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
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`
`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 ’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 Murata, Salomon, and Schmidt renders
`claims 1, 5, 6, 9–12, 14–16, 30, 34, and 43 obvious. ...................................... 11 
`A. 
`The combination of Murata, Salomon, and Schmidt renders
`independent claim 1 obvious. ................................................................ 13 
`1.  The combination of Murata, Salomon, and Schmidt discloses “an
`analog data generating and processing device (ADGPD)” [1P]. . 13 
`2.  The combination of Murata, Salomon, and Schmidt discloses the
`ADGPD architecture elements. ...................................................... 14 
`a)  The combination of Murata, Salomon, and Schmidt discloses
`“an input/output (i/o) port” [1A]. ............................................ 15 
`b)  The combination of Murata, Salomon, and Schmidt teaches or
`suggests “a program memory” [1B]. ....................................... 15 
`c)  The combination of Murata, Salomon, and Schmidt discloses “a
`data storage memory” [1C]. .................................................... 16 
`d)  The combination of Murata, Salomon, and Schmidt discloses “a
`processor operatively interfaced with the i/o port, the program
`memory and the data storage memory” [1D]. ......................... 16 
`3.  The combination of Murata, Salomon, and Schmidt teaches or
`suggests the acquisition and processing limitations of independent
`claim 1. ........................................................................................... 18 
`a)  Murata teaches or suggests the acquisition limitation [1E.1]. . 18 
`b)  Murata teaches or suggests the processing limitation [1E.2]. . 21 
`
`- i -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`
`4.  The combination of Murata, Salomon, and Schmidt teaches or
`suggests the automatic recognition limitation [1F]. ....................... 23 
`a)  The combination of Murata, Salomon, and Schmidt discloses
`the claimed automatic recognition operation [1F.1]................ 24 
`b)  The combination of Murata, Salomon, and Schmidt teaches or
`suggests the end user requirements [1F.2]. ............................. 31 
`c)  The combination of Murata, Salomon, and Schmidt teaches the
`automatic recognition data element requirements [1F.3]. ....... 33 
`5.  The combination of Murata, Salomon, and Schmidt teaches or
`suggests the file transfer limitation of independent claim 1. ......... 35 
`a)  Murata discloses the recited automatic file transfer process. .. 36 
`b)  The combination of Murata, Salomon, and Schmidt discloses
`the emulation and user requirement component of the file
`transfer limitation. .................................................................... 38 
`The combination of Murata, Salomon, and Schmidt renders
`claim 5 obvious. .................................................................................... 39 
`The combination of Murata, Salomon, and Schmidt renders
`claim 6 obvious. .................................................................................... 40 
`The combination of Murata, Salomon, and Schmidt renders
`claim 9 obvious ..................................................................................... 40 
`The combination of Murata, Salomon, and Schmidt renders
`claim 10 obvious. .................................................................................. 42 
`The combination of Murata, Salomon, and Schmidt renders
`claim 11 obvious. .................................................................................. 43 
`The combination of Murata, Salomon, and Schmidt renders
`claim 12 obvious. .................................................................................. 45 
`The combination of Murata, Salomon, and Schmidt renders
`claim 14 obvious. .................................................................................. 46 
`The combination of Murata, Salomon, and Schmidt renders
`claim 15 obvious. .................................................................................. 47 
`The combination of Murata, Salomon, and Schmidt renders
`claim 16 obvious. .................................................................................. 47 
`The combination of Murata, Salomon, and Schmidt renders
`claim 30 obvious. .................................................................................. 48 
`
`- ii -
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`G. 
`
`H. 
`
`I. 
`
`J. 
`
`K. 
`
`

`
`L. 
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`
`M. 
`
`The combination of Murata, Salomon, and Schmidt renders
`claim 34 obvious. .................................................................................. 49 
`The combination of Murata, Salomon, and Schmidt renders
`independent claim 43 obvious. .............................................................. 50 
`1.  The combination of Murata, Salomon, and Schmidt discloses “[a]n
`analog data generating and processing method for acquiring analog
`data and for communicating with a host computer” [43P]. ........... 50 
`2.  The combination of Murata, Salomon, and Schmidt discloses the
`architecture elements of claim 43. ................................................. 51 
`3.  The combination of Murata, Salomon, and Schmidt teaches or
`suggests the acquisition and processing limitations [43B]. ........... 52 
`a)  Murata teaches or suggests the acquisition limitation of
`independent claim 43. .............................................................. 52 
`b)  Murata teaches or suggests the processing limitation of
`independent claim 43. .............................................................. 53 
`4.  The combination of Murata, Salomon, and Schmidt teaches or
`suggests the automatic recognition limitation of independent claim
`43. ................................................................................................... 53 
`5.  The combination of Murata, Salomon, and Schmidt teaches or
`suggests the transferring limitation of independent claim 43. ....... 54 
`6.  The combination of Murata, Salomon, and Schmidt teaches or
`suggests “wherein the identification parameter is consistent with the
`ADGPD being responsive to commands issued from a customary
`device driver.” ................................................................................ 56 
`VI.  Ground 2: The combination of Murata, Salomon, Schmidt, and Araghi
`renders claim 4 obvious. .................................................................................. 57 
`VII.  Ground 3: The combination of Murata, Salomon Schmidt, and
`Compton renders claims 13, 18, and 45 obvious. ........................................... 58 
`A. 
`The combination of Murata, Salomon, and Schmidt and
`Compton renders claim 13 obvious. ...................................................... 58 
`The combination of Murata, Salomon, Schmidt, and Compton
`renders claims 18 and 45 obvious. ........................................................ 60 
`VIII.  Ground 4: The combination of Murata, Salomon, Schmidt, and Reisch
`renders claim 32 obvious. ................................................................................ 61 
`IX.  Conclusion. ...................................................................................................... 63
`
`B. 
`
`- iii -
`
`

`
`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
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ................................................................................ 10
`
`
`
`Statutes:
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ................................................................................................. 4, 5
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ................................................................................................. 4, 5
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ..................................................................................................... 4
`
`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
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`
`Ex. No.
`1001
`1002
`1003
`
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`
`1008
`1009
`1010
`1011
`1012
`
`1013
`1014
`
`1015
`1016
`1017
`1018
`
`1019
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`1025
`1026
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`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
`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.
`Intentionally left blank
`Intentionally left blank
`Intentionally left blank
`The IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics Terms,
`Sixth Edition, 1996.
`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
`“Principles of Data Acquisition and Conversion,” Burr-Brown
`Application Bulletin, 1994.
`“Principles of Data Acquisition and Con-version,” Intersil Appli-
`cation Note, Oct 1986
`“Sample-and-Hold Amplifiers,” Analog Devices MT-090 Tutorial,
`2009
`Declaration of Scott Bennett
`Intentionally left blank
`U.S. Patent No. 4,698,131 to Araghi et al.
`
`- v -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`
`Ex. No.
`1027
`1028
`1029
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`1033
`1034
`1035
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 5,442,465 to Compton
`U.S. Patent No. 5,706,216 to Reisch
`U.S. Patent No. 4,430,673 to Salomon et al.
`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”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,094,219 to Roberts et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 4,970,605 to Fogaroli et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,623,556 to Murayama et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,196,946 to Balkanski et al.
`
`- vi -
`
`

`
`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, 32,
`
`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, U.S. Patent 5,506,692 to Murata (“Murata”), which resulted from an
`
`application filed nearly 4 years before the earliest possible priority date of the ’437
`
`patent, disclosed an image scanner that emulates a hard disk file system to allow
`
`“control…and transfer of image data” from the scanner to “be carried out using the
`
`device driver for existing hard discs.” (Ex. 1008, Murata, 2:8–12.)
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`
`Apple demonstrates below that a reasonable likelihood exists that all 18
`
`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.
`
`Pending U.S. Application No. 14/859,266, filed on September 19, 2015,
`
`claims the benefit of the ’437 patent.
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`
`Apple is concurrently filing additional petitions against claims of the ’437
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`
`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
`
`’437 patent on November 30, 2015. (Ex. 1020.) The present petition is being filed
`
`within one year of service of Apple.
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`
`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 prior art documents applied in the grounds of unpatentability were
`
`published prior to the March 4, 1997 German application date.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,506,692 to Murata, titled “Image Handling Apparatus
`
`Having File System Emulation Means” (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.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,430,673 to Salomon et al., titled “Programmable
`
`Scan/Read Circuitry for Charge Coupled Device Imaging Detectors” (Ex. 1029) is
`
`prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §§102(a) and 102(b) because it issued on February
`
`7, 1984.
`
`
`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. 4,698,131 to Araghi et al. , titled “Replaceable Image Sensor
`
`Array” (Ex. 1026) is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 102(b) because
`
`it issued on October 6, 1987.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,442,465 to Compton, titled “Apparatus and Method for
`
`Controlling a Linear Imaging Device” (Ex. 1027) is prior art under at least 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 102(b) because it issued on August 15, 1995.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,706,216 to Reisch, titled “System for Data Compression of
`
`an Image Using a JPEG Compression Circuit Modified for Filtering in the
`
`Frequency Domain” (Ex. 1028) is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because
`
`it was filed on July 28, 1995.
`
`Statutory grounds for the challenge.
`
`B.
`Apple requests review of claims 1, 4–6, 9–16, 18, 30, 32, 34, 43, and 45 on
`
`the following grounds:
`
`
`
`References
`
`Basis
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`1 Murata, Salomon, and Schmidt
`
`§103 1, 5, 6, 9–12, 14–16, 30, 34, 43
`
`2 Murata, Salomon, Schmidt, and
`Araghi
`
`§103 4
`
`3 Murata, Salomon, Schmidt,
`
`§103 13, 18, 45
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`
`
`
`References
`
`Basis
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`Compton
`
`4 Murata, Salomon, Schmidt,
`Reisch
`
`§103 32
`
`
`
`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).
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Petition ffor Inter PPartes Reviiew of
`
`
`
`UU.S. Patennt No. 9,1889,437
`
`
`
`As illusstrated in annnotated FFigure 1 beelow, the innterface deevice 10 inccludes “[a]] first
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`connectting devicee 12…attacched to a host device
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(not showwn) via a hoost line 11”” and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a secondd connecting device “attached bby means oof an outpuut line 16 tto a data
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`transmitt/receive ddevice…froom which ddata is to bbe read, i.e
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. acquired,, and transfferred
`
`
`
`
`
`to the host device..” (’437 paatent, 4:63
`
`
`
`
`
`Interfacee
`
`
`device
`
`
`
`(’437 paatent, Figuure 1.)
`
`
`
`to 5:7.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ar[] to evice appeanterface deTThe ’437 paatent disclooses techniiques to maake “the in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the hostt device as a hard disk.” (’437 ppatent, 6:5––6.) Speciffically, thee ’437 pateent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`relies onn a known host systeem identificcation proccess: whenn a host devvice is boooted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`an inquiiry instructtion as to ddevices attaached to thhe host devvice is issuued to the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`input/ouutput interffaces of thee host deviice. (’437 ppatent, 5:1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7–23.) Thuus, the hosst
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`
`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., ¶28.) 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). (Zadok
`
`Decl., ¶28.)
`
`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.”
`
`
`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 -
`
`

`
`Claim Term
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`
`Construction
`(Ex. 1030, MDL No. 1880, Order
`
`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 well settled that a claim term must be interpreted from
`
`the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art 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
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`
`for the device to be one that was normally part of commercially available computer
`
`systems at the time of the invention.” In re Papst Licensing Digital Camera Patent
`
`Litigation, 778 F.3d at 1270.
`
`V. Ground 1: The combination of Murata, Salomon, and Schmidt renders
`claims 1, 5, 6, 9–12, 14–16, 30, 34, and 43 obvious. 3
`Murata discloses an image scanner that emulates a hard disk so “the
`
`control…or the transfer of image data can be carried out using the device driver of
`
`existing hard discs.” (Murata, 2:8–12.) The image scanner includes a CCD image
`
`sensor that acquires and generates analog signals from a plurality of independent
`
`imaging pixels. (Murata, 3:24–27; Zadok Decl., ¶60.) Salomon provides details of
`
`Murata’s CCD image sensor. Specifically, Salomon teaches that a CCD image
`
`sensor includes imaging pixels which are “discrete light sensing elements...
`
`individually responsive to incident light energy.” (Salomon, 1:24–26.)
`
`The analog signals from CDD image sensor are digitized and stored as a file
`
`in an image memory of the image scanner. (Murata, 3:27–29; see also 5:40–48.) A
`
`host computer can read the file from the image scanner as if reading a file from a
`
`hard disk. (Murata, 2:10–12.) Specifically, the image scanner emulates a hard disk
`
`file system to appear like a hard disk to the host computer. (Murata, 4:20–23.)
`
`
`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
`
`Murata teaches that the image scanner, when attached to the host computer, is
`
`identified as a hard disk but does not explicitly disclose the details of the recognition
`
`process. (Murata, 4:26–36; Zadok Decl., ¶61.) Murata however discloses that the
`
`image scanner is connected to the host computer via a SCSI bus. (Murata, 4:13–16,
`
`2:62–64.) It was well known at the earliest possible priority date of the ’437 patent
`
`that SCSI bus initialization between a host computer and a peripheral device
`
`included the peripheral device identifying its device class and type to the host
`
`computer. (Zadok Decl., ¶61.) Schmidt provides the details of this process.
`
`Specifically, in response to a mandatory INQUIRY command from the host
`
`computer, the peripheral device responded with a “device class” or “peripheral
`
`device type” that identified it to the host computer. (Ex. 1007, Schmidt, p. 138.) One
`
`device class is the “disk drives” class. (Schmidt, p. 133, Table 12.1.)
`
`A POSITA would have found it obvious to use Schmidt’s SCSI device
`
`recognition process in Murata’s SCSI image scanner to enable identification of
`
`Murata’s scanner to be carried using routine SCSI signaling. (Zadok Decl., ¶62.)
`
`Specifically, given that Murata’s scanner is a SCSI device, a POSITA would have
`
`looked to a reference, like Schmidt, to provide details of the SCSI interface. (Zadok
`
`Decl., ¶62.) And given Schmidt’s teachings about SCSI bus initialization, a POSITA
`
`would have found it obvious to configure Murata’s scanner to respond to a SCSI
`
`inquiry command from the host computer. (Zadok Decl., ¶62.) And as Murata’s
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`
`scanner emulates a hard disk, it would have also been obvious to a POSITA to have
`
`Murata’s image scanner return the “hard disk” class in its response to the INQUIRY
`
`command, misidentifying itself as a member of the hard disk class even though it is
`
`not itself a hard disk. (Zadok Decl., ¶62.) Thus, Murata’s image scanner would
`
`identify itself, not as an image scanner, but as a hard disk. Further, the combination
`
`of Murata and Schmidt would have been nothing more than the application of a
`
`known technique (SCSI device recognition process) to a known device (Murata’s
`
`SCSI scanner) to yield predictable results (identification of the scanner as a hard
`
`disk using routine SCSI signaling). (Zadok Decl., ¶62.)
`
`A. The combination of Murata, Salomon, and Schmidt renders
`independent claim 1 obvious.
`1.
`
`The combination of Murata, Salomon, and Schmidt discloses
`“an analog data generating and processing device (ADGPD)”
`[1P].
`
`Murata discloses an image scanner 20 that can be connected via a small
`
`computer system interface (SCSI) bus 22 to a workstation 21. (Murata, Figure 1.)
`
`An image sensor of image scanner 20 generates analog data, which is processed to
`
`produce an image signal: “the CCD reads the reflected light from the document 2 at
`
`a resolution of 400 dpi, converts it to the electric signal, and outputs an analogue
`
`image signal 32.” (Murata, 3:24–27.) Murata’s image scanner 20 is therefore
`
`dedicated to generating and processing analog data and is therefore an “ADGPD.”
`
`(Zadok Decl., ¶63.)
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`
`analog data generating and
`processing device
`
`
`
`2.
`
`The combination of Murata, Salomon, 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 Murata, Salomon,
`
`and Schmidt teaches or suggests each of these architectural elements. The following
`
`annotated Figure maps the claim limitations to the image scanner of Murata.
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`
`
`
`a)
`
`The combination of Murata, Salomon, and Schmidt
`discloses “an input/output (i/o) port” [1A].
`
`The image scanner 20 includes a SCSI controller 64 “controlled by [a] CPU
`
`50, for carrying out data transfer to and from the external host computer via the
`
`SCSI.” (Murata, 4:13–16; 2:40; Figure 3.) SCSI controller 64 is therefore the recited
`
`“input/output (i/o) port.” (Zadok Decl., ¶65.)
`
`b)
`
`The combination of Murata, Salomon,