UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics
`America, Inc., and LG Electronics, Inc.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG.,
`Patent Owner
`
`IPR2016-01733
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`
`Patent Owner Papst’s Demonstratives
`Hearing Date: November 1, 2017
`
`0
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG’s Patent Owner Demonstratives – Ex. 2012, p. 1
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics
`America, Inc., and LG Electronics, Inc.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG.,
`Patent Owner
`
`IPR2016-01733
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`
`Patent Owner Papst’s Demonstratives
`Hearing Date: November 1, 2017
`
`0
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG’s Patent Owner Demonstratives – Ex. 2012, p. 1
`
`
`
`Overview
`
`• Petitioners Fail To Meet Their Burden To Establish Unpatentability
`Independent Claims 1, 39, 41, 43
`•
`• Automatic File Transfer Process
`• “without requiring any user-loaded file transfer enabling
`software to be loaded on or installed in the computer at any
`time” (Claim 1)
`• “using customary device driver present in the BIOS” (Claim
`41)
`• “by a hard disk driver program which is matched to the
`host computer and part of a manufacturer installed BIOS of
`the host computer.” (Dependent Claim 8)
`• A/D converter “configured to acquire analog data from each
`respective analog acquisition channel” (Claim 39)
`• A/D converter “configured to simultaneously acquire analog
`data from each respective analog source” (Claim 41)
`• Testimony of Expert Gafford not disputed
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG’s Patent Owner Demonstratives – Ex. 2012, p. 2
`
`
`
`Automatic File Transfer Process . . .without
`requiring any user-loaded file transfer enabling
`software to be. . .installed in the computer at any
`time” (Claim 1)
`• Petition never addresses Aytac’s specialized software (Pet. at 43-44)
`• Petitioners’ Reply arguments:
`• CATSYNC’s synchronization and cache clearing functions are not
`explicitly claimed, therefore CATSYNC’s presence on host computer is
`irrelevant (Reply at 4)
`• CATSYNC not required to transfer a file (Reply at 13-14)
`• Papst’s Response:
`• CATSYNC’s functions enable transfer of the correct file requested
`(Response at 48-54)
`• CATCAS needed for enabling acquisition and transfer of faxes
`(Response at 45-47, 60; Ex. 2006 at ¶ 43)
`• CATSYNC is required for file transfer- Aytac discloses CATSYNC is used
`every single time a file is transferred (Response at 40-41, 60)
`• To meet negative limitations, Aytac must be modified to remove
`CATSYNC (Response at 45-47)
`• CaTbox would be inoperable without CATSYNC – CATSYNC is file
`transfer enabling software (Response at 48-54)
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG’s Patent Owner Demonstratives – Ex., 2012 p. 3
`
`
`
`The ‘437 Patent Teaches a Device That Does
`Not Rely on Specialized Software
`
`“The user is no longer responsible for installing the interface device 10 on the host device by
`means of specific drivers which must also be loaded; instead the interface device 10 is
`automatically readied for operation when the host system is booted”
`(‘437 patent at 7:22-26, Response at 30)
`
`“The interface device according to the present invention therefore no longer communicates
`with the host device or computer by means of a specially designed driver but the means of a
`program which is present in the BIOS system ...”
`
`(‘437 patent at 4:23-27; Response at 43)
`
`“Using a standard interface of a host device, the interface device according to the present
`invention permits communication with any host device. By simulating an input/output device
`to the host device and, in a preferred embodiment, by simulating a virtual mass storage
`device, the interface device is automatically supported by all known host systems without any
`additional sophisticated driver software.”
`
`(‘437 patent at 11:38-44; ‘144 Response at 44)
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG’s Patent Owner Demonstratives – Ex. 2012, p. 4
`
`
`
`Automatic File Transfer Process
`
`“wherein the processor is further adapted
`to be involved in an automatic file
`transfer process in which, when the i/o
`port
`is operatively interfaced with the
`multi-purpose interface of the computer,
`and after the at least one parameter has
`been sent from the i/o port to the multi-
`purpose interface of the computer,
`the
`processor executes at
`least one other
`instruction set stored in the program
`memory to thereby cause the 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 using the customary device
`driver for the digital storage device while
`causing the analog data generating and
`processing device
`to appear
`to the
`computer as if it were the digital storage
`device without requiring any user-loaded
`file transfer enabling software to be
`loaded on or installed in the computer at
`any time..”
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG’s Patent Owner Demonstratives – Ex. 2012, p. 5
`
`
`
`Automatic File Transfer Process
`
`“without
`of
`Board Construction
`requiring any user-loaded file transfer
`enabling software to be loaded”:
`“without requiring the end user to
`install or
`load specific drivers or
`software beyond that included in the
`operating system, BIOS, or drivers
`for a multi-purpose interface or SCSI
`interface.”
`
`(Decision at 12)
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG’s Patent Owner Demonstratives – Ex. 2012, p. 6
`
`
`
`“End User”
`
`• Automatic File Transfer Process limitations each employ “user” rather than “end
`user” (‘437 Patent at 12:40-43, 15:54-57, 16:36-39, 17:7-10)
`
`• The Tasler patents use “user” and “end user” interchangeably, even within the
`claims. (Response at 30; See Claim 1, 12:17-20, 12:40-43, Dependent claims 17,
`23)
`
`• No Dispute that CATSYNC would be installed by a user or end user. (See
`Reply)
`
`• Petitioners submit construction of “end user” is irrelevant. (Reply at 4)
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG’s Patent Owner Demonstratives – Ex. 2012, p. 7
`
`
`
`The ‘081 Aytac Patent
`Aytac discloses a multitasking communications device
`
`single site for
`CaTbox is “the open, programmable,
`processing for the answering machine, fax machine, copier,
`and telephone. This invention takes out the processing core
`from each one of these gadgets and gives the tasks to a single
`is the CaTbox. It builds a
`central processing unit
`that
`multitasking operating system . . .”
`(‘081 at 5:9–14; Response at 36-37)
`
`As a standalone unit, CaTbox implements the following
`functions:
`a. print files found in a spool directory and pointed to in a
`queue
`b. receive faxes and print them or store them on CaTdisc
`c. send faxes driven by keypad
`d. receive voice mail and store them on CaTdisc
`e. play voice mail back driven by keypad
`f. copy from scanner to printer
`g. other functions that may be programmed such as email
`retrieval, faxback and data modem based TCP/IP/PPP node,
`dial a phone number.
`
`(‘081 at 8:7-19; Response at 37)
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG’s Patent Owner Demonstratives – Ex. 2012, p. 8
`
`
`
`The ‘081 Aytac Patent
`
`“[i]n tandem with [ASPIDISK.SYS], a virtual device driver called CATSYNC.VXD 523 implements the
`synchronization between the operating system of PC 101 and that of CaTbox 102 that access the same CaTdisc 301.”
`(‘081 at 10:58–63; Response at 38-39)
`
`“CATCAS.EXE 524 implements the remote CAS modem function.”
`
`(‘081 at 11:6–37; Response at 39)
`CATSER.VXD is a virtual device driver program that “implements the remote modem (CaTmodem) function.”
`
`(‘081 at 11:38-40; Response at 39)
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG’s Patent Owner Demonstratives – Ex. 2012, p. 9
`
`
`
`Aytac’s Specialized Software
`
`and
`of CATSYNC.VXD, CATCAS.EXE,
`39. Each
`CATSER.VXD are
`specialized
`software
`and
`drivers
`specifically created for operation of the CaTbox. (Id. at
`10:52–11:64.) These drivers would have to be loaded by an
`end user because they are specific to the CaTbox, were
`developed by the inventor Aytac, and were not customary
`drivers that were typically present on most computers at the
`time of the invention of the ’437 patent. For example,
`CATSYNC.VXD is a program written by the inventor of the
`Aytac patent and is included in the source code submitted
`with the Aytac patent application. (See, e.g., Ex. 1006 at 77,
`502.)
`
`(Ex. 2006, ¶ 39)
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG’s Patent Owner Demonstratives – Ex. 2012, p. 10
`
`
`
`CATSYNC.VXD Used In Every File Transfer
`
`CATSYNC.VXD 523 hooks the File I/O calls
`from the PC operating system (in this case
`Windows 95 520) and replaces the original call
`with the following:
`if File I/O for CaTdisc
`notify CaTdisc of beginning of File
`I/O receive acknowledgment
`flush File I/O caches for CaTdisc
`make the intended File I/O call
`
`(LUN=0)
`
`notify CaTdisc of end of File I/O
`(Ex. 1004 at 10:67-11:5; Response at 39-40)
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG’s Patent Owner Demonstratives – Ex. 2012, p. 11
`
`
`
`CATSYNC.VXD Used In Every File Transfer
`Dr. Reynolds confirmed that CATSYNC.VXD is user-loaded, CaTbox specific
`software used in every single file input or output call (Ex. 2007 at 107:24-108:8;
`Ex. 2008 at 39:9-17; Response at 40-41)
`
`9 Would you agree that the CATSYNC driver is
`10 involved in file I/O calls from the PC to the
`CaTdisc?
`11 A. Yes. It can be described as being involved in
`12 file transfers between the PC and the CaTdisc.
`13 Q. Would it be involved in every file I/O call
`14 from the PC to the CaTdisc?
`15 A. I believe you can say that from the words in
`16 Aytac at the bottom of Column 10.
`CATSYNC.VXD hooks the
`17 file I/O calls from the PC operating system.
`(Ex. 2008 at 39:9-17.)
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG’s Patent Owner Demonstratives – Ex. 2012, p. 12
`
`
`
`Aytac’s Specialized Software Is Required
`
`Dr. Reynolds confirmed necessity of CATSYNC and CATCAS at deposition
`
`5 Q. But what would Aytac say about his
`6 invention? I'm not interested in what Aytac would
`7 say about Tasler. I'm interested in what Aytac is
`8 saying to the person reading this patent.
`9 A. If the objective is to achieve all of the
`10 other things that Aytac is attempting to achieve in
`11 this embodiment, then he would not say they were
`12 superfluous, but that's not really the question
`13 here.
`14 Q. That's the question I'm asking. He says
`15 things like "We need to make sure that these calls
`16 do not corrupt local calls to CaTdisc"; is that
`17 correct?
`18 A. He says that, yes.
`19 Q. So based on that, would you understand him
`20 saying that a user who uses the CaTbox should
`21 install CATCAS and CaTsync to avoid corrupting
`22 local calls to the CaTdisc?
`23 A. If the user is attempting to accomplish
`24 all of the things in Aytac that go above and beyond
`25 simple reads and writes to the CaTdisc, yes.
`
`(Ex. 2007 at 96:5–25; Response at 50-51 (emphasis added))
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG’s Patent Owner Demonstratives – Ex. 2012, p. 13
`
`
`
`CATCAS Required to Acquire And Transfer
`Fax Files
`
`• For Automatic File Transfer Process, Petitioner relies on disclosure of
`acquisition and transfer of a fax file (Pet. at 43-44)
`• Dr. Reynolds cites Aytac’s teaching of CATCAS.EXE, which enables the
`host PC to receive faxes (Ex. 1001 at ¶ 110, citing Ex. 1004 11:25-27;
`Response at 45-47; Ex. 2006 at ¶ 43)
`• CATCAS is user-loaded file transfer enabling software (Response at 45-47;
`Ex. 2006 at ¶ 43)
`• Reply: “CATCAS used only in fax embodiment” (Reply at 16)
`• But see Pet. at 30, relying on receipt of fax by CaTbox modem as evidence
`of claimed data generation process.
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG’s Patent Owner Demonstratives – Ex. 2012, p. 14
`
`
`
`CATSYNC and CATCAS Prevent Corruption to
`Enable File Transfer
`
`fax
`“To view a fax, a Windows
`program also makes a file read call . . .
`We need to make sure that these calls
`do not corrupt local calls to CaTdisc.
`For example, while a fax is being sent
`from 30 PC, an incoming call may be
`in the process of being recorded on
`CaTdisc.”
`(Ex. 1004 at 11:25–37; Response at 48, 49, 60; Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 43-46)
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG’s Patent Owner Demonstratives – Ex. 2012, p. 15
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reliability Argument
`
`• Petitioners: Claims do not require reliable transfer of files/data, just
`ability to transfer one file/data (Reply at 5)
`• Papst does not argue that Aytac’s disclosed system is unreliable,
`distinguishing Geo. M Martin Co. v. All. Mach. Sys. Int’l (Reply at
`5)
`• Reliability only a concern if Aytac were modified to remove
`CATSYNC. (Response at 48-54)
`• CATSYNC is user-loaded file transfer enabling software
`(Response at 38-42, 48-54, 60)
`• Petitioners did not contest that file transfer could fail without
`CATSYNC or that CATSYNC required to prevent corruption
`of disk. (Reply at 6)
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG’s Patent Owner Demonstratives – Ex. 2012, p. 16
`
`
`
`Gafford’s Testimony Regarding
`CATSYNC.VXD Is Undisputed
`
`evidences both
`above
`“43. The CATSYNC.VXD pseudo-code
`Gafford:
`CATSYNC.VXD’s stated synchronization function, as well as a cache disabling
`function. Regarding synchronization, a person of ordinary skill would know that
`only one processor at a time can be allowed to modify one storage medium such as
`a disc. If CATSYNC.VXD were not installed in the host computer, the CaTbox
`device would be inoperable due to unreliability arising from lack of synchronization
`of two processors accessing the same disc, i.e., CaTdisc.”
`
`(Ex. 2006 at ¶ 43)
`
`Gafford: “46. A POSITA also understands that a cache cannot be maintained in the
`host computer for files resident on the CaTdisc because they may change due to
`activity in the CaTbox independently of accesses from the host PC, thus creating a
`difference between the data in the cache and the data on the CaTdisc and resulting
`in errors in operation of the user’s host PC programs that depend on accurate data
`being retrieved from the various media connected via the CaTbox.”
`
`(Ex. 2006 at ¶46)
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG’s Patent Owner Demonstratives – Ex. 2012, p. 17
`
`
`
`Not Obvious To Remove CATSYNC From Host
`
`• Dr. Reynold’s sole declaration statements regarding CATSYNC
`conclusory, unsupported by Aytac’s teachings, insufficient to show it
`would have been obvious to remove CATSYNC from host computer.
`(Ex. 1001 at ¶ 101; Response at 51-53.)
`• Gafford explains undisputed technical reasons why Dr. Reynolds’
`opinion is incorrect, including inability to achieve cache clearing
`function and introduction of timeout errors, resulting in inoperable
`system. (Ex. 2006 at ¶¶ 60-70.)
`Petitioners assert they never argued for modification to remove
`CATSYNC. (Reply at 20.)
`
`•
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG’s Patent Owner Demonstratives – Ex. 2012, p. 18
`
`
`
`Not Obvious To Remove CATSYNC From Host
`Modification to remove CATSYNC would render CaTbox inoperable for its
`intended purpose: multitasking
`
`( Response at 48-53)
`
`61. A number of errors could occur if the CATSYNC.VXD
`driver were not
`installed,
`including data corruption or
`incorrect data being read or written from the CaTdisc.
`Further, a host computer’s requests to read files from the
`CaTdisc would not work reliably if CATSYNC.VXD were
`not installed on the host computer. Because both the host PC
`processor and the CatBox processor may access the CaTdisk
`hard drive, and only one processor may access the CaTdisk at
`one time, CATSYNC.VXD is implemented to synchronize the
`two processors’ access of the CaTdisk to avoid conflicts.
`CATSYNC.VXD also ensures that the host PC acquires the
`requested file from the CaTbox, rather than a cached version
`of the file stored on the host PC. If CATSYNC.VXD were not
`installed, the CaTbox would not reliably respond to requests
`from the host PC to transfer files. Thus, CATSYNC.VXD is
`necessary and required to properly read files from the
`CaTdisc.
`
`(Ex. 2006 at ¶ 61)
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG’s Patent Owner Demonstratives – Ex. 2012, p. 19
`
`
`
`“Using customary device driver present in the BIOS”
`(Claim 41) and “a hard disk driver program . . Part of a
`manufacturer installed BIOS” (Claim 8)
`
`• Aytac uses ASPIDISK driver, in tandem CATSYNC to retrieve files from
`CaTdisc. (Ex. 1004 at 10:58-62.)
`
`• A POSITA would understand that ASPIDISK not present in BIOS, and a driver
`in the BIOS would not be used to transfer data. (Ex. 2006 at ¶75)
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG’s Patent Owner Demonstratives – Ex. 2012, p. 20
`
`
`
`A/D converter “configured to simultaneously acquire
`analog data from each respective analog source” (Claim
`41),
`“configured to acquire analog data from each respective
`analog acquisition channel” (Claim 39)
`
`• Petitioners: this limitation satisfied because “each analog signal would need to
`be digitized.” (Pet. at 68, 69)
`• Fails to show Aytac discloses an A/D converter that acquires analog data
`from each of a plurality of analog sources. (Response at 57-59.)
`• Dr. Reynolds confirmed Aytac does not disclose a single A/D converter that
`converts analog data from the microphone and scanner. (Ex. 2008 at 47:16-
`48:4)
`• Each modem disclosed in Aytac would not use the same A/D converter.
`(Response at 59; Ex. 2006 at ¶ 74.)
`• SCSI irrelevant to analog data acquisition from multiple analog sources, SCSI
`transfers digital data. (Decision at 23-24; Response at 58; Ex. 2006 at ¶ 73.)
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG’s Patent Owner Demonstratives – Ex. 2012, p. 21
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
