Apple Inc. v.
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG
`
`P.T.A.B. Proceeding Nos. IPR2016-01842, -01863, and -01864
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,470,399; 8,504,746; and 9,189,437
`
`January 16, 2018
`
`
`
`Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
`
`Exhibit 1057
`IPR2016-01842
`
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG
`
`P.T.A.B. Proceeding Nos. IPR2016-01842, -01863, and -01864
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,470,399; 8,504,746; and 9,189,437
`
`January 16, 2018
`
`
`
`Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
`
`Exhibit 1057
`IPR2016-01842
`
`
`
`Instituted Grounds (’437 Patent)
`
`Ground
`
`Claims
`
`Type
`
`Primary
`Reference
`
`Secondary Reference(s)
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`1, 4-6, 9-12, 14,
`15, 30, 34
`16
`
`13, 18
`
`32
`
`43
`
`45
`
`IPR2016-01842 (’437 Patent)
`
`§ 103
`
`Pucci
`
`Kepley, Schmidt
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`Pucci
`
`Pucci
`
`Pucci
`
`Pucci
`
`Pucci
`
`Kepley, Schmidt, Shinosky
`
`Kepley, Schmidt, Campbell
`
`Kepley, Schmidt, Wilson
`
`Schmidt
`
`Schmidt, Campbell
`
`’1842 Institution Decision, pp. 37-38
`
`2
`
`
`
`Instituted Grounds (’746 Patent)
`
`Ground
`
`Claims
`
`Type
`
`Primary
`Reference
`
`Secondary Reference(s)
`
`IPR2016-01863 (’746 Patent)
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`1, 4, 6-8, 10, 11,
`20, 21, 30, 34, 35
`14
`
`23
`
`§ 103
`
`Pucci
`
`Kepley, Schmidt
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`Pucci
`
`Pucci
`
`Shinosky, Kepley, Schmidt
`
`Kepley, Schmidt, Wilson
`
`’1863 Institution Decision, pp. 19-20
`
`3
`
`
`
`Instituted Grounds (’399 Patent)
`
`Ground
`
`Claims
`
`Type
`
`Primary
`Reference
`
`Secondary Reference(s)
`
`1, 3, 5, 11, 14
`
`IPR2016-01839 (’399 Patent)
`Schmidt and the “sampling circuit”
`references (Horowitz, Burr-Brown,
`Intersil, MT-090, Oppenheim)
`
`§ 103 Kawaguchi
`
`1
`
`1
`
`2
`
`1, 3, 11, 14
`
`5
`
`§ 103
`
`Pucci
`
`IPR2016-01864 (’399 Patent)
`Kepley, Schmidt and the “sampling
`circuit” references (Horowitz, Burr-
`Brown, Intersil, MT-090, Oppenheim)
`Kepley, Schmidt, the “sampling
`circuit” references, and Li
`
`§ 103
`
`
`Pucci
`
`’1839 Institution Decision, pp. 6, 28; ’1864 Institution Decision, p. 21
`
`4
`
`
`
`Outline
`
`
`I. Pucci in view of Kepley stores the processed analog data in
`memory as at least one file of digitized analog data.
`
`II. Pucci in view of Schmidt responds to an INQUIRY command
`by emulating a hard drive.
`
`In Pucci, user-loaded file transfer enabling software is not
`required.
`
`III.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Pucci in view of Schmidt responds to
`an INQUIRY command by
`emulating a hard drive
`(all patents)
`
`6
`
`
`
`Claim 1 of the ’437 Patent recites “an automatic recognition
`process.”
`
`’437 Patent, Claim 1
`
`7
`
`
`
`Claim 43 of the ’437 Patent recites “automatically generating and
`transmitting . . . an identification parameter.”
`
`’437 Patent, Claim 43
`
`8
`
`
`
`Claim 1 of the ’746 Patent “automatically causes at least one parameter
`indicative of the class of devices to be sent to the computer.”
`
`’746 Patent, Claim 1
`
`9
`
`
`
`Claim 34 of the ’746 Patent recites “automatically sending . . . at least
`one parameter . . . Identifying the analog data acquisition device as a
`digital device.”
`
`’746 Patent, Claim 34
`
`10
`
`
`
`Claim 1 of the ’399 Patent recites an inquired device that “signals to the
`host device that it is an input/output device customary in a host device.”
`
`’399 Patent, Claim 1
`
`11
`
`
`
`Claim 11 of the ’399 Patent recites an inquired device that “signals to
`the host device that it is an input/output device customary in a host
`device.”
`
`’399 Patent, Claim 11
`
`12
`
`
`
`For the “automatic recognition process,” the Petitions rely on Pucci in
`view of Schmidt.
`
`The Petition:
`
`’1863 Petition, pp. 14-15; ’1842 Petition, p. 12; ’1864 Petition, p. 14
`
`13
`
`
`
`In Pucci, the ION node emulates a conventional disk drive.
`
`Pucci, p. 220; ’1842 Petition, p. 12; ’1863 Petition, p. 14; ’1864 Petition, p. 14
`
`14
`
`
`
`In Pucci, the ION node emulates a conventional disk drive.
`
`Pucci, pp. 220-21; ’1842 Petition, p. 36; ’1863 Petition, pp. 37, 38; ’1864 Petition, pp. 12, 14
`
`15
`
`
`
`When emulating a conventional disk drive, Pucci uses the “common”
`SCSI standard.
`
`Pucci, pp. 220-21; ’1842 Petition, pp. 12, 27-28; ’1863 Petition, pp. 15, 19, 38; ’1864 Petition, pp. 15, 33-34
`
`16
`
`
`
`Using the SCSI standard, Pucci’s host would send an INQUIRY to
`request information from its peripheral (i.e., the ION node).
`
`Schmidt, p. 88; ’1842 Petition, p. 30; ’1863 Petition, p. 15; ’1864 Petition, p. 15
`
`17
`
`
`
`Using the SCSI standard, Pucci’s ION node would respond to an
`INQUIRY command with the device class.
`
`Schmidt, p. 139; ’1842 Petition, p. 28; ’1863 Petition, p. 19; ’1864 Petition, p. 34
`
`18
`
`
`
`Using the SCSI standard, Pucci’s ION node would respond to an
`INQUIRY command with “00h” to signify the disk drive class.
`
`Schmidt, pp. 132-33; ’1842 Petition, p. 29; ’1863 Petition, pp. 19-20; ’1864 Petition, pp. 34-35
`
`19
`
`
`
`Pucci’s system uses SCSI to emulate a hard drive—just like the Tasler
`patents.
`
`’746 Patent, 3:49-53, 5:14-34; ’1863 Petition, pp. 7-8; see also, ’437 Patent, 3:51-56, 5:17-37; ’1842 Petition, pp. 7, 27;
`’399 Patent, 3:40-44, 6:3-22; ’1864 Petition, p. 7
`
`20
`
`
`
`Papst alleges that using SCSI in Pucci to emulate a disk drive would
`have led to unpredictable results.
`
`POR:
`
`’1863 POR, pp. 21-22; see also ’1842 POR, p. 22; ’1864 POR, pp. 17-18
`
`21
`
`
`
`Using the SCSI standard in Pucci to emulate a disk drive would not
`have led to unpredictable results.
`
`Dr. Zadok:
`
`’1863 Ex. 1054, ¶19; ’1863 Pet. Reply, p. 13; see also ’1842 Ex. 1054, ¶19; ’1842 Pet. Reply, p. 14;
`’1864 Ex. 1054, ¶32; ’1864 Pet. Reply, p. 15
`
`22
`
`
`
`Papst’s expert admitted: Pucci’s ION node could identify itself as a disk
`drive.
`
`Mr. Gafford:
`
`Ex. 1056, 83:5-11; ’1842 Pet. Reply, p. 15; ’1863 Pet. Reply, p. 14; ’1864 Pet. Reply, pp. 16-17
`
`23
`
`
`
`Papst alleges that the combination is not obvious because the ION
`node could respond with a CHECK CONDITION status.
`
`POR:
`
`’1863 POR, p. 20; see also ’1842 POR, p. 21; ’1864 POR, p. 17
`
`24
`
`
`
`When executed properly, the ION node would not return a CHECK
`CONDITION status.
`
`Dr. Zadok:
`
`’1863 Ex. 1054, ¶27; ’1863 Pet. Reply, p. 15; see also ’1842 Ex. 1054, ¶27; ’1842 Pet. Reply, p. 16;
`’1864 Ex. 1054, ¶18; ’1864 Pet. Reply, p. 5
`
`25
`
`
`
`A CHECK CONDITION status is returned only if the target is unable to
`return INQUIRY data.
`
`Schmidt, p. 88; ’1842 Pet. Reply, p. 16; ’1863 Pet. Reply, p. 15; ’1864 Pet. Reply, p. 5
`
`26
`
`
`
`The SCSI standard uses the REQUEST SENSE command after a
`CHECK CONDITION status is returned.
`
`Dr. Zadok:
`
`’1863 Ex. 1054, ¶27; ’1863 Pet. Reply, p. 15; see also ’1842 Ex. 1054, ¶27; ’1842 Pet. Reply, p. 16;
`’1864 Ex. 1054, ¶17; ’1864 Pet. Reply, p. 5
`
`27
`
`
`
`Papst’s expert admitted: the system in the Tasler patents also returns a
`CHECK CONDITION if a read command requests an address beyond
`the size of the drive.
`
`Mr. Gafford:
`
`Ex. 1055, 25:7-22; see also 1842 Pet. Reply, p. 22; ’1863 Pet. Reply, p. 21; ’1864 Pet. Reply, p. 12
`
`28
`
`
`
`Using the SCSI standard would not have rendered Pucci inoperable or
`unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.
`
`Pucci, p. 221; 1842 Pet. Reply, p. 15; ’1863 Pet. Reply, p. 14; ’1864 Pet. Reply, p. 16
`
`29
`
`
`
`Pucci in view of Kepley stores the
`processed analog data in memory as at
`least one file of digitized analog data
`(’437, ’746 patents)
`
`30
`
`
`
`Claim 1 of the ’437 Patent stores the processed and digitized analog
`data in the data storage memory as a file.
`
`’437 Patent, Claim 1
`
`31
`
`
`
`Claim 1 of the ’746 Patent stores the processed and digitized analog
`data in a file system as a file.
`
`’746 Patent, Claim 1
`
`32
`
`
`
`For storing processed and digitized analog data as a file, the Petitions
`rely on Pucci in view of Kepley.
`
`The Petition:
`
`’1863 Petition, p. 30; see also ’1842 Petition, p. 24; ’1864 Petition, p. 14
`
`33
`
`
`
`In his reply declaration, Dr. Zadok reiterated his reliance on Pucci in
`view of Kepley.
`
`Dr. Zadok:
`
`’1863 Ex. 1054, ¶12; ’1863 Pet. Reply pp. 5-6; see also ’1842 Ex. 1054, ¶12; ’1842 Pet. Reply, pp. 6-7
`
`34
`
`
`
`Pucci does not criticize, discredit, or discourage the use of a file-
`storage system—Pucci encourages the use of a file-storage system.
`
`Pucci, pp. 220-21, 222; ’1842 Petition, pp. 11, 24; ’1863 Petition, pp. 12-13, 30; ’1864 Petition, pp. 12, 14
`
`35
`
`
`
`Pucci is already designed to accommodate a file-storage system.
`
`Dr. Zadok:
`
`’1863 Ex. 1054, ¶9; ’1863 Pet. Reply, pp. 5-6; see also ’1842 Ex. 1054, ¶9; ’1842 Pet. Reply, pp. 6-7
`
`36
`
`
`
`Papst’s expert admitted: Pucci’s system can store file system data in
`the hard drive.
`
`Mr. Gafford:
`
`Ex. 1056, 80:12-20; ’1863 Pet. Reply, pp. 8-9; see also ’1842 Pet. Reply, p. 10
`
`37
`
`
`
`Papst’s argument that buffered data cannot be data stored as a file
`conflicts with the Tasler patents.
`POR:
`
`Tasler Patents:
`
`Compare ’1863 POR, p. 15, with ’746 Patent, 6:3-10;
`Compare ’1842 POR, p. 16, with ’437 Patent, 6:6-13;
`
`38
`
`
`
`In Pucci, user-loaded file transfer
`enabling software is not required
`(’437, ’746 patents)
`
`39
`
`
`
`Claim 1 of the ’437 Patent recites the following negative limitation:
`
`’437 Patent, Claim 1
`
`40
`
`
`
`Claim 43 of the ’437 Patent recites the following negative limitation:
`
`’437 Patent, Claim 43
`
`41
`
`
`
`Claim 1 of the ’746 Patent recites the following negative limitation:
`
`’746 Patent, Claim 1
`
`42
`
`
`
`Claim 34 of the ’746 Patent recites the following negative limitation:
`
`’746 Patent, Claim 34
`
`43
`
`
`
`Papst alleges that Pucci requires user-loaded file transfer enabling
`software and a user-loaded driver.
`
`POR:
`
`* * *
`
`’1863 POR, p. 24; see also ’1842 POR, p. 25; ’1864 POR, pp. 20-21
`
`44
`
`
`
`In Pucci, the workstation communicates with the ION node as if the
`node was a conventional device.
`
`Pucci, pp. 219-20; ’1842 Petition, pp. 33-34; ’1863 Petition, p. 38; ’1864 Petition, p. 12
`
`45
`
`
`
`In Pucci, the workstation is hardware independent, so driver changes to
`the host are unnecessary upon workstation upgrade.
`
`Pucci, pp. 219, 231; ’1842 Pet. Reply, pp. 8, 23; ’1863 Pet. Reply, pp. 7, 22; ’1864 Pet. Reply, p. 13
`
`46
`
`
`
`Papst’s expert admitted: Pucci’s SCSI interface is vendor independent.
`
`Mr. Gafford:
`
`Ex. 1056, 61:6-18; ’1842 Pet. Reply, p. 23; ’1863 Pet. Reply, p. 22; ’1864 Pet. Reply, p. 13
`
`47
`
`
`
`The Tasler patents use a SCSI interface and a SCSI driver—just like
`Pucci.
`
`’746 Patent, 5:14-20, 10:14-24; ’1863 Petition, p. 7; see also ’437 Patent, 5:17-23, 10:23-33; ’1842 Petition, p. 7;
`’399 Patent, 6:3-10, 11:9-19; ’1864 Petition, p. 7
`
`48
`
`
`
`Papst’s expert admitted: operating systems had pre-installed SCSI
`drivers.
`
`Mr. Gafford:
`
`Ex. 1056, 29:5-13; ’1842 Pet. Reply, pp. 21-22; ’1863 Pet. Reply, p. 21; ’1864 Pet. Reply, p. 12
`
`49
`
`
`
`Papst’s expert admitted: hosts with built-in SCSI drivers were common.
`
`Mr. Gafford:
`
`Ex. 1056, 24:3-16; ’1842 Pet. Reply, pp. 21-22; ’1863 Pet. Reply, p. 21; ’1864 Pet. Reply, p. 12
`
`50
`
`
`
`Papst alleges that Pucci requires user-loaded file transfer enabling
`software and a user-loaded driver to know “where” to read and write
`data.
`
`POR:
`
`’1863 POR, p. 27; see also ’1842 POR, p. 28; ’1864 POR, pp. 21-22
`
`51
`
`
`
`In Pucci, driver changes to the host are unnecessary to know “where”
`to read and write data.
`
`Dr. Zadok:
`
`’1863 Ex. 1054, ¶31; ’1863 Pet. Reply, p. 21; see also ’1842 Ex. 1054, ¶31; ’1842 Pet. Reply, p. 22;
`’1864 Ex. 1054, ¶27
`
`52
`
`
`
`The Tasler patents use known standard access commands—just like
`Pucci.
`
`’746 Patent, 5:8-11, 5:66-6:3; ’437 Patent, 5:11-14, 6:2-6; ’399 Patent, 5:64-67, 6:55-59
`
`53
`
`
`
`Papst’s expert admitted: every operating system had standard access
`commands.
`
`Mr. Gafford:
`
`Ex. 1055, 17:12-18:4; ’1842 Pet. Reply, p. 19; ’1863 Pet. Reply, pp. 18-19
`
`54
`
`
`
`Papst’s expert admitted: standard software would gather hard disk
`parameters for data transfer.
`Mr. Gafford:
`
`Ex. 1055, 18:4-15; ’1842 Pet. Reply, p. 22; ’1863 Pet. Reply, p. 21; ’1864 Pet. Reply, p. 12
`
`55
`
`
`
`Papst’s arguments about user-loaded software are moot for the ’399
`patent.
`
`Papst: “it would have been illogical for a POSITA to configure an ION Node to
`respond with data indicating an input/output device customary in a host device, such
`as an 00h (disk drive) class, without first having user intervention to ensure the
`workstation had the proper software installed to work with the ION Node”
`’1864 POR, pp. 17-18
`But the ’399 claims do not forbid “user intervention”
`
`Papst: “Pucci’s disclosure of a controlling program/application that must be loaded on
`the host computer for communication to occur is contrary to the ’399 Patent’s explicit
`teachings of an interface device that requires no specialized software to be loaded
`on the host computer by a user”
`’1864 POR, pp. 20-21
`But the ’399 claims do not forbid user-loaded “specialized software”
`
`’1864 Reply, pp. 7-8, 10-11
`
`56
`
`
`
`Claim 1 of the ’399 Patent recites a customary device driver.
`
`’399 Patent, Claim 1
`
`57
`
`
`
`Claim 11 of the ’399 Patent recites a “specific driver for the multi-
`purpose interface.”
`
`* * *
`
`’399 Patent, Claim 11
`
`58
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
