`Petitioner - Apple, Inc.
`Patent Owner - Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG.
`IPR2016-01841
`EXH. 2006
`
`1
`
`
`
`Applicant: Michael Tasler
`Application No.: 11/467,092
`Filed: August 24, 2006
`Date: January 2, 2008
`Page — 7 —
`
`the memory 119 to a notebook computer to which the device is connected. One reason for this is
`
`that, for example, the bus buffers A and B are activated to electrically isolate the CPU 118 from
`
`accessing the memory when the device is connected to a PC. For this reason alone, for example,
`
`the new claims should be found to be patentable over the ‘545 patent.
`
`Other features of the new claims further evidence their patentability over all of the
`
`references that have been submitted to the Examiner assuming, for the sake of argument, that
`
`they are prior art. In this regard, the new claims recite, for example, that the ADGPD is adapted
`
`to cause a “response signa ” to be automatically sent to the PC without any user intervention by
`
`means of a deice external to the ADGPD. The new claims also recite that the response signal
`
`contains data that is consistent with the ADGPD being a device that can transfer files of digital
`
`data by means of a communications protocol (e.g., the SCSI command set), and that the ADGPD
`
`thereafter is subsequently able to process data transfer commands in accordance with the
`
`communications protocol.
`
`Exemplary structure that corresponds to this claim element is shown, for example, in
`
`Figure 2 of the patent application. In accordance with this exemplary embodiment, the central
`
`processing unit of the DSP shown in Figure 2 is adapted to cause a response signal to be sent to a
`
`connector via an interface, the response signal containing information that is consistent with the
`
`Figure 2 device being able to transfer files of digital data in accordance with a communications
`
`protocol (e.g., the SCSI command set) “without any user intervention by means of a device
`
`external to the ADGPD.”
`
`The use of the phrase “without any user intervention by means of a device external to the
`
`ADGPD” in the newly submitted claims means that (i) no user has to load an applications level
`
`2
`
`
`
`Applicant: Michael Tasler
`Application No.: 1 1/467,092
`Filed: Augnlst 24, 2006
`Date: January 2, 2008
`Page — 8 —
`
`program onto a device external to the ADGPD (e. g., a PC) at any time and/or that (ii) no user has
`
`to interact with a device external to the ADGPD (e.g., setting up a file system on a PC ) at any
`
`time in order to allow the ADGPD to “thereafter subsequently” be “able to process data transfer
`
`requests in accordance with the communications protocol (e.g, the SCSI command set). The new
`
`claims are not limited to the structure illustrated in Figure 2 of the application.
`
`The ‘82l patent to Murata does not, for example, teach or suggest structure that
`
`corresponds to the above-described claim feature.
`
`In direct contrast to the claimed subject
`
`matter, all devices disclosed in the ‘821 patent affirrnatively require user intervention in order to
`
`cause the PC to understand how to communicate with the scanner disclosed in the patent. A
`
`short analysis in support of this conclusion follows.
`
`Column 4, lines 20-35 of the ‘82l patent state that an “mkfs” or “newfs” UNIX command
`
`must be executed before the scanner can be recognized. These commands are operating system
`
`commands, and have to be entered by the user or be embedded in an application program
`
`running on a workstation to which the ‘S21 patent scanner is connected. The commands require
`
`parameters to be given, including at least mkfs i~node device_name. This means that, for
`
`example, the user has to enter the node at which the file system is to be made and the device
`
`name (associated with the device file and driver in the system). These parameter values are not
`
`standard and may differ according to the actual hardware configuration of the workstation. If
`
`these commands are embedded in an application program, the application program can only be
`
`successfully run on different workstations if there is an appropriate means for entering the
`
`parameters by the user.
`
`As readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art, the UNIX operating
`
`3
`
`
`
`Applicant: Michael Tasler
`Application No.: l 1/467,092
`Filed: August 24, 2006
`Date: January 2, 2008
`Page — 9 —
`
`system of the ‘E321 patent does not automatically recognize devices, nor does it perform data
`
`transmission with a device even though the device may emulate the UNIX file system. Detailed
`
`operator instructions or an application program containing the embedded instructions is required
`
`to administer and coordinate the data exchange described in the ‘821 patent. For this reason
`
`alone, for example, the new claims should be found to be patentable over the ‘821 patent.
`
`A Japanese language brochure describing a Nikon Coolpix 100 camera, an English
`
`translation thereof, and a one page specification describing the Nikon Coolpix 100 camera
`
`previously were submitted for the Examiner’s consideration. In a previously filed paper, the
`
`undersigned attorney stated that he assumed that the product illustrated in these documents
`
`operated in a manner consistent with, for example, the above-described US Patent No.
`
`5,917,545.
`
`Subsequent to the filing of that paper, an actual sample of the Nikon Coolpix 100 camera
`
`was obtained and analyzed. This analysis indicates that the sample product may not have exactly
`
`the same construction as the device that is illustrated in the ‘545 patent. For example, the bus
`
`buffers A and B shown in Figure 3 of the ‘545 patent (that are used to electrically isolate the
`
`CPU 118 from the memory 119 while the device is plugged into and receives power from a
`
`notebook computer) are not readily apparent in the Nikon Coolpix 100 product that was
`
`analyzed.
`
`The analysis also appears to indicate, however, that a microprocessor is put in a state
`
`where it is incapable of accessing a memory of the sample product when the sample product is
`
`plugged into and receives power from a notebook computer. As such, the microprocessor of the
`
`sample product is not capable of executing a set of instructions that cause data fiom the memory
`
`4
`
`
`
`Applicant: Michael Tasler
`Application No.2 ll/467,092
`Filed: August 24, 2006
`Date: January 2, 2008
`Page — 10 —
`
`to be transferred to the notebook computer.
`
`In previously filed papers, the Examiner was asked to assume, for the sake of argument,
`
`that various camera manuals, cameras, software and products (e. g., the information previously
`
`submitted ‘about the Nikon Coolpix 100 camera and various Casio products) actually were prior
`
`art. For purposes of clarity, the applicant takes this opportunity to reiterate that no admission is
`
`made as to whether or not any such material actually is prior art. In this regard, applicant
`
`disputes that all such previously submitted material is prior art to the newly submitted claims.
`
`Regarding the Nikon Coolpix 100 camera and information relating to the above-
`
`referenced camera manuals, etc., the assignee currently is investigating whether any of this
`
`information actually is prior art. As such, the applicant and assignee respectfully ask that the
`
`Examiner consider whether or not the currently pending claims are patentable over all such
`
`information. The issue of whether or not any such information is or is not prior art to the
`
`currently pending claims would become irrelevant if the Examiner were to agree with the
`
`undersigned attorney that the new claims are clearly patentable over all of this information.
`
`An IDS is being submitted herewith. One of the items referenced in the IDS is the above-
`
`referenced used Nikon Coolpix 100 camera that was obtained and analyzed. The Examiner is
`
`respectfully requested to consider all of the information disclosed in the IDS.
`
`A short validity analysis with respect to the sample Nikon Coolpix 100 camera is
`
`presented hereinafter. The Nikon Coolpix 100 camera does not, for example, teach or suggest
`
`one or more features of the new claims. One feature of the new claims that is not taught or
`
`suggested by the product is, for example, the claim feature that concerns a “central processing
`
`unit” of an “ADGPD processor” and a “program memory” that are configured both to cause
`
`5
`
`
`
`Applicant: Michael Tasler
`Application No.: 1 1/467,092
`Filed: August 24, 2006
`Date: January 2, 2008
`Page A 11 ~
`
`analog data to be generated and to cause digitized data representative of the analog data to be
`
`transferred to an i/o connector as discussed above. The microprocessor of the Nikon Coolpix
`
`100 camera that was analyzed cannot do both tasks because, for example, the microprocessor is
`
`put into a state it is incapable of accessing a data storage memory when the camera is plugged
`
`into a notebook computer. For this reason alone, for example, the new claims should be found to
`
`be patentable over the sample Nikon Coolpix 100 product that was obtained.
`
`The Examiner is respectfully requested to consider only the remarks made in this
`
`amendment when considering the patentability of the new claims submitted in this supplemental
`
`preliminary amendment.
`
`In this regard, the Examiner is respectfully asked to disregard all
`
`remarks and amendments made in all papers previously filed in this application or previously
`
`filed in any application of which the instant application claims priority.
`
`It is respectfully submitted that the new claims are in condition for allowance and,
`
`therefore, a formal notice to that effect is earnestly solicited.
`
`The Examiner is respectfully requested to contact the undersigned attorney upon entry of
`
`this supplemental preliminary amendment.
`
`Respect
`
`ly submitted
`
`e
`
`e
`
`. Salmon
`
`January 2, 2008
`Welsh & Katz, Ltd.
`120 South Riverside Plaza, 22nd Floor
`
`Attorney for Applicant
`Registration No. 37,435
`
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Telephone (312) 655-1500
`Facsimile (312) 655-1501
`E—mail jwsalmon@welshkatz.com
`
`6