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 IPR2016-01733
`Patent 9,189,437
`____________________
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01199
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,189,437
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I. 
`II. 
`
`Introduction .......................................................................................... 1 
`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) ................................. 3 
`III.  The Petition Advances Flawed Claim Constructions That
`Should Be Rejected ............................................................................ 10 
`A.  Overview Of The ’437 Patent .................................................. 11 
`B. 
`Level Of Ordinary Skill In The Art ......................................... 15 
`C. 
`Response To Petitioners’ Proposed Claim
`Constructions ............................................................................ 16 
`“Automatic recognition process”, “without
`1. 
`requiring any end user to load any software .
`. .”, “file transfer characteristics”, “attached
`directly”, and “medical device” limitations ................... 16 
`“Customary device driver” ............................................ 17 
`2. 
`“End user” ...................................................................... 21 
`3. 
`IV.  Petitioners Did Not Meet Their Burden To Show A
`Reasonable Likelihood Of Success On Their Grounds Of
`Invalidity ............................................................................................. 23 
`A. 
`Legal Standards ........................................................................ 24 
`B. 
`Petitioners Fail To Demonstrate The Challenged
`Claims Are Obvious Over Aytac In View Of The
`SCSI Specification and the Other Secondary
`References ................................................................................ 29 
`Petitioners Fail To Articulate A Proper
`1. 
`Obviousness Ground ...................................................... 29 
`The Alleged Prior Art .................................................... 31 
`(i)  U.S. Patent No. 5,758,081 To Aytac ................... 31 
`(ii)  American National Standard For
`Information Systems – Small Computer
`
`2. 
`
`i
`
`

`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01733
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,189,437
`
`
`(“SCSI
`Interface-2
`System
`Specification”) ..................................................... 35 
`(iii)  U.S. Patent No. 5,659,690 To Stuber
`(“Adaptec”) .......................................................... 35 
`(iv)  Aytac’s Source Code Is Not Part Of The
`Aytac Disclosure And Does Not
`Otherwise Qualify As Prior Art ........................... 36 
`(v)  The Petition Fails To Show That The TI
`Data Sheet Is A “Printed Publication” ................ 39 
`Aytac In View Of The SCSI Specification
`Fail To Disclose A Processor “Adapted To
`Be
`Involved
`In A Data Generation
`Process . . . ” As Required in Claim 1 ........................... 41 
`Aytac In View Of The SCSI Specification
`Does Not Disclose The
`“Automatic
`Recognition Process” And “Automatic File
`Transfer Process” That Occurs Without
`Requiring The End User To Install Or Load
`Specific Drivers Or Software Beyond That
`Included In Or With The Operating System
`Or BIOS, As Required In Claim 1 ................................. 45 
`Petitioners Fail To Show Aytac In View
`(i) 
`Of The SCSI Specification Discloses
`The Automatic Recognition Process ................... 47 
`Petitioners Fail To Show That Aytac In
`View Of The SCSI Specification
`Discloses The Automatic File Transfer
`Process ................................................................. 49 
`Aytac In View Of The SCSI Specification
`Fails To Disclose A Processor Adapted To
`Be Involved In An Automatic File Transfer
`Process That Causes At Least One File Of
`Digitized Analog Data Acquired From At
`Least One Of The Plurality Of Analog
`
`(ii) 
`
`ii
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`

`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01733
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,189,437
`
`
`6. 
`
`Acquisition Channels To Be Transferred To
`The Computer ................................................................ 50 
`Aytac In View Of The SCSI Specification
`Fails To Render Claim 43 Obvious ............................... 52 
`7.   Aytac In View Of The SCSI Specification
`Fails to Render Obvious Claim 41 ................................. 54 
`8.   Aytac In View Of The SCSI Specification
`And Adaptec Fails To Render Obvious Claim
`39 .................................................................................... 57 
`Petitioners Fail To Demonstrate That The
`Challenged Dependent Claims Are Obvious ........................... 62 
`Conclusion .......................................................................................... 62 
`
`C. 
`
`V. 
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01733
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,189,437
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`Cases
`Activevideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................. 25
`Adams Respiratory Therapeutics, Inc. v. Perrigo Co.,
`616 F.3d 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ................................................................. 20
`Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc.,
`2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 14652 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 10, 2016) ......................... 28
`Bd. of Trs. of Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Sys., Inc.,
`528 F. Supp.2d 967 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ....................................................... 18
`Catch Curve, Inc. v. Venali, Inc.,
`363 Fed. Appx. 19 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .................................................... 20, 21
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC,
`IPR2014-00454, Paper 12 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2014) ......................... 7, 25, 26
`Conopco, Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Co.,
`IPR2013-00510, Paper 9 (PTAB Feb. 12, 2014) ........................................ 7
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`136 S. Ct. 2131 (June 20, 2016) ................................................................ 10
`Dell, Inc. v. Elecs. & Telecommc’ns Res. Inst.,
`IPR2014-00152, Paper 12 (PTAB May 16, 2014) .................................... 27
`Dominion Dealer Sols., LLC v. Autoalert, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00223, Paper 9 (PTAB Aug. 15, 2013) ..................................... 27
`Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ............................................................................... passim
`In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr.,
`367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ................................................................. 10
`In re Bass,
`314 F.3d 575 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ................................................................... 10
`In re Cronyn,
`890 F.2d 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ................................................................. 38
`In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent
`Litig.,
`676 F.3d 1063 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................. 26
`
`iv
`
`

`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01733
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,189,437
`
`
`In re Fritch,
`972 F.2d 1260 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ....................................................... 5, 30, 62
`In re Lister,
`583 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ................................................................. 40
`In re NTP, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ........................................................... 27, 61
`In re Papst Licensing Digital Camera Patent Litig.,
`778 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................................. 18
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
`504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ................................................................. 11
`In re Zurko,
`258 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ................................................................. 28
`Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs,
`512 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................. 20
`Intri-Plex Techs., Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Rencol Ltd.,
`IPR2014-00309, Paper 83 (PTAB Mar. 23, 2014) .............................. 24, 26
`K/S HIMPP v. Hear-Wear Techs., LLC,
`751 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................... passim
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ........................................................................... passim
`Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. ITC,
`545 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................. 38
`Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co.,
`CBM2012-00003, Paper 7 (PTAB Oct. 25, 2012) ...................................... 8
`Medtronic, Inc. v. Robert Bosch Healthcare Systems, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00436, Paper 17 (PTAB June 19, 2014) .................................... 26
`Operating Sys. Sols., LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. 8:11-cv-1754-T-30TGW, 2013 WL 3801467 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 15,
`2013) .......................................................................................................... 18
`PC Connector Solutions, LLC v. SmartDisk Corp.,
`406 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ................................................................. 20
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ........................................... 11, 18
`Rohm and Haas Co. v. Brotech Corp.,
`127 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ................................................................. 41
`Servicenow, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`IPR2015-00707, Paper 12 (PTAB August 26, 2015) .......................... 40, 41
`
`v
`
`

`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01733
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,189,437
`
`
`Shopkick, Inc. v. Novitaz, Inc.,
`IPR2015-00279, Paper 7 (PTAB May 29, 2015) ...................................... 30
`Solaia Tech. LLC v. Arvinvmeritor Inc.,
`2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16482 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 17, 2003) ......................... 38
`Southwest Software, Inc. v. Harlequin, Inc.,
`226 F.3d 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ................................................................. 38
`SRI Int'l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am.,
`775 F.2d 1107 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc) ................................................. 18
`Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,
`655 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................................................. 27
`SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc.,
`358 F.3d 870 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................. 17, 20
`Symantec Corp. v. RPost Comms. Ltd.,
`IPR2014-00353, Paper 15 (PTAB July 15, 2014) ....................................... 7
`Travelocity.com L.P. v. Cronos Techs., LLC,
`CBM2014-00082, Paper 12 (PTAB Oct. 16, 2014) .............................. 3, 10
`TRW Auto. US LLC v. Magna Elecs. Inc.,
`IPR2014-00258, Paper 16 (PTAB June 26, 2014) .......................... 6, 26, 45
`Wowza Media Sys., LLC v. Adobe Sys., Inc.,
`IPR2013-00054, Paper 12 (PTAB Apr. 8, 2013) ........................................ 6
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ....................................................................................... 38, 39
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................................... 9, 24, 29
`35 U.S.C. § 311 ......................................................................................... 5, 39
`35 U.S.C. § 312 ............................................................................................... 3
`35 U.S.C. § 313 ............................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. § 314 ............................................................................................... 1
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 1.96 ............................................................................................ 37
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ........................................................................................ 10
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ................................................................................. passim
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107 .......................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108 .......................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22 .................................................................................... 3, 5, 7
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24 .......................................................................................... 64
`
`vi
`
`

`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01733
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,189,437
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6 .................................................................................. 7, 48, 64
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65 .......................................................................... 6, 40, 45, 60
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ............................................................................................ 64
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756–66 (Aug. 14, 2012) ....................................................... 4
`Other Authorities
`MPEP § 608.05 ............................................................................................. 37
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01733
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,189,437
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`1007
`1008
`1009
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`1013
`
`EXHIBIT NO. TITLE
`1001
`Declaration of Dr. Paul F. Reynolds, Ph.D.
`1002
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Paul F. Reynolds, Ph.D.
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437 to Michael Tasler (“the ’437
`1003
`Patent”).
`U.S. Patent No. 5,758,081 to Haluk M. Aytac (“Aytac” or
`“the ’081 Patent”).
`American National Standard for Information Systems,
`Small Computer System Interface-2, ANSI X3.131-1994
`(1994) (“SCSI Specification”).
`Prosecution History of the ’081 Patent.
`Texas Instruments data sheet SLA006B (1996) (“TI data
`sheet”).
`U.S. Patent No. 5,592,256 to Muramatsu (“Muramatsu”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,659,690 to Stuber (“Adaptec”)
`Ray Duncan, ed., “The MS-DOS Encyclopedia,”
`Microsoft Press (1988).
`Federal Circuit decision, In re: Papst Licensing Digital
`Camera Patent Litigation, No. 2014-1110 (Fed. Cir. Feb.
`2, 2015).
`Excerpts from the Microsoft Computer Dictionary (2nd
`ed. 1994)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,325,071 to Westmoreland (“TI Patent”)
`Papst’s Opening Claim Construction Brief and
`Declaration of Robert Zeidman, filed in related litigation
`in the District of Columbia. In re: Papst Licensing
`Digital Camera Patent Litigation, MDL No. 1880, Case
`No. 1:07-mc-00493, Dkt. Nos. 630, 630-12 (June 3,
`2016).
`Excerpt from Prosecution History of the ’437 Patent:
`Appellant’s Brief on Appeal dated May 7, 2012.
`Excerpt from Prosecution History of the ’437 Patent:
`Amendment dated August 31, 2009.
`Excerpt from MPEP § 608 (1995)
`Wikipedia Entry
`for “Dual-tone multi-frequency
`signaling”
`“HowStuffWorks” Article: “How Fax Machines Work”
`
`1014
`
`2001
`
`2002
`2003
`2004
`2005
`
`viii
`
`

`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01733
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,189,437
`
`
`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 (the “Petition”)
`
`filed by the Petitioners regarding claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437 (“the
`
`’437 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 point out certain 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 the source of the alleged teachings of the prior art and even
`
`rely on information that is not prior art, including non-prior art source code
`
`1
`
`

`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01733
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,189,437
`
`(Ex. 1006), an alleged printed publication (Ex. 1007), and non-prior art
`
`teachings of the challenged ’437 patent in support of its grounds of invalidity.
`
`(See, e.g., Pet. at 31.) The grounds of invalidity are each alleged to be based
`
`on Aytac (Ex. 1004) in view of the SCSI Specification (Ex. 1005) and one or
`
`more other secondary references. (See Pet. at 8.) Petitioners fail to provide a
`
`proper obviousness analysis, including considering each claimed invention as
`
`a whole, identification of the limitations not disclosed by Aytac, identification
`
`of where those limitations are taught by the SCSI Specification or one or more
`
`secondary references, and why and how the particular combination would
`
`have been made, i.e., providing articulated reasoning with some rational
`
`underpinning to support the conclusion of obviousness. KSR Int’l Co. v.
`
`Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007); Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas
`
`City, 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`
`Instead, the Petition effectively treats the SCSI Specification as an
`
`incorporated part of the Aytac disclosure, even though Aytac merely refers to,
`
`but does not incorporate by reference the SCSI Specification. (See Ex. 1004
`
`at 4:51–53.) The result is that Petitioners effectively allege anticipation
`
`instead of obviousness of numerous challenged claims. Petitioners fail to
`
`clearly articulate any theory of obviousness premised on combining the
`
`teachings of Aytac, the SCSI Specification, and the secondary references.
`
`2
`
`

`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01733
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,189,437
`
`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. v. Cronos Techs., 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 unpatentability for
`
`any particular reason”). However, the deficiencies addressed herein are
`
`dispositive and preclude trial on the grounds asserted in the Petition.
`
`II. 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)
`
`Trial should not be instituted because the Petition does not comply with
`
`numerous Board requirements. 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,
`
`3
`
`

`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01733
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,189,437
`
`2012). The Petition does not comply with these requirements in several
`
`respects.
`
`First, Petitioners fail to clearly identify where each limitation of each
`
`challenged claim is found in the prior art. With regard to the independent
`
`claims, Petitioners only directly address the limitations found in Claim 1, and
`
`with few exceptions, fail to identify where each of the limitations of
`
`independent claims 39, 41, and 43 are found in the asserted prior art. (See Pet.
`
`at 44, 68–70.) Petitioners merely state that there is “substantial overlap”
`
`between the claims and address only the “possible exceptions.” (Id.) However,
`
`Petitioners fail to account for other significant other differences between the
`
`claims. Petitioners purport to rely on the expert declaration of Dr. Reynolds
`
`(Ex. 1001) (“Reynolds Declaration”) to identify the similarities and
`
`differences between claim 1 and the other independent claims. (Id.) However,
`
`Dr. Reynolds’ testimony is not incorporated in the Petition, nor does it address
`
`where each limitation of claims 39, 41, and 43 is found in prior art. (Ex. 1001
`
`¶¶ 118, 124, 127.) Further, even if the differences between the claims are not
`
`substantial, Petitioners have placed the burden on Papst and the Board to piece
`
`together the evidentiary support and arguments for each of independent claims
`
`39, 41, and 43. The Office has expressly disapproved of such tactics. 77 Fed.
`
`Reg. 48,756–66 at 48,763 (Aug. 14, 2012). Accordingly, Petitioners failed to
`
`4
`
`

`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01733
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,189,437
`
`satisfy §§ 42.104(b) and 42.22(a)(2) with respect to each of the challenged
`
`claims.
`
`Further, in view of Petitioners’ representation that claims 39, 41, and
`
`43 overlap with claim 1, to the extent that Petitioners fail to show that each
`
`limitation of claim 1 is rendered obvious by the asserted art, Petitioners also
`
`fail to establish unpatentability of each of the remaining challenged
`
`independent claims, as the deficiencies with respect to claim 1 logically apply
`
`to the other independent claims. The deficiencies with respect to the
`
`independent claims naturally cascade to each of the challenged dependent
`
`claims as well. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
`
`Second, Petitioners repeatedly provide alleged support for their
`
`arguments with citations to the Reynolds Declaration, rather than to the
`
`asserted prior art. (See, e.g., Pet. at 36, 37, 41, and 44.) A ground in an inter
`
`partes review may only be based on “prior art consisting of patents or printed
`
`publications.” See 35 U.S.C. § 311. While expert testimony is certainly
`
`permissible in support of a petition, it may not be used to fill in missing
`
`limitations in the prior art, particularly when the assertions are conclusory
`
`without supporting evidence. See K/S HIMPP v. Hear-Wear Techs., LLC, 751
`
`F.3d 1362, 1366–67 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (affirming Board’s rejection of party’s
`
`obviousness contention that failed to cite any evidence to support that claim
`
`5
`
`

`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01733
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,189,437
`
`limitations were obvious and holding that “the Board cannot accept general
`
`conclusions about what is ‘basic knowledge’ or ‘common sense’ as a
`
`replacement for documentary evidence for core factual findings in a
`
`determination of patentability”).
`
`Further, the corresponding paragraphs in the cited expert declaration
`
`are either substantively (if not word-for-word) identical to the corresponding
`
`text of the Petition (see, e.g., Pet. at 28–31 and Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 85–87; Pet. at 37–
`
`38 and Ex. 1001 at ¶¶ 99–100; Pet at 42 and Ex. 1001 at ¶ 114) or completely
`
`lack citation of evidentiary support. Repeating arguments from a petition
`
`verbatim without any facts, data, or analysis to support the opinion does not
`
`provide support for Petitioners’ position and is entitled to little or no weight.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a); TRW Auto. US LLC v. Magna Elecs. Inc., IPR2014-
`
`00258, Paper 16 at 15 (PTAB June 26, 2014); Wowza Media Sys., LLC v.
`
`Adobe Sys., Inc., IPR2013-00054, Paper 12 at 11 (PTAB Apr. 8, 2013).
`
`
`
`When Petitioners do not resort to having their expert regurgitate their
`
`arguments word-for-word, they instead improperly incorporate the Reynolds
`
`Declaration by reference. The Reynolds Declaration includes 113 pages of
`
`discussion regarding the disclosures of the asserted references as they
`
`allegedly relate to the challenged claims. The Reynolds Declaration presents
`
`further details of the references and expresses legal theories and arguments
`
`6
`
`

`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01733
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,189,437
`
`beyond those in the Petition. (See, e.g., Pet. at 38 citing Ex. 1001 ¶ 101 and
`
`Pet. at 44 citing Ex. 1001 ¶ 127.) Information provided in an exhibit, but not
`
`discussed in the Petition, is not incorporated into the Petition. See 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.6(a)(3); Symantec Corp. v. RPost Comms. Ltd., IPR2014-00353, Paper
`
`15 at 16, (PTAB July 15, 2014) (Petition that failed to cite to prior art in
`
`support of obviousness argument and instead cited only to expert declaration
`
`was insufficient under 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) and contrary to 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.6(a)(3), even though cited portion of declaration cited to prior art). The
`
`Board has cautioned against the practice of burying arguments in an expert
`
`declaration. See, e.g., Cisco Sys., Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC, IPR2014-
`
`00454, Paper 12 at 7–10 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2014) (250-page expert declaration
`
`incorporated by reference circumvents the page limits imposed on petitions
`
`while imposing on the Board’s time); Conopco, Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Co.,
`
`IPR2013-00510, Paper 9 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 12, 2014) (“We decline to consider
`
`information presented in a supporting declaration, but not discussed in a
`
`petition, because, among other reasons, doing so would encourage the use of
`
`declarations to circumvent the page limits that apply to petitions”).
`
`Petitioners assert a primary obviousness ground combining Aytac with
`
`the so-called SCSI Specification without clearly articulating a single
`
`difference between Aytac and any particular claims. Instead, with respect to
`
`7
`
`

`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01733
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,189,437
`
`claim 1, Petitioners assert that Aytac discloses every limitation of claim 1,
`
`“but the disclosure related to the claimed [Automatic Recognition Process]
`
`process’s features is not explicit.” (Pet. at 22.) This is the closest the Petition
`
`comes to identifying a difference between Aytac and the claims. However, the
`
`Automatic Recognition Process is shorthand for a lengthy claim limitation
`
`(see Ex. 1003 at 12:6–23) and lacks sufficient specificity to determine which
`
`portions of the limitation are disclosed by Aytac and which are alleged to be
`
`disclosed by the SCSI specification. 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 Mutual Insurance Co. v. Progressive Casualty
`
`Insurance Co., CBM2012-00003, Paper 7 at 2–3 (PTAB Oct. 25, 2012).
`
`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 Aytac, and a specific
`
`rationale for why Aytac would have been modified to incorporate the missing
`
`limitations, Petitioners ambiguously assert that Aytac, in view of the 465-page
`
`SCSI Specification or other secondary references, meet the limitations of the
`
`8
`
`

`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01733
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,189,437
`
`claims, without ever providing a single Graham obviousness analysis with
`
`respect to a specific claim. (See Pet. at 22–80.) Petitioners instead provide
`
`erroneous reasoning that claims are obvious simply because the alleged
`
`combination of references results in “no differences” between the alleged
`
`combination and the claim. (See Pet. at 45 stating “because the combination
`
`discloses each and every limitation of claim 1, there are no ‘differences,’ 35
`
`U.S.C § 103(a), between the prior art and claims 1 and 43, and those claims
`
`are unpatentable.”; Pet. at 68–69: “[t]hus the familiar combination of Aytac
`
`and AAPA discloses this limitation and there is no difference between the
`
`prior art and claim 41.”) This is not the law, but rather a prerequisite to
`
`unpatentability under §103. See KSR 550 U.S. at 418 (stating “a patent
`
`composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating
`
`that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.”)
`
`Accordingly, Petitioners fail to present a single viable obviousness argument.
`
`The net result of this approach is that the Board and Papst are left to guess
`
`which particular elements Petitioners contend are missing from Aytac, why
`
`the disclosures in Aytac would still require modification to arrive at the
`
`claims, what specific teachings are being combined, the rationale for why a
`
`person of ordinary skill would make that combination, and other aspects of a
`
`proper obviousness analysis.
`
`9
`
`

`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01733
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,189,437
`
`By failing to meaningfully identify the differences between Aytac and
`
`the subject matter recited in the challenged claims, Petitioners have failed to
`
`demonstrate why a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have
`
`combined Aytac with the SCSI specification or the secondary references in
`
`the manner proposed. Travelocity.com, CBM2014-00082, Paper 12 at 5.
`
`Because Petitioners fail to adequately identify the specific invalidity theories,
`
`supporting evidence, and rationale relied upon to challenge specific claim
`
`elements, the Petition is deficient and the Board should not institute trial.
`
`III. The Petition Advances Flawed Claim Constructions That Should
`Be Rejected
`
`In an inter partes review, the Board construes claim terms in an
`
`unexpired patent using their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). The
`
`claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be
`
`interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v.
`
`Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2146 (June 20, 2016). The broadest reasonable meaning
`
`given to claim language must take into account any definitions presented in
`
`the specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2004) (citing In re Bass, 314 F.3d 575, 577 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Under this
`
`standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning as
`
`would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the
`
`10
`
`

`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01733
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,189,437
`
`entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2007) (citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en
`
`banc)).
`
`Petitioners advance constructions that do not comport with the claim
`
`language or the specification, and therefore do not reflect the broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification.
`
`A. Overview Of The ’437 Patent
`
`The ’437 patent is the result of breakthrough work by inventor Michael
`
`Tasler. Mr. Tasler created a unique method for achieving high data transfer
`
`rates for data acquisition systems (e.g., still pictures, videos, voice recordings)
`
`to a general-purpose computer, without requiring a user to purchase, install,
`
`and/or run specialized software for each system. (Ex. 1003 at 3:33–37.) At the
`
`time of the invention, there were an increasing number and variety of data
`
`acquisition systems with the ability to capture high volumes of information.
`
`(Id. at 1:42–60.) As such, there was an increasing demand to transfer that
`
`information to commercially-available, general purpose computers. (Id. at
`
`1:29–41.) But at that time—and today—performing that data transfer
`
`operation required either loading specialized, sophisticated software onto a
`
`general purpose computer, which increases the risk of error and the level of
`
`complexity for the operator, or specifically matching interface devices for a
`
`11
`
`

`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IN IPR2016-01733
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,189,437
`
`data acquisition system to a host system that may maximize data transf