UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`CASE: Unassigned
`
`Patent No. 9,189,437
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.100
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.(cid:3)
`
`II.(cid:3)
`
`Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1(cid:3)
`
`Grounds for Standing Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.104(a) ............................... 2(cid:3)
`
`III.(cid:3)
`
`’437 Patent Overview ..................................................................................... 2(cid:3)
`
`A.(cid:3)
`
`B.(cid:3)
`
`Summary .............................................................................................. 2(cid:3)
`
`Comparison of Independent Claims of the ’437 Patent ....................... 4(cid:3)
`
`IV.(cid:3)
`
`Identification of Challenge Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.104(b) ...................... 4(cid:3)
`
`A.(cid:3)
`
`B.(cid:3)
`
`C.(cid:3)
`
`D.(cid:3)
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(1): Claims for Which IPR Is Requested .......... 4(cid:3)
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(2): The Prior Art and Specific Grounds
`on Which the Challenge to the Claims Is Based .................................. 4(cid:3)
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(3): Claim Construction .................................... 8(cid:3)
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(4): How the Construed Claims are
`Unpatentable ....................................................................................... 11(cid:3)
`
`E.(cid:3)
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(5): Supporting Evidence ................................ 11(cid:3)
`
`V.(cid:3) Detailed Grounds for Unpatentability .......................................................... 11(cid:3)
`
`A.(cid:3) Aytac ................................................................................................... 12(cid:3)
`
`B.(cid:3)
`
`C.(cid:3)
`
`SCSI Specification ............................................................................. 15(cid:3)
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ...................................................... 20(cid:3)
`
`VI.(cid:3) Ground 1: Claims 1, 4-12, 14-16, 18, 19, 21-30, 33, 34, 36, 37, and 43
`are unpatentable as obvious over Aytac in view of the SCSI
`Specification. ................................................................................................ 21(cid:3)
`
`A.(cid:3) Aytac discloses every limitation of independent claim 1 with
`the possible exception of automatic recognition process (ARP)
`features. .............................................................................................. 22(cid:3)
`
`1.(cid:3)
`
`2.(cid:3)
`
`3.(cid:3)
`
`4.(cid:3)
`
`Limitations 1[preamble] and 1[a] – Analog data
`generating and processing device (ADGPD) and i/o port ....... 23(cid:3)
`
`Limitation 1[b] – program memory ......................................... 25(cid:3)
`
`Limitation 1[c] – data storage memory .................................... 26(cid:3)
`
`Limitation 1[d] – processor operatively interfaced with
`the i/o port, the program memory and the data storage
`memory .................................................................................... 27(cid:3)
`
`-i-
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`5.(cid:3)
`
`6.(cid:3)
`
`7.(cid:3)
`
`8.(cid:3)
`
`9.(cid:3)
`
`Limitation 1[e(i)] – wherein the processor is adapted to
`implement a data generation process by which analog
`data is acquired from each respective analog acquisition
`channel of a plurality of independent analog acquisition
`channels .................................................................................... 28(cid:3)
`
`Limitation 1[e(ii)] – the analog data from each respective
`channel is digitized, coupled into the processor, and is
`processed by the processor ....................................................... 30(cid:3)
`
`Limitation 1[e(iii)] – the processed and digitized analog
`data is stored in the data storage memory as at least one
`file of digitized analog data ...................................................... 31(cid:3)
`
`Limitation 1[f(i)] – wherein the processor is adapted to
`be involved in an automatic recognition process (ARP) ......... 32(cid:3)
`
`Limitation 1[f(ii)] – ARP occurs when the i/o port is
`operatively interfaced with the host’s multi-purpose
`interface .................................................................................... 35(cid:3)
`
`10.(cid:3) Limitation 1[f(iii)] – In ARP the processor executes at
`least one instruction set stored in the program memory
`and thereby causes at least one parameter [identifying it
`to be sent to the host] ............................................................... 36(cid:3)
`
`11.(cid:3) Limitation 1[f(iv)] – In ARP the at least one parameter
`identifies the ADGPD, independent of analog source, as
`a digital storage device instead of as an ADGPD .................... 36(cid:3)
`
`12.(cid:3) Limitation 1[f(v)] – In ARP the at least one parameter is
`automatically sent through the i/o port and to the host’s
`multipurpose interface ............................................................. 37(cid:3)
`
`13.(cid:3) Limitation 1[f(vi)] – ARP occurs without requiring any
`end user to load any software onto the computer at any
`time ........................................................................................... 37(cid:3)
`
`14.(cid:3) Limitation 1[f(vii)] – ARP occurs without requiring any
`end user to interact with the computer to set up a file
`system in the ADGPD at any time ........................................... 38(cid:3)
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`15.(cid:3) Limitation 1[f(viii)] – ARP - Wherein the at least one
`parameter is consistent with the ADGPD being
`responsive to commands from a customary driver .................. 39(cid:3)
`
`16.(cid:3) Limitation 1[g] – wherein the at least one parameter
`provides information to the computer about the
`ADGPD’s file transfer characteristics ..................................... 39(cid:3)
`
`17.(cid:3) Limitation 1[h(i)] – wherein the processor is further
`adapted to be involved in an automatic file transfer
`process (AFTP) ........................................................................ 40(cid:3)
`
`18.(cid:3) Limitation 1[h(ii)] – AFTP occurs when the i/o port is
`operatively interfaced with the host’s multi-purpose
`interface .................................................................................... 41(cid:3)
`
`19.(cid:3) Limitation 1[h(iii)] – AFTP occurs after the at least one
`parameter has been sent from the i/o port to the host’s
`multipurpose interface ............................................................. 41(cid:3)
`
`20.(cid:3) Limitation 1[h(iv)] – In AFTP the processor executes at
`least one other instruction set stored in the program
`memory to thereby cause [the data transfer] ............................ 42(cid:3)
`
`21.(cid:3) Limitation 1[h(v)] – AFTP transfers at least one file of
`digitized analog data acquired from at least one of the
`plurality of analog acquisition channels to be transferred
`to the computer ......................................................................... 42(cid:3)
`
`22.(cid:3) Limitation 1[h(vi)] – AFTP occurs using the customary
`device driver for the digital storage device while causing
`the ADGPD to appear to the computer as if it were the
`digital storage device ............................................................... 43(cid:3)
`
`23.(cid:3) Limitation 1[h(vii)] – AFTP occurs without requiring any
`user-loaded file transfer enabling software to be loaded
`on or installed in the computer at any time .............................. 43(cid:3)
`
`B.(cid:3)
`
`C.(cid:3)
`
`Aytac in view of the SCSI Specification discloses every
`limitation of independent claim 43. ................................................... 44(cid:3)
`
`Combining Aytac and the SCSI Specification would have been
`obvious. .............................................................................................. 44(cid:3)
`
`-iii-
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`D.(cid:3) Dependent claims 4-16, 18-31, 33-37, 45 are unpatentable over
`Aytac in view of the SCSI Specification. ........................................... 45(cid:3)
`
`1.(cid:3)
`
`2.(cid:3)
`
`3.(cid:3)
`
`4.(cid:3)
`
`5.(cid:3)
`
`6.(cid:3)
`
`7.(cid:3)
`
`8.(cid:3)
`
`9.(cid:3)
`
`Dependent Claim 4 .................................................................. 45(cid:3)
`
`Dependent Claim 5 .................................................................. 46(cid:3)
`
`Dependent Claim 6 .................................................................. 46(cid:3)
`
`Dependent Claim 7 .................................................................. 47(cid:3)
`
`Dependent Claim 8 .................................................................. 48(cid:3)
`
`Dependent Claim 9 .................................................................. 49(cid:3)
`
`Dependent Claim 10 ................................................................ 50(cid:3)
`
`Dependent Claim 11 ................................................................ 50(cid:3)
`
`Dependent Claims 12 and 33 ................................................... 51(cid:3)
`
`10.(cid:3) Dependent Claims 13, 18, and 45 ............................................ 52(cid:3)
`
`11.(cid:3) Dependent Claim 14 ................................................................ 54(cid:3)
`
`12.(cid:3) Dependent Claim 15 ................................................................ 54(cid:3)
`
`13.(cid:3) Dependent Claim 16 ................................................................ 55(cid:3)
`
`14.(cid:3) Dependent Claim 19 ................................................................ 55(cid:3)
`
`15.(cid:3) Dependent Claim 20 ................................................................ 56(cid:3)
`
`16.(cid:3) Dependent Claim 21 ................................................................ 56(cid:3)
`
`17.(cid:3) Dependent Claim 22 ................................................................ 57(cid:3)
`
`18.(cid:3) Dependent Claim 23 ................................................................ 58(cid:3)
`
`19.(cid:3) Dependent Claim 24 ................................................................ 60(cid:3)
`
`20.(cid:3) Dependent Claim 25 ................................................................ 60(cid:3)
`
`21.(cid:3) Dependent Claim 26 ................................................................ 61(cid:3)
`
`22.(cid:3) Dependent Claim 27 ................................................................ 62(cid:3)
`
`23.(cid:3) Dependent Claim 28 ................................................................ 63(cid:3)
`
`24.(cid:3) Dependent Claim 29 ................................................................ 64(cid:3)
`
`25.(cid:3) Dependent Claim 30 ................................................................ 64(cid:3)
`
`-iv-
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`26.(cid:3) Dependent Claim 31 ................................................................ 65(cid:3)
`
`27.(cid:3) Dependent Claim 34 ................................................................ 65(cid:3)
`
`28.(cid:3) Dependent Claim 35 ................................................................ 66(cid:3)
`
`29.(cid:3) Dependent Claim 36 ................................................................ 67(cid:3)
`
`30.(cid:3) Dependent Claim 37 ................................................................ 67(cid:3)
`
`VII.(cid:3) Ground 2: Aytac in view of the SCSI Specification and AAPA
`discloses every limitation of independent claim 41. .................................... 68(cid:3)
`
`VIII.(cid:3) Ground 3: Claims 2, 3, 17, 39, 40, 42, and 44 are unpatentable as
`obvious over Aytac in view of the SCSI Specification and Adaptec. .......... 69(cid:3)
`
`A.(cid:3)
`
`Claims 39 and 40 ................................................................................ 69(cid:3)
`
`1.(cid:3)
`
`2.(cid:3)
`
`Aytac in view of the SCSI Specification and Adaptec
`discloses every limitation of independent claim 39. ................ 69(cid:3)
`
`Dependent Claim 40 ................................................................ 71(cid:3)
`
`B.(cid:3)
`
`Dependent Claims 2, 3, 17, 42, and 44 .............................................. 71(cid:3)
`
`1.(cid:3)
`
`2.(cid:3)
`
`3.(cid:3)
`
`Dependent Claims 2 and 17 ..................................................... 71(cid:3)
`
`Dependent Claim 3 .................................................................. 72(cid:3)
`
`Dependent Claims 42 and 44 ................................................... 74(cid:3)
`
`C.(cid:3)
`
`Combining Aytac with Adaptec would have been obvious. .............. 74(cid:3)
`
`IX.(cid:3) Ground 4: Claim 32 is unpatentable as obvious over Aytac in view of
`the SCSI Specification and knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the
`art and/or Muramatsu. ................................................................................... 75(cid:3)
`
`A.(cid:3) Muramatsu discloses fast Fourier transform. ..................................... 75(cid:3)
`
`B.(cid:3)
`
`Combining Aytac and Muramatsu would have been obvious. .......... 75(cid:3)
`
`X.(cid:3) Ground 5: Claims 13 and 45 are unpatentable as obvious over Aytac
`in view of the SCSI Specification and the TI data sheet. ............................. 76(cid:3)
`
`A.(cid:3)
`
`B.(cid:3)
`
`The TI data sheet discloses sample and hold amplifiers. ................... 76(cid:3)
`
`Combining Aytac and the TI data sheet would have been
`obvious. .............................................................................................. 77(cid:3)
`
`-v-
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`XI.(cid:3) Ground 6: Claim 40 is unpatentable as obvious over Aytac in view of
`the SCSI Specification, Adaptec, and the TI data sheet. .............................. 77(cid:3)
`
`A.(cid:3)
`
`B.(cid:3)
`
`The TI data sheet discloses sample and hold amplifiers. ................... 77(cid:3)
`
`Combining Aytac and the TI data sheet would have been
`obvious. .............................................................................................. 78(cid:3)
`
`XII.(cid:3) Ground 7: Claim 38 is unpatentable as obvious over Aytac in view of
`the SCSI Specification, the TI data sheet, and the TI Patent. ...................... 78(cid:3)
`
`A.(cid:3)
`
`B.(cid:3)
`
`The TI data sheet and TI Patent disclose use of a BNC
`connector as recited in claim 38. ........................................................ 78(cid:3)
`
`Combining Aytac with the TI data sheet and the TI Patent
`would have been obvious. .................................................................. 79(cid:3)
`
`XIII.(cid:3) Mandatory Notices Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.8(a)(1) ................................ 80(cid:3)
`
`A.(cid:3)
`
`B.(cid:3)
`
`C.(cid:3)
`
`C.F.R. §42.8(b)(1): Real Parties-In-Interest...................................... 80(cid:3)
`
`C.F.R. §42.8(b)(2): Related Matters ................................................. 80(cid:3)
`
`C.F.R. §42.8(b)(3) and (4): Lead and Back-up Counsel and
`Service Information ............................................................................ 82(cid:3)
`
`XIV.(cid:3) Conclusion .................................................................................................... 83(cid:3)
`
`CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.24(a) ....................... 2(cid:3)
`
`PETITIONERS’ EXHIBIT LIST ............................................................................. 3(cid:3)
`
`APPENDIX – CLAIM LISTING ............................................................................. 5(cid:3)
`
`-vi-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,189,437
`
`Introduction
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437 (“the ’437 patent”) (Ex. 1003) is in a chain of
`
`I.
`
`
`
`applications dating back to 1997 acquired by Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG in
`
`2006. Papst filed multiple patent infringement suits, and during their pendency,
`
`serially filed continuation applications seeking to broaden its patent claims and
`
`capture accused products.
`
`
`
`But Papst reached too far and presented claims in Application No.
`
`11/467,092 (“’092 application”), from which the ’437 patent issued, that are so
`
`broad they go beyond the specification, and read on the prior art.
`
`
`
`During prosecution, highly relevant prior art was not considered —
`
`including U.S. Patent No. 5,758,081 to Aytac. Aytac discloses exactly the ’437
`
`Patent’s supposed invention: a device that interfaces a host computer and a
`
`peripheral device without requiring loading or installing additional drivers or
`
`software. Aytac achieves this through a SCSI connection — the very same
`
`connection described in the ’437 patent.
`
`
`
`Aytac describes the ’437 patent’s claimed invention better than the ’437
`
`specification. Indeed, Aytac submitted 450 pages of source code with his
`
`application in 1995, demonstrating a working embodiment Papst now tries to claim
`
`20 years later as its own. For the reasons below, the Board should institute IPR of
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,189,437
`
`the ’437 patent and cancel the Challenged Claims.
`
`II. Grounds for Standing Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.104(a)
`
`
`
`Petitioners certify that the ’437 patent is available for IPR and that
`
`Petitioners are not barred or estopped from requesting IPR.
`
`III.
`
`’437 Patent Overview
`
`A.
`
`Summary
`
`
`
`The ’437 patent describes a device alleged to facilitate the transfer of data
`
`between a data transmit/receive device (“DTRD”) from which data is to be
`
`acquired and a host. Ex. 1003 at 1:18-22. While interface devices were known,
`
`existing devices had drawbacks, including data-transfer speed and device
`
`compatibility. Id. at 1:26-2:19. The ’437 patent purports to describe an interface
`
`device overcoming these limitations.
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,189,437
`
`
`
`When a new device is connected to a port, normal action includes these
`
`steps: the host asks the new device what type of device it is; the connected device
`
`responds; the host determines whether it already possesses drivers for the identified
`
`type of device; and if it does not, an appropriate driver must be installed on the
`
`host and loaded into memory before proceeding. Declaration of Dr. Paul F.
`
`Reynolds, Ph.D. (Ex. 1001) at ¶56. In the ’437 patent, when the interface device is
`
`connected between a DTRD and a host, the interface device responds to the request
`
`for identification by stating that it is a type of device, such as a hard drive, for
`
`which the computer already has a driver. By mis-identifying itself to the host, the
`
`interface device induces the host to treat it like a device already familiar to the
`
`host. Thereafter, the host uses its native driver to communicate with the interface
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,189,437
`
`device. Ex. 1001 at ¶¶67-69; Ex. 1003 at 3:29-4:41.
`
`B.
`
`Comparison of Independent Claims of the ’437 Patent
`
`
`
`Independent claims 1, 39, 41, and 43 significantly overlap, as reflected in the
`
`claim listing appended to this Petition. See Ex. 1001, ¶¶118, 124, 127 and tables.
`
`Common elements will be addressed together below, with differing limitations
`
`addressed separately.
`
`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 IPR Is Requested
`
`IPR is requested for claims 1-45. The undersigned authorizes the Office to
`
`charge any additional fees that may be due in connection with this Petition to
`
`Deposit Account 070181.
`
`B.
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(2): The Prior Art and Specific Grounds on
`Which the Challenge to the Claims Is Based
`
`
`
`The references below are prior art to the ’437 patent under pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. §§102, 103. The one-year time bar under §102(b) is measured from the
`
`’437 patent’s effective U.S. filing date, which at best is March 3, 1998.
`
`IPR is requested in view of:
`
`(cid:120) USPN 5,758,081 to Aytac (Ex. 1004). “Aytac” was filed 12/8/1995,
`
`issued 5/26/1998, and is prior art at least under §102(e).
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,189,437
`
`(cid:120) American National Standard for Information Systems, Small Computer
`
`System Interface-2, ANSI X3.131-1994 (1994) (Ex. 1005). This “SCSI
`
`Specification” was published by ANSI in 1994 (Id., at 3), and is prior art
`
`under §102(b).
`
`As further evidence that the SCSI Specification was reasonably
`
`accessible to a POSITA before the ’437 patent’s earliest claimed
`
`priority, the SCSI Specification is explicitly referenced in Aytac. Ex.
`
`1004 at 4:50-53.
`
`(cid:120) “8-Bit Analog-to-Digital Converters With Serial Control and 19 Inputs
`
`(Rev. B),” SLAS066B, Dec. 1985, revised Oct. 1996 by Texas
`
`Instruments
`
`Inc.
`
`(“TI
`
`data
`
`sheet”)
`
`(available
`
`at
`
`http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/slas066b/slas066b.pdf) (Ex. 1007). The TI data
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,189,437
`
`sheet was published October 1996 (Ex. 1007, p. 1) and is prior art under
`
`§102(b).
`
`The reference was reasonably accessible to a POSITA exercising reasonable
`
`diligence as of its publication date, and could be found in several
`
`publications known by a POSITA. Ex. 1001, ¶48.
`
`(cid:120) USPN 5,592,256 to Muramatsu (Ex. 1008). “Muramatsu” was filed
`
`5/29/1996, issued 1/7/1997, and is prior art under §102(b).
`
`(cid:120) USPN 5,659,690 to Stuber (“Adaptec”) (Ex. 1009). Adaptec was filed
`
`10/15/1992, issued 8/19/1997, and is prior art under at least §§102(a) and
`
`102(e).
`
`(cid:120) “The MS-DOS Encyclopedia” by Ray Duncan, General Editor (“MS-
`
`DOS Reference”) (Ex. 1010) was published in 1988 and is prior art under
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,189,437
`
`§102(b).
`
`Ex. 1010, p. 4.
`
`(cid:120) USPN 5,325,071 to Westmoreland (“TI Patent”) (Ex. 1013). The TI
`
`Patent was filed 1/15/1993, issued 6/28/1994, and is prior art under
`
`§102(b).
`
`(cid:120) Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA”) in the ’437 patent. Ex. 1003,
`
`1:25-3:25.
`
`
`
`Petitioners ask that the Board find claims 1-45 of the ’437 patent
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a), based on the following grounds:
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,189,437
`
`References
`
`Claims
`
`1
`
`Aytac, SCSI Specification
`
`1, 4-16, 18-31, 33-37,
`
`43, and 45
`
`2
`
`Aytac, SCSI Specification,
`
`41
`
`AAPA
`
`3
`
`Aytac, SCSI Specification,
`
`2, 3, 17, 39, 40, 42, and
`
`Adaptec
`
`4
`
`Aytac, SCSI Specification,
`
`Muramatsu
`
`44
`
`32
`
`5
`
`Aytac, SCSI Specification,
`
`13 and 45
`
`TI data sheet
`
`6
`
`Aytac, SCSI Specification,
`
`40
`
`Adaptec, TI data sheet
`
`7
`
`Aytac, SCSI Specification,
`
`38
`
`TI data sheet, TI Patent
`
`C.
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(3): Claim Construction
`
`
`
`Claims are to be given their “broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`specification.” 37 C.F.R. §42.100(b). The constructions proposed below are
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,189,437
`
`intended to aid in this proceeding, and should not be understood as waiving any
`
`arguments for litigation. Because the standard in an IPR is different from that used
`
`in District Court, Cuozzo Speed Tech., LLC v. Lee, 136 S.Ct. 2131, 2142 (2016); In
`
`re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 1369 (Fed.Cir. 2004); MPEP
`
`§2111, Petitioners expressly reserve the right to argue different constructions there.
`
`
`
`For this proceeding only, without conceding their correctness for litigation,
`
`Petitioners propose adopting Papst’s constructions from related
`
`litigation:
`
`MDL No. 1880 (Ex. 1014):
`
`Claim Term
`
`Adopted BRI
`
`“automatic recognition process”
`
`“process by which
`
`the
`
`computer
`
`recognizes the ADGPD upon connection
`
`with the computer without requiring any
`
`user intervention other than to start the
`
`process”
`
`“without requiring any end user to load
`
`“Without requiring the end user to install
`
`any software onto the computer at any
`
`or load specific drivers or software for
`
`time”
`
`the ADGPD beyond that provided in or
`
`with the operating system or BIOS.”
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,189,437
`
`
`
`Additionally, Petitioners propose the following constructions:
`
`Claim Term
`
`BRI
`
`“end user”
`
`“actual user, as opposed to a system
`
`administrator or manufacturer”
`
`“file transfer characteristics”
`
`“information that enables transfer of
`
`files”
`
`“attached directly”
`
`“connected, for example via a cable,
`
`without any intervening components”
`
`“customary device driver”
`
`“driver normally part of commercially
`
`available computer systems at the time of
`
`the invention”
`
`“medical device”
`
`device for use in the medical field
`
`
`
`In the MDL, Papst argued that “customary” should not be construed as “at
`
`the time of the invention.” Ex. 1014, pp.40/46. However, “[a] claim cannot have
`
`different meanings at different times; its meaning must be interpreted as of its
`
`effective filing date.” PC Connector Solutions. LLC v. SmartDisk Corp., 406 F.3d
`
`1359, 1363 (Fed.Cir. 2005); Catch Curve, Inc. v. Venali, Inc., 2010 WL 270889,
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,189,437
`
`*3 (Fed.Cir. 2010) (“Because the specification was first filed in 1988, the reference
`
`to ‘existing fax terminal machines,’ . . . pertains to the technology as it existed at
`
`that time.”).
`
`
`
`This dispute does not matter here because Aytac and SCSI disclosed drivers
`
`that were customary before and after the purported invention.
`
`D.
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(4): How the Construed Claims are
`Unpatentable
`
`
`
`An explanation of how claims 1-45 are unpatentable, including identification
`
`of how each claim feature is found in the prior art, is set forth below in Parts VI-
`
`XII.
`
`E.
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(5): Supporting Evidence
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Exhibit List supporting this Petition is attached. Exhibit 1001 is
`
`a Declaration of Dr. Paul F. Reynolds (“Reynolds Decl.”) under 37 C.F.R. §1.68
`
`setting forth his qualifications in ¶¶1-20. The evidence’s relevance to the
`
`challenged claims, including an identification of the specific portions of the
`
`evidence supporting the challenge, is included in Parts VI-XII.
`
`V.
`
`Detailed Grounds for Unpatentability
`
`
`
`Claims 1-45 patent are unpatentable as obvious primarily over Aytac in view
`
`of the SCSI Specification and other secondary references detailed below.
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,189,437
`
`A.
`
`Aytac
`
`
`
`Aytac teaches the “CaTbox,” an analog data generating and processing
`
`device. Ex. 1004, 4:11-14; Ex. 1001, ¶41. Aytac’s Figure 1 discloses that CaTbox
`
`102 communicates with host PC 101 over SCSI interface 113 for analog peripheral
`
`devices connected to CaTbox. Ex. 1001, ¶42.
`
`CaTbox receives inputs from analog peripheral devices, including microphone 125,
`
`telephone receiver 107, telephone handset 105, scanner 104, and telephone
`
`network 123 connecting fax machines and telephones via phone lines 116, 118,
`
`120, and 122 and modems 308-311. Ex. 1001, ¶¶41-42. The peripherals include
`
`sensors for transmitting, e.g., fax images (from fax machines) and voice mail (from
`
`outside telephones). CaTbox includes modems 308-311 for converting between
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,189,437
`
`analog signals and digital representations of fax images, voice mail, and other
`
`types of data. Ex. 1001, ¶¶41-42. Signals received from analog sources are stored
`
`as digital files on CaTdisc under processor 201’s control. Ex. 1001, ¶¶43-44.
`
`
`
`CaTbox has program memory (BIOS EPROM 222, RAM 203, portions of
`
`CaTdisc storing CaTOS 590) and data memory (RAM 203, portions of CaTdisc,
`
`buffer memories within modems). Ex. 1004, 9:5-15, 11:58-64. CaTOS is built on
`
`MS-DOS; CaTdisc uses a DOS-FAT file system. Ex. 1004, 12:9-12; Ex. 1001,
`
`¶¶103-04, 168, 179-80. Processor 201 controls CaTbox data processing, storage
`
`and communications operations. See Fig. 2.
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,189,437
`
`Ex. 1004, 9:16-52; Ex. 1001, ¶80.
`
`
`
`
`
`Figures 3-4 show CaTbox includes multiple connectors, including:
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,189,437
`
`(cid:120) Connectors 315-319 and 321 connecting to telephone lines and
`
`attaching sensor devices to CaTbox; and
`
`(cid:120) Connectors 312 and 313 for coupling CaTbox’s SCSI I/O port to the
`
`host PC 101’s SCSI port
`
`Ex. 1004, 9:16-45; Ex. 1001, ¶¶80, 85, 142.
`
`
`
`CaTbox’s SCSI drivers ASPIDISK.SYS and ASPIDOS.SYS and PC’s
`
`MASPI.SYS provide a communications link for Windows 95 (520) and CaTOS.
`
`Ex. 1001, ¶42. Under processor 201’s control, when CaTbox and PC 101 are
`
`operatively interfaced through the SCSI connection, a recognition process is
`
`carried out using standard SCSI procedures whereby the PC issues an INQUIRY
`
`command and CaTbox responds that it is a mass storage class device. Ex. 1001,
`
`¶44. CaTbox then looks like a hard disk to PC 101. Ex. 1004, 4:49-50; Ex. 1001,
`
`¶67-70. Files of digitized analog data stored on CaTdisc can then be accessed by
`
`and transferred to PC 101 under processor 201’s control. Ex. 1001, ¶¶71-72.
`
`B.
`
`SCSI Specification
`
`
`
`SCSI was developed to enable a variety of peripheral devices to be
`
`connected to a computer. Peripheral devices are connected to the computer via a
`
`SCSI input/output (I/O) bus. Ex. 1005, at xxii and 1; Ex. 1001, ¶46. The SCSI
`
`Specification includes command sets for “magnetic and optical disks, tapes,
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,189,437
`
`printers, processors, CD-ROMs, scanners, medium changers, and communications
`
`devices.” Ex. 1005, at xxii; Ex. 1001, ¶¶46-47. SCSI was designed to function
`
`with a variety of peripherals and operating systems (such as MS-DOS and UNIX):
`
`The primary objective of the interface is to provide host computers
`
`with device independence within a class of devices. Thus, different
`
`disk drives, tape drives, printers, optical media drives, and other
`
`devices can be added to the host computers without requiring
`
`modifications to generic system hardware or software. . . . The
`
`command set definitions allow a sophisticated operating system to
`
`obtain all required initialization information from the attached
`
`SCSI-2 devices. The formalized sequence of requests identify the
`
`type of attached SCSI-2 device, the characteristics of the device, and
`
`all the changeable parameters supported by the device.
`
`Ex. 1005, at 6 (emphasis added); Ex. 1001, ¶¶46-47.
`
`
`
`A typical SCSI arrangement includes one “initiator” (commonly a host
`
`computer with a SCSI adapter installed) and peripheral “target” device(s)
`
`connected to the SCSI bus. Ex. 1001, ¶48. The initiator issues commands on the
`
`SCSI bus to seek out target devices. Ex. 1005, at 3, 5; Ex. 1001, ¶¶48-49. In
`
`particular, an initiator seeks out devices during start-up or when a new device is
`
`connected to the initiator via the SCSI bus. Ex. 1001, ¶¶48-49. A target responds
`
`to commands received from the initiator. Ex. 1005, at 5, 30; Ex. 1001, ¶51.
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,189,437
`
`
`
`This figure illustrates a common initial sequence of initiator/target
`
`exchanges:
`
`The initiator begins the exchange by issuing an “INQUIRY” command. Ex. 1001,
`
`¶50. Each connected target receives the INQUIRY and responds by providing
`
`identifying information, e.g., device type or vendor/product identification.
`
`Ex. 1005, at 84, 96-100; Ex. 1001, ¶50. For a hard disk (or device simulating a
`
`hard disk) connected to the SCSI bus, the target’s “device type” would be a
`
`“direct-access device.” Ex. 1005, at 96-100; Ex. 1001, ¶¶50, 52. The INQUIRY
`
`exchange outlined above is performed automatically, typically by drivers installed
`
`in SCSI devices or devices with SCSI adapters. Ex. 1001, ¶¶50, 52.
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,189,437
`
`
`
`In addition to the INQUIRY command, the SCSI Specification includes
`
`various read/write commands for obtaining file system information from a target
`
`and reading data from and writing data to the target. Ex. 1001, ¶¶53, 54. For
`
`example, the “READ(6)” and “READ(10)” commands can be used to read data
`
`from “direct-access devices.” Ex. 1005, at 195; Ex. 1001, ¶¶53, 54. A file system
`
`information acquisition exchange is circled in this diagram. Ex. 1001, ¶58.
`
`In 1998, file system information