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. 9,189,437
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`

`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`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 ’437 patent. .............................................................................................. 6
`A. Overview. .............................................................................................. 6
`B.
`Level of ordinary skill in the art. ........................................................... 8
`C.
`Claim construction. ............................................................................... 8
`V. Ground 1: The combination of Kawasaki, Alon, and Schmidt
`renders claims 1, 5, 11–16, 18, 30, 34, 43, and 45 obvious. ........................ 11
`A.
`The combination of Kawasaki, Alon, and Schmidt renders
`independent claim 1 obvious. ..............................................................12
`1.
`The combination of Kawasaki, Alon, and Schmidt
`discloses “an analog data generating and processing
`device (ADGPD)” [1P]. ........................................................... 12
`The combination of Kawasaki, Alon, and Schmidt
`discloses the ADGPD architecture elements. .......................... 13
`a)
`The combination of Kawasaki, Alon, and
`Schmidt discloses “an input/output (i/o) port”
`[1A]. ............................................................................... 14
`The combination of Kawasaki, Alon, and
`Schmidt discloses “a program memory” [1B]. ............. 15
`The combination of Kawasaki, Alon, and
`Schmidt discloses “a data storage memory”
`[1C]. ............................................................................... 15
`The combination of Kawasaki, Alon, and
`Schmidt discloses “a processor operatively
`interfaced with the i/o port, the program memory
`and the data storage memory” [1D]. ............................. 16
`The combination of Kawasaki, Alon, and Schmidt
`teaches or suggests the acquisition and processing
`limitations of independent claim 1. .......................................... 18
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`d)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`
`- i –
`
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`

`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`b)
`
`b)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`The combination of Kawasaki, Alon, and
`Schmidt teaches or suggests the acquisition
`limitation [1E.1]. ............................................................ 18
`The combination of Kawasaki, Alon, and
`Schmidt teaches or suggests the processing
`limitation [1E.2]. ............................................................ 23
`The combination of Kawasaki, Alon, and Schmidt
`teaches or suggests the automatic recognition limitation
`[1F]. .......................................................................................... 25
`a)
`The combination of Kawasaki, Alon, and
`Schmidt discloses the claimed automatic
`recognition operation [1F.1]. ......................................... 26
`The combination of Kawasaki, Alon, and
`Schmidt teaches or suggests the end user
`requirements [1F.2]. ...................................................... 33
`The combination of Kawasaki, Alon, and
`Schmidt teaches or suggests the automatic
`recognition data element requirements [1F.3]. .............. 35
`The combination of Kawasaki, Alon, and Schmidt
`teaches or suggests the file transfer limitation of
`independent claim 1. ................................................................ 37
`a)
`The combination of Kawasaki, Alon, and
`Schmidt teaches or suggests the recited
`automatic file transfer process. ...................................... 38
`The combination of Kawasaki, Alon, and
`Schmidt discloses the emulation and user
`requirement component of the file transfer
`limitation. ....................................................................... 41
`The combination of Kawasaki, Alon, and Schmidt renders
`claim 5 obvious. ..................................................................................42
`The combination of Kawasaki, Alon, and Schmidt renders
`claim 11 obvious. ................................................................................42
`The combination of Kawasaki, Alon, and Schmidt renders
`claim 12 obvious. ................................................................................45
`The combination of Kawasaki, Alon, and Schmidt renders
`claim 13 obvious. ................................................................................45
`The combination of Kawasaki, Alon, and Schmidt renders
`claim 14 obvious .................................................................................47
`- ii –
`
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`

`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`K.
`
`L.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`The combination of Kawasaki, Alon, and Schmidt renders
`claim 15 obvious. ................................................................................48
`The combination of Kawasaki, Alon, and Schmidt renders
`claim 16 obvious. ................................................................................49
`The combination of Kawasaki, Alon, and Schmidt renders
`claim 18 obvious. ................................................................................49
`The combination of Kawasaki, Alon, and Schmidt renders
`claim 30 obvious. ................................................................................50
`The combination of Kawasaki, Alon, and Schmidt renders
`claim 34 obvious. ................................................................................51
`The combination of Kawasaki, Alon, and Schmidt renders
`independent claim 43 obvious. ............................................................51
`1.
`The combination of Kawasaki, Alon, and Schmidt
`discloses “[a]n analog data generating and processing
`method for acquiring analog data and for
`communicating with a host computer” [43P]. ......................... 51
`The combination of Kawasaki, Alon, and Schmidt
`discloses the architecture elements of claim 43. ...................... 52
`The combination of Kawasaki, Alon, and Schmidt
`teaches or suggests the acquisition and processing
`limitations of independent claim 43. ........................................ 57
`a)
`Kawasaki in view of Alon teaches or suggests
`the acquisition limitation [43B.1]. ................................. 57
`Kawasaki teaches or suggests the processing
`limitation of independent claim 43. ............................... 57
`The combination of Kawasaki, Alon, and Schmidt
`teaches or suggests the automatic recognition limitation
`of independent claim 43. .......................................................... 58
`The combination of Kawasaki, Alon, and Schmidt
`teaches or suggests the transferring limitation of
`independent claim 43. .............................................................. 58
`The combination of Kawasaki, Alon, and Schmidt
`teaches or suggests “wherein the identification
`parameter is consistent with the ADGPD being
`responsive to commands issued from a customary
`device driver” [43E]. ................................................................ 61
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`- iii –
`
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`b)
`
`

`
`M.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`The combination of Kawasaki, Alon, and Schmidt renders
`claim 45 obvious. ................................................................................61
`VI. Ground 2: The combination of Kawasaki, Alon, Schmidt, and Van
`Sant renders claim 4 obvious. ....................................................................... 62
`VII. Ground 3: The combination of Kawasaki, Alon, Schmidt, and
`Ogami renders claim 6 obvious. ................................................................... 63
`VIII. Ground 4: The combination of Kawasaki, Alon, Schmidt, and
`Sangveraphunsiri renders claims 9 and 10 obvious. .................................... 64
`A.
`The combination of Kawasaki, Alon, Schmidt, and
`Sangveraphunsiri renders claim 9 obvious. ........................................64
`The combination of Kawasaki, Alon, Schmidt, and
`Sangveraphunsiri renders claim 10 obvious .......................................66
`IX. Conclusion. ................................................................................................... 67
`
`B.
`
`- iv –
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Cases:
`
`In re Papst Licensing Digital Camera Patent Litigation,
`778 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2015)............................................................................ 9, 11
`
`KSR v. Teleflex,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ................................................................................................. 22
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................ 10
`
`
`
`Statutes:
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ..................................................................................................... 5
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ................................................................................................. 4, 5
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ................................................................................................. 4, 5
`
`
`
`Regulations:
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1) ................................................................................................ 2
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ................................................................................................ 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(a) ................................................................................................... 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ................................................................................................ 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- v –
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Ex. No.
`1001
`1002
`1003
`
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`
`1008
`1009
`1010
`1011
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015-1017
`1018
`1019
`1020
`
`1021-1023
`1024
`1025-1029
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032-1035
`1036
`
`1037
`1038
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent 9,189,437 to Tasler
`File History Excerpts for U.S. Patent 9,189,437
`Declaration of Dr. Erez Zadok in Support of Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Erez Zadok
`Intentionally left blank
`Intentionally left blank
`“The SCSI Bus and IDE Interface Protocols, Applications and
`Programming,” Schmidt, Friedhelm, 1995
`Intentionally left blank
`Intentionally left blank
`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.
`1994
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Third Edition, Microsoft Press,
`1997
`Intentionally left blank
`IEEE Dictionary
`Intentionally left blank
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6-15-cv-
`01095 (E.D. Tex.), Complaint filed November 30, 2015
`Intentionally left blank
`Declaration of Scott Bennett
`Intentionally left blank
`Misc. Action No. 07-493 (RMC), MDL No. 1880, Order Regarding
`Claims Construction
`Plug-and-Play SCSI Specification, Version 1.0, dated March 30,
`1994 (“PNP SCSI”)
`Intentionally left blank
`European Patent Application 0 475 639 A2 dated August 29, 1991 to
`Applicant Kawasaki Steel Corporation (“Kawasaki”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,111,831 to Alon et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 4,856,871 to Van Sant
`- vi –
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`
`Ex. No.
`1039
`1040
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 5,515,237 to Ogami et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,590,375 to Sangveraphunsiri et al.
`
`- vii –
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`Apple Inc. petitions for inter partes review of claims 1, 4–6, 9–16, 18, 30, 34,
`
`43, and 45 of United States Patent No. 9,189,437 to Tasler (“the ʼ437 patent”). The
`
`challenged claims recite an analog data generating and processing (ADGPD) device
`
`and associated method for acquiring analog data and communicating with a host
`
`computer. The device performs well-known routine tasks such as acquiring analog
`
`data, digitizing the analog data, storing the digitized data in memory, and allowing
`
`transfer of the digitized data to a host computer. The purported novelty of the ’437
`
`patent is that, when attached to a host computer, the ADGPD device identifies itself
`
`as “digital storage device instead of as an analog data generating and processing
`
`device” thereby allowing the digitized data “to be transferred to the computer using
`
`the customary device driver for the digital storage device.” (Ex. 1001, ’437 patent,
`
`claim 1.) 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 ’437 patent.
`
`For example, European Patent Application 0 475 639 to Kawasaki Steel Corporation
`
`(“Kawasaki”), published approximately five years before the earliest possible
`
`priority date of the ’437 patent, described a hard disk emulating optical disk drive
`
`“operable conformably to interface specifications in conformity with the
`
`specifications of an arbitrary hard disk drive” “to eliminate the need of dedicated
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`hardware and dedicated software upon incorporation of the optical disk drive….”
`
`(Ex. 1036, Kawasaki, 4:49–52, 1:43–45.)
`
`Apple demonstrates below that a reasonable likelihood exists that all 17
`
`challenged claims of the ’437 patent are unpatentable.
`
`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 ’437 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.);
`
`and Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al., Case
`
`No. 6-15-cv-01111 (E.D. Tex.).
`
`The following Inter Partes Review petition has been filed against the ’437
`
`patent: Petition for Inter Partes Review by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,
`
`IPR2016-01733.
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`Pending U.S. Application No. 14/859,266, filed on September 19, 2015,
`
`claims the benefit of the ’437 patent.
`
`Apple is concurrently filing additional petitions against claims of the ’437
`
`patent.
`
`No other matters related to the ’437 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,
`
`Yasser Mourtada (Reg. No.61,056) as its back-up counsel, and Steven W. Peters
`
`(Reg. No. 73,193) 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, ymourtad-PTAB@skgf.com, and
`
`speters-PTAB@skgf.com.
`
`II. Grounds for standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)).
`The undersigned and Apple certify that the ʼ437 patent is available for inter
`
`partes review. Apple further certifies that it is not barred or estopped from
`
`requesting this inter partes review on the grounds identified herein. The assignee of
`
`the ’437 patent, Papst, filed a complaint against Apple alleging infringement of the
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`’437 patent on November 30, 2015. (Ex. 1020.) The present petition is being filed
`
`within one year of service of Apple.
`
`III.
`
`Identification of challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)).
`A. Citation of prior art.
`The ’437 patent claims priority through a series of continuation applications
`
`and a divisional application to U.S. Patent No. 6,470,399 which is the national stage
`
`of international application PCT/EP98/01187, filed on March 3, 1998. The ’437
`
`patent further claims priority to a German application, filed on March 4, 1997.1
`
`Each of the following documents applied in the grounds of unpatentability were
`
`published prior to the March 4, 1997 German application date.
`
`European Patent Application Publication to Kawasaki, titled “Hard disk
`
`emulator” (Ex. 1036) is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because it
`
`published on March 18, 1992.
`
`U.S. Patent 6,111,831 to Alon (Ex. 1037) is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(e) because it has an effective filing date of at least February 20, 1997.
`
`
`1 Apple does not acquiesce that the ’437 patent is entitled to priority benefit of
`
`the 1997 German application.
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`The SCSI Bus and IDE Interface—Protocols, Applications and
`
`Programming, by Friedhelm Schmidt (Ex. 1007) is prior art under at least 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 102(b) because it was published in 1995. (See Ex. 1024.)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,856,871 to Van Sant (Ex. 1038) is prior art under at least
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because it issued on August 15, 1989.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,515,237 to Ogami (Ex. 1039) is prior art under at least 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 102(e) and 102(a) because it has an effective filing date of October 13,
`
`1992 and issued on May 7, 1996.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,590,375 to Sangveraphunsiri (Ex. 1040) is prior art under
`
`at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(e) and 102(a) because it has an effective filing date of at
`
`least August 27, 1992 and issued on December 31, 1996.
`
`Statutory grounds for the challenge.
`
`B.
`Apple requests review of claims 1, 4–6, 9–16, 18, 30, 34, 43, and 45 on the
`
`following grounds:
`
`
`
`References
`
`Basis
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`1 Kawasaki, Alon, and Schmidt
`
`§103 1, 5, 11–16, 18, 30, 34, 43, 45
`
`2 Kawasaki, Alon, Schmidt, and Van Sant
`
`§103 4
`
`3 Kawasaki, Alon, Schmidt, and Ogami
`
`§103 6
`
`4 Kawasaki, Alon, Schmidt, and
`Sangveraphunsiri
`
`
`§103 9, 10
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`
`IV. The ’437 patent.
`A. Overview.
`The ’437 patent describes an interface device that enables communication
`
`between a host device and a data transmit/receive device from which data is
`
`acquired. (’437 patent, 1:18–22.) The patent acknowledges that such interface
`
`devices were known prior to earliest possible priority date of the ’437 patent.
`
`However, the patent alleges that these existing interfaces traded high data transfer
`
`rates for host-device independence. (’437 patent, 3:29–32.) 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. (’437 patent, 2:4–13.) Other devices achieved host independence
`
`through the use of standard interfaces; but these interfaces required specific driver
`
`software that in turn, resulted in reduced data transfer speed. (’437 patent, 1:31–38.)
`
`The ’437 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.” (’437 patent, Abstract).
`
`As illustrated in annotated Figure 1 below, the interface device 10 includes “[a] first
`
`connecting device 12…attached to a host device (not shown) via a host line 11” and
`
`a second connecting device is “attached by means of an output line 16 to a data
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`transmit/receive device…from which data is to be read, i.e. acquired, and transferred
`
`to the host device.” (’437 patent, 4:63–5:7.)
`
`Interface
`device
`
`
`
`(’437 patent, Figure 1 (annotated).)
`
`The ’437 patent discloses techniques to make “the interface device appear[] to
`
`the host device as a hard disk.” (’437 patent, 6:5–6.) Specifically, the ’437 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. (’437 patent, 5:17–23.) 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
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`input/output device to the host device. (’437 patent, 4:8–20.) Thus, the host device
`
`uses its customary driver for the identified input/output device or a corresponding
`
`driver for a multi-purpose interface to communicate with the interface device. (’437
`
`patent, 5:23–30.)
`
`Level of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`B.
`Based on the disclosure of the ’437 patent, a person having ordinary skill in
`
`the art (“POSITA”) 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. (Ex.
`
`1003, Zadok Decl., ¶30.) A POSITA 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). (Id.)
`
`C. Claim construction.
`Except for the exemplary terms set forth herein, the terms are to be given their
`
`plain and ordinary meaning as understood by a POSITA and consistent with the
`
`disclosure. 2
`
`2 Apple reserves the right to present different constructions in another forum
`
`where a different claim construction standard applies. Apple’s proposed
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`Papst asserted patents in the family of the ’437 patent sharing a common
`
`specification with the ’437 patent in several district court litigations. In addition, the
`
`construction of certain claim terms in related U.S. patent 6,470,399 was a subject of
`
`an Appeal to the Federal Circuit. In re Papst Licensing Digital Camera Patent
`
`Litigation, 778 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Several of the terms construed or
`
`proposed for construction in these litigations are also recited in the challenged
`
`claims of the present inter partes review proceeding. Because the construction
`
`proposed by Papst in the above-referenced litigations do not rely on statements from
`
`the prosecution history, the broadest reasonable interpretation and Philips
`
`constructions are the same, therefore, Apple proposes that the same construction be
`
`adopted in this proceeding:
`
`Claim Term
`“multi-purpose interface of the host
`
`Construction
`“a communication interface designed for
`
`computer”
`
`use with multiple devices that can have
`
`different functions from each other.”
`
`(Ex. 1030, MDL No. 1880, Order
`
`
`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. 9,189,437
`
`Claim Term
`
`Construction
`Regarding Claims Construction, p. 31.)
`
`
`
`In addition, Apple proposes the following construction for the term
`
`“customary device driver”:
`
`Claim Term
`“customary device driver”
`
`Construction
`“driver for a device normally present in
`
`most commercially available host
`
`devices at the time of the invention.”
`
`
`
`The Board should adopt Apple’s construction because it is consistent with the
`
`specification. The ’437 patent describes an “input/output device customary in a host
`
`device, [as] normally present in most commercially available host devices.” (’437
`
`patent, 3:33–37.) Further, it is well settled that a claim term must be interpreted
`
`from the perspective of a POSITA at the time of the invention. See Phillips v. AWH
`
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Thus, a “customary device driver” is a
`
`driver for a device normally present in most commercially available host devices at
`
`the time of the invention. Indeed, when addressing the term “input/output device
`
`customary in a host device” in the claims of the ’437 patent, the Federal Circuit
`
`found that “[t]he written description makes clear that it is enough for the device to
`
`be one that was normally part of commercially available computer systems at the
`
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`time of the invention.” In re Papst Licensing Digital Camera Patent Litigation, 778
`
`F.3d at 1270.
`
`V. Ground 1: The combination of Kawasaki, Alon, and Schmidt renders
`claims 1, 5, 11–16, 18, 30, 34, 43, and 45 obvious.3
`Kawasaki discloses a hard disk emulator including an optical disk drive that
`
`connects via a bus to a host computer. (Kawasaki, Figure 1.) The hard disk emulator
`
`“is operable conformably to interface specifications in conformity with the
`
`specifications of an arbitrary hard disk drive.” (Kawasaki, 4:49–52.) During
`
`operation, the host computer reads data from the optical disk drive of the hard disk
`
`emulator. (Kawasaki, 16:33–52.) The process includes acquiring analog data from a
`
`photodetector of the optical disk drive, digitizing the acquired data, storing the
`
`digitized data in a file in a storage memory of the hard disk emulator, and
`
`transferring the file to the host computer a “customary” hard disk driver.
`
`Kawasaki discloses each and every limitation of independent claims 1 and 43
`
`except Kawasaki does not explicitly disclose, for example, that the hard disk drive
`
`interface of the host computer is a “multi-purpose interface of the host computer” or
`
`that its analog data is acquired from “each respective analog acquisition channel of
`
`a plurality of independent acquisition channels.” However, these missing elements
`
`3 A complete listing of challenged claims is provided as Appendix A. For ease
`
`of discussion, labels have been added to individual claim limitations.
`
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`are taught or suggested by Alon and/or Schmidt as discussed in detail below.
`
`A. The combination of Kawasaki, Alon, and Schmidt renders
`independent claim 1 obvious.
`1.
`
`The combination of Kawasaki, Alon, and Schmidt discloses
`“an analog data generating and processing device (ADGPD)”
`[1P].
`
`Kawasaki discloses a hard disk emulator 2 that can be connected to a host
`
`computer 1. (Kawasaki, Figure 1.) Hard disk emulator 2 includes an emulation unit
`
`3, a hard disk drive 4, and an optical disk drive 5. (Kawasaki, Figure 1.) Data
`
`recorded on optical disk drive 5 can be read by host computer 1 via emulation unit
`
`3. (Kawasaki, 16:33–52.)
`
`Reading data from an optical disk includes generating and processing analog
`
`data. (Zadok Decl., ¶67.) Specifically, during operation of an optical disk, a laser
`
`beam is focused onto a track on the disk and the reflected light is detected by an
`
`optical system to generate an analog electrical signal. (Zadok Decl., ¶67; see also
`
`Ex. 1037, Alon, 1:38–47, 4:45–49.) The analog electrical signal is then processed to
`
`recover the digital data stored on the optical disk. (Zadok Decl., ¶67; see also Alon
`
`4:18–25.) Kawasaki’s hard disk emulator 2 is thus dedicated to generating and
`
`processing analog data and is therefore the claimed “ADGPD.” (Zadok Decl., ¶66.)
`
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`
`
`
`
`analog data generating and
`processing device
`
`2.
`
`The combination of Kawasaki, Alon, and Schmidt discloses
`the ADGPD architecture elements.
`Independent claim 1 recites four architectural elements of the ADGPD: (1) an
`
`input/output (i/o) port [1A], (2) a program memory [1B], (3) a data storage memory
`
`[1C], and (4) a processor operatively interfaced with the i/o port, the program
`
`memory and the data storage memory [1D]. The combination of Kawasaki, Alon,
`
`and Schmidt teaches or suggests each of these architectural elements. The following
`
`annotated Figure 4 from Kawasaki maps the claim limitations to the hard disk
`
`emulator 2.
`
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`
`processor
`
`Program
`memory
`
`Input/output
`(i/o) port
`
`
`
`
`Data storage
`memory
`
`a) The combination of Kawasaki, Alon, and Schmidt discloses
`“an input/output (i/o) port” [1A].
`
`Hard disk emulator 2 includes an interface control circuit 6 that controls an
`
`interface bus 14 between hard disk emulator 2 and computer 1. (Kawasaki, Figure 4,
`
`17:16–22, 17:53–54.) Data can be transferred from computer 1 to emulator 2 and
`
`vice versa via I/F controller 6. (Kawasaki, 15:56–58, 16:16–17, 16:49–52.) Thus, I/F
`
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`
`controller 6 is the recited “input/output (i/o) port” [1A].
`
`b) The combination of Kawasaki, Alon, and Schmidt discloses
`“a program memory” [1B].
`The hard disk emulator 2 includes “a programming ROM (programming read
`
`only memory) 11. (Kawasaki, 17:27–29, Figure 4.) ROM 11 is used in controlling
`
`emulation unit 3 of emulator 2. (Kawasaki, 17:27–29, Figure 4.) Based on its
`
`naming and functionality, a POSITA would appreciate that programming ROM 11
`
`is used to store programs required for enabling control of emulation unit 3 by CPU
`
`10. (Zadok Decl., ¶71.) Accordingly, Kawasaki teaches or suggests that
`
`programming ROM 11 is the recited “program memory.” (Zadok Decl., ¶71.)
`
`c) The combination of Kawasaki, Alon, and Schmidt discloses
`“a data storage memory” [1C].
`The hard disk emulator 2 includes a hard disk drive 4 that is operated like a
`
`cache. (Kawasaki, Figure 4, 16:8–9) Specifically, hard disk drive 4 stores data
`
`received from computer 1 before the data is recorded in optical disk drive 5.
`
`(Kawasaki, Figure 2, 16:16–21.) In the reverse direction, hard disk drive 4 stores
`
`data read from optical disk drive 5 before the data is transferred to computer 1.
`
`(Kawasaki, Figure 3, 16:36–48.)
`
`Additionally, hard disk emulator 2 includes a data buffer 9 used by a data
`
`transfer controller 8 in effectuating data transfers between host computer 1 and the
`
`memory device (i.e., hard disk drive 4 and optical disk drive 5) of emulator 2.
`
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`(Kawasaki, 17:22–25.) “The data buffer 9 is operable as a buffer memory upon
`
`those data transf