throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 10
`
`
`
` Entered: December 15, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`CANON INC., CANON U.S.A., INC.,
`CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., FUJIFILM CORPORATION,
`FUJIFILM HOLDINGS AMERICA CORPORATION,
`FUJIFILM NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION, JVC KENWOOD
`CORPORATION, JVCKENWOOD USA CORPORATION,
`NIKON CORPORATION, NIKON INC., OLYMPUS CORPORATION,
`OLYMPUS AMERICA INC., PANASONIC CORPORATION,
`PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO. KG,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01224
`Patent 8,504,746 B2
`____________
`
`Before JONI Y. CHANG, JENNIFER S. BISK, and
`MIRIAM L. QUINN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BISK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-01224
`Patent 8,504,746 B2
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner, listed above, filed a Petition requesting inter partes review
`
`of claims 1, 19–21, 24, and 26–28 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,504,746 B2 (Ex. 1101, “the ’746 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Patent
`
`Owner, Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG, filed a Preliminary Response.
`
`Paper 9 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`
`For the reasons that follow, we do not institute an inter partes review
`
`as to any of the challenged claims.
`
`A. Related Matters
`
`The parties indicate that the ’746 patent is involved in Papst Licensing
`
`GmbH & Co. KG v. Canon Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01692 (D.D.C.) and other
`
`proceedings. Pet. 9–12; Paper 5, 1–3. This patent has also been challenged
`
`in several other petitions for inter partes review. Pet. 12; Paper 5, 1.
`
`B. The ’746 Patent
`
`The ’746 patent describes an interface device for communication
`
`between a computer host device and a data transmit/receive device (e.g., a
`
`multi-meter, transmitting measured data to a computer). Ex. 1101, 1:20–22,
`
`1:56–59. According to the ’746 patent, using a specific driver to match very
`
`closely to an individual host system would achieve high data transfer rates
`
`across the interface, but the specific driver cannot be used with other host
`
`systems. Id. at 2:6–21. Several solutions to this problem were known in the
`
`art. Id. at 2:22–3:24. For example, IOtech introduced an interface device
`
`for laptops, using a plug-in card for converting the personal computer
`
`memory card association (PCMCIA) interface into a known standard
`2
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-01224
`Patent 8,504,746 B2
`
`interface (IEEE 1284). Id. at 2:25–30. The plug-in card provided a printer
`
`interface for enhancing data transfer rates. Id. at 2:30–34. In another
`
`example, a floppy disk drive interface was used for connecting a host device
`
`to a peripheral device. Id. at 3:10–14. The interface appeared as a floppy
`
`disk drive to the host, allowing a floppy disk drive and another peripheral
`
`device to be connected to the host device. Id. at 3:17–19.
`
`The ’746 patent indicates that the “invention is based on the finding
`
`that both a high data transfer rate and host device-independent use can be
`
`achieved if a driver for an input/output device customary in a host device” is
`
`utilized. Id. at 3:33–37. Figure 1 of the ’746 patent, reproduced below,
`
`illustrates a block diagram of an interface device.
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 1 above, interface device 10 connects to a host
`
`device via host line 11 and to a data transmit/receive device via output line
`
`16. Id. at 4:59–5:10. Interface device 10 includes first connecting device
`
`12, second connecting device 15, digital signal processor 13, and memory
`
`means 14. Id. In a preferred embodiment, the interface device is attached to
`
`a host device via a multi-purpose interface—e.g., a small computer systems
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-01224
`Patent 8,504,746 B2
`
`interface (SCSI) interface—which includes both an interface card and
`
`specific driver software for the interface card. Id. at 3:49–55, 8:37–41.
`
`According to the ’746 patent, SCSI interfaces were known to be present on
`
`most host devices or laptops. Id. at 8:37–41. By using a standard interface
`
`of a host device and by simulating an input/output device to the host device,
`
`the interface device “is automatically supported by all known host systems
`
`without any additional sophisticated driver software.” Id. at 11:29–35.
`
`C. Prosecution History
`
`The ’746 patent issued from U.S. Application No. 12/891,443 (“the
`
`’443 Application”). Ex. 1101, [21]. The ’443 Application itself is a
`
`continuation of US. Application No. 11/928,283, which in turn is a
`
`continuation of U.S. Application No. 11/467, 073 (“the ’073 Application”),
`
`filed on August 24, 2006. The ’443 Application was filed September 27,
`
`2010, while the ’073 application was still being prosecuted. Ex. 1101, [22];
`
`Ex. 2006. Both applications were examined by the same Examiner. Ex.
`
`1101; Ex. 2006.
`
`On August 24, 2006, the same day the ’073 Application was filed and
`
`several years before the ’443 patent was filed, the applicant filed a
`
`preliminary amendment with remarks explicitly distinguishing the claims
`
`over Murata.1 Ex. 2008. Specifically, the applicant explained that “[a]ll of
`
`the claims presented in this preliminary amendment generally require that
`
`the ADGPD send a response signal that allows a PC to automatically and
`
`
`
`1 US 5,508,821 (Ex. 1102).
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-01224
`Patent 8,504,746 B2
`
`without user intervention recognize that it can communicate with the
`
`ADGPD as if it were a commercially available mass storage device.” Id. at
`
`12. The applicant added:
`
`As one example [Murata] does not teach or suggest, for example,
`the above-noted “automatic recognition” feature because, for
`example, the system disclosed therein is UNIX based. As readily
`apparent to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art, such UNIX
`based systems affirmatively require user intervention in order to
`operate and use the scanner disclosed in [Murata].
`
`Id. at 13.
`
`Murata was discussed at least two subsequent times in supplemental
`
`preliminary amendments dated July 17, 2007, and December 18, 2007—
`
`both before the filing of the ’443 Application. Ex. 2009, 10 (“The scanner
`
`related references (e.g., [Murata]) also require user intervention of some sort
`
`to allow scanned images to be transferred over to a personal computer.”);
`
`Ex. 2010, 8–9 (“Murata does not, for example, teach or suggest structure
`
`that corresponds to the above-described claim feature. In direct contrast to
`
`the claimed subject matter, all devices disclosed in the ’821 patent
`
`affirmatively require user intervention in order to cause the PC to understand
`
`how to communicate with the scanner disclosed in the patent.”). The
`
`remarks accompanying the December 18, 2007, amendment detailed the
`
`differences between Murata and the presented claims as follows:
`
`Column 4, lines 20–35 of [Murata] state that an “mkfs” or
`“newfs” UNIX command must be executed before the scanner
`can be recognized. These commands are operating system
`commands, and have to be entered by the user or be embedded
`in an application program running on a workstation to which the
`[Murata] scanner is connected.
` The commands require
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-01224
`Patent 8,504,746 B2
`
`
`parameters to be given, including at least mkfs i-node
`device_name. This means that, for example, the user has to enter
`the node at which the file system is to be made and the device
`name (associated with the device file and driver in the system).
`These parameter values are not standard and may differ
`according
`to
`the actual hardware configuration of
`the
`workstation. If these commands are embedded in an application
`program, the application program can only be successfully run
`on different workstations if there is an appropriate means for
`entering the parameters by the user.
`As readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the relevant
`the UNIX operating system of [Murata] does not
`art,
`automatically recognize devices, nor does it perform data
`transmission with a device even though the device may emulate
`the UNIX file system. Detailed operator instructions or an
`application program containing the embedded instructions is
`required to administer and coordinate the data exchange
`described in [Murata]. For this reason alone, for example, the
`new claims should be found to be patentable over [Murata].
`
`Ex. 2010, 9.
`
`The ’073 Application issued as the ’144 patent on February 24, 2015.
`
`The ’443 Application issued as the ’746 patent on August 6, 2013.
`
`D. Illustrative Claim
`
`Of the challenged claims, claim 1 is independent. Claims 19–21, 24,
`
`and 26–28 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1. Claim 1 is
`
`illustrative:
`
`1. 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
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-01224
`Patent 8,504,746 B2
`
`
`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 comprising:
`
`a) a program memory;
`
`b) an analog signal acquisition channel for receiving a signal
`from an analog source;
`
`c) 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;
`
`d) wherein the processor is configured and programmed to
`implement a data generation process by which analog data is
`acquired from the analog signal acquisition channel, the analog
`data is processed and digitized, and the processed and digitized
`analog data is stored in a file system of the data storage memory
`as at least one file of digitized analog data;
`
`e) wherein when the analog acquisition device is operatively
`interfaced with the multipurpose interface of the computer, the
`processor executes at least one instruction set stored in the
`program memory and thereby automatically causes at least one
`parameter indicative of the class of devices to be sent to the
`computer through the multi-purpose interface of the computer,
`independent of the analog source, wherein the analog data
`acquisition device is not within the class of devices; and
`
`f) wherein the processor is further configured and programmed
`to execute at least one other instruction set stored in the program
`memory to thereby allow the at least one file of digitized analog
`data acquired from the analog signal acquisition channel to be
`transferred to the computer using the device driver corresponding
`to said class of devices so that the analog data acquisition device
`appears to the computer as if it were a device of the class of
`devices;
`
`whereby there is no requirement for any user-loaded file transfer
`enabling software to be loaded on or installed in the computer in
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-01224
`Patent 8,504,746 B2
`
`
`addition to the operating system.
`
`Ex. 1101, 11:48–12:26.
`
`E. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`
`
`Petitioner relies upon the prior art references listed below.
`
`Murata
`
`
`
`US 5,508,821
`
`Apr. 16, 1996
`
`(Ex. 1102)
`
`AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARDS INSTITUTE, INC., AMERICAN
`NATIONAL STANDARD FOR INFORMATION SYSTEMS – SMALL COMPUTER
`SYSTEM INTERFACE-2, ANSI X3.131-1994 (1994) (Ex. 1105, “the SCSI
`Specification”).
`
`MS-DOS® ENCYCLOPEDIA (Ray Duncan ed., 1988) (Ex. 1108, “the
`DOS Reference”).
`
`FRANK G. FIAMINGO, UNIX® SYSTEM ADMINISTRATION (1996) (EX.
`1107, “the UNIX-A Reference).
`
`FRISCH, ESSENTIAL SYSTEM ADMINISTRATION (2d ed. 1995) (EX. 1110,
`“the UNIX-B Reference).
`
`MCKUSICK, ET. AL, THE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 4.4BSD
`OPERATING SYSTEM (1996) (EX. 1111, “the UNIX-C Reference).
`
`Admitted Prior Art (see, e.g., Ex. 1101, 5:8–58).
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-01224
`Patent 8,504,746 B2
`
`
`F. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability (Pet. 6)2:
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`Basis
`
`Reference(s)
`
`1, 19, 21, 24, and 26–28
`
`§ 102(b) Murata
`
`1, 19–21, 24, and 26–28
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Murata, the SCSI Specification,
`the DOS Reference, the UNIX-A
`Reference, the UNIX-B
`Reference, the UNIX-C
`Reference, and the Admitted
`Prior Art
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1, 19, 21, 24, and 26–28 are unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Murata. Pet. 6, 17–43. In
`
`addition, Petitioner addresses those same claims, along with claim 20 stating
`
`“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 SCI interface and/or a UNIX or MS-DOS file system—
`
`would have been obvious to one of skill in the art.” Id. at 15.
`
`Patent Owner urges that we reject this Petition under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 325(d) because Murata was explicitly addressed during the prosecution
`
`
`
`2 Because the claims at issue have a filing date prior to March 16, 2013, the
`effective date of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29,
`125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”), we apply the pre-AIA version of 35 U.S.C.
`§§ 102 and 103 in this Decision.
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-01224
`Patent 8,504,746 B2
`
`history of the ’144 patent, an ancestor to the ’746 patent. Prelim. Resp. 18–
`
`22.
`
`For the reasons discussed below, we agree with Patent Owner and
`
`decline to institute inter partes review on any of the grounds raised in this
`
`Petition.
`
`A. Overview of Murata
`
`Murata discloses an image scanner used with an external host
`
`computer. Ex. 1102, Abs. According to Murata, the image scanner includes
`
`an optical system and CCD image sensor for reading an image of a
`
`document, a SCSI interface for connecting the image scanner to the external
`
`host, a CPU, a nonvolatile memory, and a “SCSI controller etc. for
`
`emulating a file system contained in the external host computer.” Id. An
`
`object of Murata is “to provide an improved image handling apparatus . . .
`
`which requires no preparation of any new device driver.” Id. at 1:58–61.
`
`Murata explains that “[b]ecause an operating system of a computer
`
`constructs a file system in a hard disc, there invariably exists a device driver
`
`for the hard disc.” Id. at 2:5–7. Moreover, because Murata’s image scanner
`
`includes a file system emulation means, control of the image scanner or
`
`transfer of image data “can be carried out using the device driver for existing
`
`hard discs” meaning “it is not necessary to prepare the device driver for each
`
`type of computer if the file system of the computer is the same.” Id. at 2:12–
`
`21. In short, the image scanner “can be connected to any one of various
`
`types of computers having the same file system, e.g. any one of all
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-01224
`Patent 8,504,746 B2
`
`computers having software called the ‘UNIX’ as an operating system.” Id.
`
`at 18–26.
`
`B. Arguments
`
`Petitioner describes the prosecution history of the ’746 patent, but
`
`does not specifically address the discussion of Murata in the prosecution
`
`history of the ’144 patent in that section. Pet. 1–4.
`
`Patent Owner responds that “Petitioners fail to raise any new issue
`
`with Murata that was not previously considered, and discarded, by the
`
`USPTO [during examination of the ’073 application.]” Prelim. Resp. 22.
`
`C. 35 U.S.C. § 325(d)
`
`The Board may reject a Petition requesting institution of inter partes
`
`review because “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments
`
`previously were presented to the Office.” 35 U.S.C. § 325(d); 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.3(a). Under the facts and circumstances presented here, we decline to
`
`institute an inter partes review based on either ground asserted in the
`
`Petition, both of which rely primarily on Murata. We find that substantially
`
`the same argument regarding patentability of the claimed subject matter over
`
`Murata was previously presented to the Office. Specifically, Petitioner
`
`argues that Murata discloses the negative limitations of claim 1 (“whereby
`
`there is no requirement for any user-loaded file transfer . . .”). Pet. 31–34.
`
`This issue was explicitly addressed several times in responses to the
`
`Examiner during prosecution. See Ex. 2009, 10; Ex. 2010, 12. Nothing
`
`pointed to by Petitioner supports reconsidering these arguments, which were
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-01224
`Patent 8,504,746 B2
`
`presented directly to the Examiner during prosecution.
`
`Further, Petitioner does not argue that the secondary references added
`
`in its alternative ground—the SCSI Specification, the DOS reference, the
`
`UNIX-A, B, and C references, and the Admitted Prior Art—add anything
`
`new to that which was before the Examiner. On this record, we are not
`
`persuaded that these references add to the information considered by the
`
`Examiner during prosecution.
`
`We decline to revisit an issue that has already been before the Office
`
`in prosecution history. Thus, we do not institute review based on
`
`Petitioner’s asserted grounds of anticipation by Murata or obviousness over
`
`Murata in combination with other cited references.
`
`It is ordered that the Petition is denied as to all challenged claims, and
`
`III. ORDER
`
`no trial is instituted.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-01224
`Patent 8,504,746 B2
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`David M. Maiorana
`F. Drexel Feeling
`Matthew W. Johnson
`David L. Witcoff
`Marc S. Blackman
`JONES DAY
`dmaiorana@jonesday.com
`f.dfeeling@jonesday.com
`mwjohnson@jonesday.com
`PapstPTABPetitioners@Jonesday.com
`dlwitcoff@jonesday.com
`msblackman@jonesday.com
`
`Dion M. Bregman
`Ahren C. Hsu-Hoffman
`Chris Mizumoto
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`dion.bregman@morganlewis.com
`ahren.hsu-hoffman@morganlewis.com
`chris.mizumoto@morganlewis.com
`
`T. Vann Pearce, Jr.
`Christopher J. Higgins
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`TVPPTABDocket@orrick.com
`0CHPTABDocket@orrick.com
`
`Gregory S. Cordrey
`JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER & MITCHELL, LLP
`gcordrey@jmbm.com
`
`Brian C. Rupp
`Carrie A. Beyer
`Nikola Colic
`DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-01224
`Patent 8,504,746 B2
`
`Brian.Rupp@dbr.com
`Carrie.Beyer@dbr.com
`Nick.Colic@dbr.com
`
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Nicholas T. Peters
`Paul Henkelmann
`FITCH, EVEN, TABIN & FLANNERY LLP
`ntpete@fitcheven.com
`phenkelmann@fitcheven.com
`
`Anthony L. Meola, Jr.
`THE MEOLA FIRM, PLLC
`info@themeolafirm.com
`
`
`
`14

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


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

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

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

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

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

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

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

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

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

Your account does not support viewing this document.

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

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

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

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

Become a Member

One Moment Please

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

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

Your document is on its way!

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

Sealed Document

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

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


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket