitate their
`
`arguments word-for-word, they often provide mismatched citations (see, e.g.,
`
`Pet. at 26 (citing Ex. 1103 ¶ 111)), citations that do not generally support the
`
`arguments in the Petition (see, e.g., Pet. at 22–23 (discussing the CPU’s
`
`alleged control of the CCD, which is not relevant to the element discussed on
`
`page 23 of the Petition)), or arguments without any support at all (see, e.g.,
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`Pet. at 29–30).3 These failures to provide support for their position further
`
`CASE IPR2016-01224 FOR
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`suggesting that the Reynolds Declaration should also be entitled to little or no
`
`weight.
`
`Because Petitioners fail to adequately identify the specific invalidity
`
`theories, supporting evidence, and rationale it relies on 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
`
`
`3 The Reynolds Declaration also repeatedly refers to claims 31 and 34, which
`
`are not challenged in the instant Petition. (See, e.g., Ex. 1103 at 41, 44, 46, 50,
`
`55–56, 65–67.)
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`redundancies place a significant burden on both the Board and the patent
`
`CASE IPR2016-01224 FOR
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`owner, causing unnecessary delay and compromising the ability to complete
`
`review within the statutory deadline. Id.; see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. Eliminating
`
`redundant grounds streamlines and converges the issues. Idle Free Sys., Inc.
`
`v. Bergstrom, Inc., IPR2012-00027, Paper 26 at 4–5 (PTAB June 11, 2013).
`
`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 Petitioners4 have collectively raised at least 20 grounds
`
`of unpatentability against overlapping challenged claims in six related
`
`
`4 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;
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`Petitions resulting in a total of 120 grounds.5 The Board (and Papst) will be
`
`CASE IPR2016-01224 FOR
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`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
`
`
`Panasonic Corporation of North America; Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; and
`
`Samsun Electronics America, Inc.” (See, e.g., Pet. at 8–9.) Some of the related
`
`petitions appear to inadvertently omit FUJIFILM Holdings America
`
`Corporation from the list of real parties-in-interest. However, in those
`
`instances, FUJIFILM Holdings America Corporation appears in the Power of
`
`Attorney. (See, e.g., IPR2016-1214, Paper 2.)
`
`5 In reality, the number of grounds raised is multitudes larger than this when
`
`you take into account that the number of possible combinations raised in
`
`Petitioners’ vague approach to their obviousness ground is eight factorial.
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`closely satisfies the claim limitation at issue in some respects than another
`
`CASE IPR2016-01224 FOR
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`reference, and vice versa.” Id. (emphasis in original).
`
`Petitioners’ grounds, filed serially across these six petitions are:
`
`PROCEEDING
`
`’746 PATENT CLAIMS
`
`GROUNDS
`
`IPR2016-1200
`
`1, 6, 15, 17–18, 31,
`
`103 (Aytac + SCSI
`
`34
`
`Specification)
`
`102(b) (Murata)
`
`IPR 2016-1206 1–31, 34–35
`
`103 (Murata + “Admitted Art” +
`
`“Basic References”)
`
`103 (Murata + Huot)
`
`103 (Murata + Takahashi +
`
`Huot)
`
`103 (Murata + Takahashi)
`
`103 (Murata + Muramatsu)
`
`102(b) (Murata)
`
`IPR 2016-1224 1, 19–21, 24, 26–28
`
`103 (Murata + “Admitted Art” +
`
`“Basic References”)
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`
`PROCEEDING
`
`’746 PATENT CLAIMS
`
`CASE IPR2016-01224 FOR
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`GROUNDS
`102(b) (Kawaguchi)
`
`103 (Kawaguchi + Matsumoto)
`
`103 (Kawaguchi + Matsumoto +
`
`Takahashi)
`
`IPR 2016-1211
`
`1–12, 14–15, 17–21,
`
`103 (Kawaguchi + Matsumoto +
`
`23–31, 34–35
`
`DASM-AD14)
`
`103 (Kawaguchi + Matsumoto +
`
`Saito)
`
`103 (Kawaguchi + Matsumoto +
`
`Saito + Muramatsu)
`
`102(e) (Yamamoto)
`
`103 (Yamamoto + SCSI
`
`Specification + Yamamoto
`
`2)
`
`103 (Yamamoto + Muramatsu)
`
`IPR 2016-1213
`
`1–3, 6–10, 15, 17–21,
`
`25, 29, 31, 34
`
`13
`
`

`
`PROCEEDING
`
`’746 PATENT CLAIMS
`
`IPR 2016-1223 1–25, 27–30, 33, 35
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE IPR2016-01224 FOR
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`GROUNDS
`102(b) (McNeill)
`
`103 (McNeill + POSITA)
`
`103 (McNeill + Muramatsu)
`
`103 (McNeill + AAPA)
`
`As an initial note, the two petitions relying upon Murata as a base
`
`reference (-1206 and -1224) collectively challenge every claim in the ’746
`
`patent except dependent claims 32 and 33. The two Murata petitions
`
`collectively contain 21,561 words (7,782 + 13,779), well in excess of the
`
`14,000 permitted by 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a). Petitioners should not be permitted
`
`to avoid the word count limitations imposed by the Board by splitting up their
`
`challenges based upon the same base reference in this manner. Both Murata
`
`petitions challenge independent claim 1 on the grounds of anticipation by
`
`Murata (Ground 1) or obviousness over Murata in view of the “Admitted Art”
`
`and the “Basic References” (Ground 2). (1206 Pet. at 7; 1224 Pet. at 6.) There
`
`was nothing other than word count limitations prohibiting Petitioners from
`
`bringing these challenges in the same Petition. The Board should exercise its
`
`discretion not to institute inter partes review on these grounds because
`
`14
`
`

`
`
`Petitioners’ practice prevents the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of
`
`CASE IPR2016-01224 FOR
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`these proceedings. 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.1(b), 42.108.
`
`Treating the Murata petitions discussed above as one petition for
`
`overall purposes of this discussion, each ground of a given petition (within the
`
`six petitions filed against the ’746 patent) is horizontally redundant to the
`
`distinct and separate grounds of the other petitions. For example, the ground
`
`challenging claims 1–31 and 34–35 based on Murata alone is redundant to 14
`
`distinct grounds challenging the same claims based on using Kawaguchi,
`
`Aytac, Yamamoto, or McNeill 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.
`
`15
`
`

`
`
`
`CASE IPR2016-01224 FOR
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
`
`Petitioners should not be permitted to evade the prohibition against
`
`unjustified horizontally redundant grounds by spreading them amon