Filed on behalf of Apple Inc.
`By:
`Lori A. Gordon
`Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC
`
`
`1100 New York Avenue, NW
`
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`
`Tel: (202) 371-2600
`
`
`Fax: (202) 371-2540
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,470,399
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,470,399
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`Mandatory notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)). ..................................................... 2
`Grounds for standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)). ................................................. 3
`Identification of challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)). ......................................... 4
`A.
`Citation of prior art. ................................................................................. 4
`B.
`Statutory grounds for the challenge. ....................................................... 5
`IV. The ’399 patent. ................................................................................................. 5
`A. Overview of the ’399 patent. ................................................................... 5
`B.
`Level of ordinary skill in the art. ............................................................. 8
`C.
`Claim construction. ................................................................................. 9
`V. Ground 1: The combination of Kawaguchi and Schmidt renders claims
`1, 3, 5, 11, and 14 obvious. .............................................................................. 12
`A. Overview of Kawaguchi and Schmidt. ................................................. 12
`B.
`The combination of Kawaguchi and Schmidt renders claims 1,
`11, and 14 obvious. ............................................................................... 17
`1. The combination discloses the preamble of independent claims 1,
`11, and 14. ................................................................................... 17
`a) The combination discloses an interface device and a
`method “for communication between a host device, … and
`a data transmit/receive device” [1P.1]/[11P.1]. .............. 18
`b) The combination discloses the host device limitations of
`the preamble. .................................................................... 20
`c) The combination discloses the data transmit/receive device
`limitations of the preamble. ............................................. 22
`2. The combination discloses the architectural elements of the
`interface device. ........................................................................... 22
`a) The combination discloses that the interface devices
`comprise “a processor” and “a memory.” ....................... 24
`b) The combination discloses the “first connecting device”
`limitations. ........................................................................ 24
`c) The combination teaches or suggests the “second
`connecting device” limitations. ........................................ 26
`
`- i -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,470,399
`
`3. The combination discloses the recognition limitations of the
`independent claims. ..................................................................... 29
`a) The combination discloses the inquiry and response
`elements of the recognition limitations. ........................... 31
`b) The combination teaches or suggests “whereupon the host
`device communicates with the interface device by means of
`the [driver].” .................................................................... 37
`4. The combination discloses the transfer limitations of the
`independent claims. ..................................................................... 38
`a) Data Request Command. ................................................. 39
`b) Second Command Interpreter. ......................................... 41
`The combination renders claim 3 obvious. ........................................... 45
`C.
`The combination renders claim 5 obvious. ........................................... 46
`D.
`VI. Ground 2: The combination of Murata and Schmidt renders claims 1, 3,
`5, 11, and 14 obvious. ...................................................................................... 48
`A. Overview of Murata. ............................................................................. 48
`B.
`The combination of Murata and Schmidt renders claim 1, 11, and
`14 obvious. ............................................................................................ 50
`1. The combination discloses the preamble of independent claims 1,
`11, and 14. ................................................................................... 50
`a) The combination discloses an interface device and a
`method “for communication between a host device, … and
`a data transmit/receive device.” ...................................... 50
`b) The combination discloses the host device limitations of
`the preamble. .................................................................... 52
`c) The combination discloses the data transmit/receive device
`limitations of the preamble. ............................................. 53
`2. The combination discloses the architectural elements of the
`interface device. ........................................................................... 54
`a) The combination discloses that the interface devices
`comprises “a processor” and “a memory.” ...................... 54
`b) The combination discloses the “first connecting device”
`limitations. ........................................................................ 54
`
`- ii -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,470,399
`
`c) The combination teaches or suggests the “second
`connecting device” limitations. ........................................ 56
`3. The combination discloses the recognition limitations of the
`independent claims. ..................................................................... 58
`a) The combination discloses the inquiry and response
`elements of the recognition limitations. ........................... 58
`b) The combination teaches or suggests “whereupon the host
`device communicates with the interface device by means of
`the [driver].” .................................................................... 63
`4. The combination discloses the transfer limitations of the
`independent claims. ..................................................................... 64
`a) Data Request Command. ................................................. 65
`b) Second Command Interpreter. ......................................... 68
`The combination renders claim 3 obvious. ........................................... 69
`C.
`The combination renders claim 5 obvious. ........................................... 70
`D.
`VII. The proposed grounds are not redundant. ....................................................... 72
`VIII. Conclusion. ...................................................................................................... 72
`
`- iii -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,470,399
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Cases:
`
`In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC,
`778 F.3d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .................................................................................. 9
`
`In re Papst Licensing Digital Camera Patent Litigation,
`778 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .................................................................................. 9
`
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
`504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .................................................................................. 9
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................ 9, 12
`
`York Prod. Inc. v. Central Tractor Farm & Family Center,
`99 F.3d 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1996) .................................................................................. 45
`
`Statutes:
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ..................................................................................................... 4
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ..................................................................................................... 4
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ..................................................................................................... 4
`35 U.S.C. § 112 .................................................................................................... 9, 45
`
`Regulations:
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ..................................................................................................... 2, 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ..................................................................................................... 9
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ................................................................................................. 3, 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,470,399
`
`Ex. No.
`1001
`1002
`1003
`
`1004
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`1009
`1010
`1011
`1012
`
`1013
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent 6,470,399 to Tasler
`File History for U.S. Patent 6,470,399
`Declaration of Dr. Erez Zadok in Support of Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,470,399
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Erez Zadok
`Japanese Patent Application Publication H4-15853 to Kawaguchi et
`al. (English Translation) (“Kawaguchi”)
`Japanese Patent Application Publication H4-15853 to Kawaguchi et
`al. (Original Japanese)
`The SCSI Bus and IDE Interface Protocols, Applications and
`Programming, by Schmidt, First Edition, Addison-Wesley, 1995
`U.S. Patent No. 5,506,692 to Murata
`U.S. Patent No. 4,727,512 to Birkner
`U.S. Patent No. 4,792,896 to Maclean
`International Publication Number WO 92/21224 to Jorgensen
`Small Computer System Interface-2 (SCSI-2), ANSI X3.131-1994,
`American National Standard for Information Systems (ANSI).
`Operating System Concepts, by Silberschatz et al., Fourth Edition.
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Third Edition, Microsoft Press,
`1997.
`McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms, Fifth
`Edition, McGraw-Hill, 1994.
`In re Papst Licensing Digital Camera Patent Litigation, 778 F.3d
`1255 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`The Art of Electronics, by Horowitz et al., First Edition, Cambridge
`University Press, 1980.
`The IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics Terms,
`Sixth Edition, 1996.
`Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English
`Language, Random House, 1996.
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6-15-cv-
`01095 (E.D. Tex.), Complaint filed November 30, 2015
`“Principles of Data Acquisition and Conversion,” Burr-Brown
`Application Bulletin, 1994.
`“Principles of Data Acquisition and Conversion,” Intersil Application
`Note, October 1986.
`
`- v -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,470,399
`
`Description
`“Sample-and-Hold Amplifiers,” Analog Devices MT-090 Tutorial,
`2009.
`Declaration of Scott Bennett
`Discrete-Time Signal Processing, by Oppenheim et al., First Edition,
`Prentice-Hall, 1989.
`Intentionally left blank
`Plug-and-Play SCSI Specification, Version 1.0, dated March 30,
`1994 (“PNP SCSI”)
`
`
`
`Ex. No.
`1023
`
`1024
`1025
`
`1026-1030
`1031
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,470,399
`
`Apple Inc. petitions for inter partes review of claims 1, 3, 5, 11, and 14 of
`
`United States Patent No. 6,470,399 to Tasler. The purported novelty of the ’399
`
`patent is that, when attached to a host computer, the interface identifies itself as “an
`
`input/output device customary in a host device,” such as a hard disk drive, thereby
`
`allowing the host device to “communicate with the interface device by means of the
`
`driver for the input/output device customary in a host device.” (Ex. 1001, ’399
`
`patent, 13:4–8.) This technique is commonly referred to as emulation.
`
`Devices that emulated a digital storage device (e.g., hard disk drives) and
`
`used the existing storage device’s driver for communication with a host computer
`
`were well known years before the earliest possible priority date of the ’399 patent.
`
`For example, more than five years before the earliest possible priority date of the
`
`’399 patent, a published Japanese patent application by Sanyo Machine Works
`
`described an interface to a plurality of I/O devices that identifies itself to a
`
`computer as a hard disk, providing the same benefits as the ’399 patent. And nearly
`
`four years before the ’399 patent’s earliest possible priority date, Matsushita
`
`Electric filed a U.S. patent application on a scanner that identifies itself as a hard
`
`drive and therefore does not require special software for file transfer.
`
`Apple demonstrates below that a reasonable likelihood exists that all
`
`challenged claims of the ’399 patent are unpatentable.
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,470,399
`
`I. Mandatory notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)).
`REAL PARTY IN INTEREST: The real party-in-interest of Petitioner is Apple
`
`Inc. (“Apple”).
`
`RELATED MATTERS: The ’399 patent is the subject of the following civil
`
`actions:
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6-15-cv-01095
`
`(E.D. Tex.); Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al., Case
`
`No. 6-15-cv-01099 (E.D. Tex.); Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. ZTE
`
`Corporation et al., Case No. 6-15-cv-01100 (E.D. Tex.); Papst Licensing GmbH &
`
`Co., KG v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd. et al., Case No. 6:15-cv-01102 (E.D. Tex.);
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al., Case No. 6-
`
`15-cv-01111 (E.D. Tex.); Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. Huawei
`
`Technologies Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 6-15-cv-01115 (E.D. Tex.) and In Re Papst
`
`Licensing GmbH & Co., KG Patent Litigation, MDL No. 1880 (Misc. Action No.
`
`07-493) relating to 07-cv-1118, 07-cv-1222, 07-cv-2086, 07-cv-2088, 08-cv-865,
`
`08-cv-985, 08-cv-1406, and 09-cv-530.
`
`Pending U.S. Application No. 14/859,266, filed on September 19, 2015,
`
`claims the benefit of the ’399 patent.
`
`Additionally, Apple is filing additional petitions against claims of the ’399
`
`patent.
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,470,399
`
`No other matters related to the ’399 patent are known to the Petitioner.
`
`LEAD AND BACKUP COUNSEL: Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) and
`
`42.10(a), Petitioner appoints Lori A. Gordon (Reg. No. 50,633) as its lead counsel
`
`and Steven W. Peters (Reg. No. 73,193) as its back-up counsel; and Yasser
`
`Mourtada (Reg. No. 61,056) as its additional back-up counsel, all at the address:
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX, 1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Washington,
`
`D.C., 20005, phone number (202) 371-2600 and facsimile (202) 371-2540.
`
`SERVICE INFORMATION: Petitioner consents to electronic service by email at
`
`the email addresses: lgordon-PTAB@skgf.com; speters-PTAB@skgf.com; and
`
`ymourtad-PTAB@skgf.com.
`
`II. Grounds for standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)).
`The undersigned and Apple certify that the ʼ399 patent is available for inter
`
`partes review. Apple certifies that it is not barred or estopped from requesting this
`
`inter partes review on the grounds identified herein. The assignee of the ’399 patent,
`
`Papst, filed a complaint against Apple alleging infringement of the ’399 patent on
`
`November 30, 2015. (Ex. 1020.) The present petition is being filed within one year
`
`of service of Petitioner.
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,470,399
`
`III.
`
`Identification of challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)).
`A. Citation of prior art.
`The ’399 patent is the national stage of international application
`
`PCT/EP98/01187, filed on March 3, 1998. The ’399 patent further claims priority to
`
`a German application, filed on March 4, 1997.1 In support of the grounds of
`
`unpatentability cited above, Apple cites the following prior art references:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,506,692 to Murata, titled “Image Handling Apparatus
`
`Having File System Emulation Means,” provided as Ex. 1008, is prior art under at
`
`least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 102(e) because it issued on April 16, 1996 and was
`
`filed on March 23, 1993.
`
`Japanese Patent Application Publication No. H4-15853 to Kawaguchi et
`
`al., titled “SCSI Device Converter,” provided in the original Japanese as Ex. 1006
`
`and translated into English as Ex. 1005, is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 102(a) and 102(b) because it was published on January 21, 1992.
`
`The SCSI Bus and IDE Interface—Protocols, Applications and
`
`Programming, by Friedhelm provided as Ex. 1007, is prior art under at least 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 102(b) because it was published in 1995. (Ex. 1024, Bennett
`
`Decl.)
`
`1 Apple does not acquiesce that the ’399 patent is entitled to priority benefit of
`
`the 1997 German application.
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,470,399
`
`Statutory grounds for the challenge.
`
`B.
`Apple requests review of claims 1, 3, 5, 11, and 14 on the following grounds:
`
`References
`
`Basis
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`Kawaguchi and Schmidt
`
`§ 103
`
`1, 3, 5, 11, 14
`
`Murata and Schmidt
`
`§ 103
`
`1, 3, 5, 11, 14
`
`
`IV. The ’399 patent.
`A. Overview of the ’399 patent.
`The ’399 patent describes an interface device that enables communication
`
`between a host device and a data transmit/receive device from which data is
`
`acquired. (’399 patent, 1:10–14.) The patent acknowledges that such interface
`
`devices were known prior to earliest possible priority date of the ’399 patent.
`
`However, the patent alleges that these existing interfaces traded high data transfer
`
`rates for host-device independence. (Id., 3:24–27.) For example, in existing
`
`interfaces devices, high data transfer rates could be achieved using host-specific
`
`interface devices; but, these interfaces were not suitable for use with other types of
`
`host systems. (’399 patent, 1:65 to 2:7.) In other alternative devices, host-device
`
`independence was achieved through the use of standard interfaces; but these
`
`interfaces required specific driver software that in turn, resulted in reduced data
`
`transfer speed. (Id., 1:22–30.)
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,470,399
`
`The ’399 patent discloses an interface device that purportedly overcomes
`
`these limitations and “provides fast data communication between a host device with
`
`input/output interfaces and a data transmit/receive device.” (’399 patent, Abstract).
`
`As illustrated in Figure 1, reproduced below, the interface device 10 includes “[a]
`
`first connecting device 12… attached to a host device (not shown) via a host line
`
`11.” (’399 patent, 5:48–50.) The ’399 patent states that “[t]he first connecting device
`
`is attached both to a digital signal processor 13 and to a memory means 14,” which
`
`in turn are “attached to a second connecting device.” (’399 patent, 5:50–56.) In
`
`some embodiments, the second connecting device is “attached by means of an
`
`output line 16 to a data transmit/receive device… from which data is to be read, i.e.
`
`acquired, and transferred to the host device.” (’399 patent, 5:56–60.)
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,470,399
`
`The ’399 patent discloses techniques to make “the interface device appear[] to
`
`the host device as a hard disk.” (’399 patent, 6:58–59.) Specifically, the ’399 patent
`
`relies on a known host system identification process: when a host device is booted,
`
`an inquiry instruction as to devices attached to the host device is issued to the
`
`input/output interfaces of the host device. (’399 patent, 5:17–23, 4:11–13.) When
`
`the interface device receives the inquiry instruction, the interface device identifies
`
`itself, regardless of the type of attached data transmit/receive device, as a customary
`
`input/output device to the host device. (See ’399 patent, 4:65 to 5:6.) This response
`
`is handled by a “first command interpreter.” (’399 patent, 6:52–53.) The host can, in
`
`addition, “can send an instruction, known by those skilled in the art as ‘Test Unit
`
`Ready’, to the interface device to require more precise details.” (’399 patent, 6:16–
`
`19.) Both the INQUIRY and Test Unit Ready commands were well known as part of
`
`the small computer system interface (SCSI) which was widely popular at the time of
`
`invention. (Ex. 1003, Zadok Decl., ¶¶32, 49, 50 (citing Schmidt, p. 165 (describing
`
`conventional read and write commands for hard disk drives); see also ’399 patent,
`
`4:40–44.)
`
`During operation, the interface device “simulates a hard disk with a root
`
`directory whose entries are ‘virtual’ files which can be created for the most varied
`
`functions.” (’399 patent, 6:1–3.) When a user “wishes to read data from the data
`
`transmit/receive device via the line 16, the host device sends a command, for
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,470,399
`
`example ‘read file xy’, to the interface device.” (’399 patent, 6:55–58.) The second
`
`command interpreter then “begins to transfer data from the data transmit/receive
`
`device via the second connecting device to the first connecting device and via the
`
`line 11 to the host device.” (’399 patent, 6:64–67.) This operation emulates a “‘real-
`
`time input’ file [that] then appears as a file whose length corresponds to the
`
`anticipated volume of data” contained in a configuration file. (’399 patent, 7:5–7;
`
`see also 7:1–5.)
`
`Level of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`B.
`Based on the disclosure of the ’399 patent, a person having ordinary skill in
`
`the art at the relevant time, would have had at least a four-year degree in electrical
`
`engineering, computer science, computer engineering, or related field of study, or
`
`equivalent experience, and at least two years’ experience in studying or developing
`
`computer interfaces or peripherals and storage related software. (Zadok Decl., ¶29.)
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art would also be familiar with operating systems
`
`(e.g., MS-DOS, Windows, Unix), their associated file systems (e.g., FAT, UFS,
`
`FFS), device drivers for computer components and peripherals (e.g., mass storage
`
`device drivers), and communication interfaces (e.g., SCSI, USB, PCMCIA). (Zadok
`
`Decl., ¶29.)
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,470,399
`
`C. Claim construction.
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are interpreted
`
`according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of
`
`the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); In re Cuozzo Speed Techs.,
`
`LLC, 778 F.3d 1271, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Accordingly, 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 entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
`
`504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Except for the exemplary terms set forth
`
`herein, the terms are to be given their plain and ordinary meaning as understood by a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art and consistent with the disclosure. 2
`
`Claim construction of certain terms of the ’399 patent was a subject of Appeal
`
`2014-1110 to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit from the United States
`
`Court for the District of Columbia in No. 1:07-mc-00493-RMC. In re Papst
`
`Licensing Digital Camera Patent Litigation, 778 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The
`
`Federal Circuit construed the following terms under the Phillips standard:
`
`2 Apple reserves the right to present different constructions in another forum
`
`where a different claim construction standard applies. Apple’s proposed
`
`constructions do not constitute an admission that the claims are valid under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 112. Therefore, Apple reserves the right to challenge the patentability of
`
`any claim under 35 U.S.C. § 112 in other forums.
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,470,399
`
`Claim term
`
`District Court Construction
`
`CAFC Ruling
`
`“interface device”
`
`may not be “a permanent part of
`either the data transmit/receive
`device or the host
`device/computer.” (Ex. 1016, p.
`8.)
`
`“second connecting
`device”
`
`“a physical plug or socket for
`permitting a user readily to attach
`and detach the interface device
`with a plurality of dissimilar data
`transmit/receive devices.” (Ex.
`1016, p. 10.)
`
`“is not limited to… a
`device that is physically
`separate and apart from,
`and not permanently
`attached to, a data device
`(or a host computer).”
`(Ex. 1016, p. 8.)
`
`does not require “a
`physical plug, socket, or
`other structure that
`permits a user to readily
`attach and detach
`something else.” (Ex.
`1016, p. 11.)
`
`“data
`transmit/receive
`device”
`
`“virtual files”
`
`“a device that is capable of either
`(a) transmitting data to or (b)
`transmitting data to and receiving
`data from the host device when
`connected to the host device by
`the interface device.” (Ex. 1016,
`p. 11.)
`
`“need not be capable of
`communicating ‘when
`connected to the host
`device by the interface
`device.’” (Ex. 1016, p.
`12.)
`
`“files that appear to be but are
`not physically stored; rather they
`are constructed or derived from
`existing data when their contents
`are requested by an application
`program so that they appear to
`exist as files from the point of
`view of the host device.” (Ex.
`1016, p. 13.)
`
`not limited to a file
`“whose content is stored
`off the interface device,
`though it includes such
`files.” (Ex. 1016, p. 14.)
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,470,399
`
`Claim term
`
`District Court Construction
`
`CAFC Ruling
`
`“input/output device
`customary in a host
`device”
`
`“data input/output device that
`was normally present within the
`chassis of most commercially
`available computers at the time
`of the invention.” (Ex. 1016, p.
`16.)
`
`not limited to a device
`“‘normally present
`within the chassis’ of a
`computer.” (Ex. 1016,
`p. 16 (emphasis in
`original).)
`
`Of these five terms, Petitioner proposes to construe the term “data
`
`transmit/receive device.” The term “virtual files” does not appear in any of the
`
`claims challenged in this Petition. For the purposes of this proceeding, explicit
`
`construction of “second connecting device,” “input/output device customary in a
`
`host device,” or other terms in the challenged claims is not necessary at this time.
`
`“data transmit/receive device” [claims 1, 3, 11, 14]
`
`Apple proposes to construe the term “data transmit/receive device” as “a
`
`device capable of transmitting or receiving data.” This construction clarifies that the
`
`term is not limited to devices that both transmit and receive data—only one is
`
`necessary. This construction is consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the
`
`term because the use of the “/” indicates alternatives. (See Ex. 1019, Webster, p.
`
`2125 (defining “virgule” as “a short oblique stroke (/) between two words indicating
`
`that whichever is appropriate may be chosen to complete the sense of the text in
`
`which they occur”).) The construction is also consistent with the specification,
`
`which discloses “a data transmit/receive device which is to receive data from the
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,470,399
`
`host device or from which data is to be read, i.e. acquired, and transferred to the host
`
`device.” (’399 patent, 5:56–60.) Moreover, the portion of the district court’s
`
`interpretation under Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) that the
`
`device “is capable of either (a) transmitting data to or (b) transmitting data to and
`
`receiving data from the host device” still stands after the Federal Circuit’s decision.
`
`(Ex. 1016, p. 11 (“the parties’ dispute focuses on the ‘when connected’ portion of
`
`the court’s construction”).)
`
`V. Ground 1: The combination of Kawaguchi and Schmidt renders claims 1,
`3, 5, 11, and 14 obvious.3
`A. Overview of Kawaguchi and Schmidt.
`Kawaguchi, titled “SCSI Device Converter,” discloses a converter that “is
`
`able to easily connect a device such as a PC peripheral device or a sequencer to a
`
`SCSI interface on an engineering workstation.” (Ex. 1005, Kawaguchi, p. 2.) Figure
`
`1 (reproduced below) illustrates the apparatus.
`
`
`3 A complete listing of challenged claims is provided as Appendix A. For ease
`
`of discussion, labels have been added to individual claim limitations.
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,470,399
`
`
`
`Kawaguchi states that “[t]he SCSI device converter (3) includes a SCSI interface (7)
`
`for connecting to the EWS (1).” (Kawaguchi, p. 5.) The various units 11-17 are
`
`implemented “by using a microcomputer, ROM and RAM.” (Kawaguchi, p. 5.) The
`
`device includes “an A/D converter (19) [that] may be installed to receive analog
`
`data from an analog device (18) such as a sensor.” (Kawaguchi, p. 5.)
`
`Figure 2 of Kawaguchi (reproduced below) illustrates a flowchart for
`
`operating the device “in a manner emulating [a] hard disk.” (Kawaguchi, p. 6.)
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,470,399
`
`
`
`Kawaguchi states that “steps from ‘Start’ to ‘Mode Sense’ represent an initialization
`
`process for a hard disk.” (Kawaguchi, p. 6.) Specifically, “‘Inquiry’ represents
`
`reporting of attribute information of a target and logical units (identification code of
`
`a device type).” (Kawaguchi, p. 6.) Further, the “‘Test Unit Ready’ represents
`
`testing whether or not the logical unit is available.” (Kawaguchi, p. 6.) Kawaguchi
`
`states that “[s]ince the above-described procedure uses a procedure as provided in
`
`the SCSI standards, the apparatus of the present invention can be easily connected to
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,470,399
`
`the SCSI interface of the EWS (1) without almost any modification.” (Kawaguchi,
`
`p. 6.)
`
`Kawaguchi’s device converter emulates a hard disk and interfaces with the
`
`workstation via the SCSI interface. (See Kawaguchi, p. 6, Figure 1.) Although
`
`Figure 2 of Kawaguchi discloses an “Inquiry” step in emulating the hard disk,
`
`Kawaguchi does not explicitly disclose the details of that step. Schmidt, titled “The
`
`SCSI Bus and IDE Interface Protocols, Applications and Programming,” provides a
`
`detailed discussion of the device recognition process. A POSITA would have
`
`combined Kawaguchi with Schmidt for a number of reasons. First, Kawaguchi’s
`
`SCSI device converter connects to the workstation via a SCSI bus. (Kawaguchi,
`
`Figure 1.) A POSITA would have looked to a reference, like Schmidt, to provide
`
`details of the SCSI interface. (Zadok Decl., ¶66.) Additionally, it was well known at
`
`the earliest possible priority date of the ’399 patent that SCSI bus initialization
`
`between a host computer and a peripheral device involved the peripheral device
`
`identifying its device class and type to the host computer. (Zadok Decl., ¶66.)
`
`Schmidt provides the details of this well-known process. (Zadok Decl., ¶66.) The
`
`combination of Kawaguchi and Schmidt is therefore nothing more than an
`
`application of a known technique (SCSI signaling as in Schmidt) to a known device
`
`(Kawaguchi’s SCSI device converter) to yield predictable results (the device
`
`converter identifies and acts as a SCSI hard disk). (Zadok Decl., ¶66.)
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,470,399
`
`Schmidt describes details of the SCSI bus. The back cover of Schmidt
`
`confirms that as of its 1995 publication date “[a]lmost all modern computers
`
`including PCs, workstations and mainframes are equipped with a SCSI interface.”
`
`(Ex. 1007, Schmidt, End Cover.) Figure 9.1 of Schmidt, reproduced below,
`
`illustrates “[a] simple SCSI configuration” where a host adapter sends SCSI
`
`commands over a SCSI bus to a disk drive. (Schmidt, p. 80.)
`
`
`
`Schmidt describes a standard SCSI INQUIRY command as a “request[] that
`
`information regarding parameters of the target and its attached peripheral device(s)
`
`be sent to the initiator.” (Schmidt, p. 88.) In response, a device provides, among
`
`other parameters, its device class, which can include the disk drive class. (See