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. Mandatory notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)). ..................................................... 2
`II. Grounds for standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)). ................................................. 3
`III.
`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 Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt renders
`claims 1, 4–6, 9–12, 14, 15, 30, and 34 obvious. ............................................ 10
`A.
`The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt renders
`independent claim 1 obvious. ................................................................ 12
`1. Preamble: “an analog data generating and processing device
`(ADGPD)” [1P]. ..........................................................................12
`2. The ADGPD architecture elements. ............................................14
`“an input/output (i/o) port” [1A].......................................14
`a)
`b) “a program memory” [1B]. ...............................................15
`“a data storage memory” [1C]. .........................................15
`c)
`d) “a processor operatively interfaced with the i/o port, the
`program memory and the data storage memory” [1D]. ...16
`3. The acquisition and processing limitations .................................18
`a) The acquisition limitation [1E.1]. .....................................18
`b) The data processing limitation [1E.2] ...............................21
`4. The automatic recognition limitation [1F] ..................................25
`a) The automatic recognition operation [1F.1] .....................26
`b) The end user requirements [1F.2] .....................................33
`c) The automatic recognition data element requirements
`[1F.3]. ................................................................................35
`5. The file transfer limitation of independent claim 1 .....................36
`
`- i -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`a) The automatic file transfer process ...................................37
`b) The emulation and user requirement component of the file
`transfer limitation. .............................................................40
`Claim 4. ................................................................................................. 42
`B.
`Claim 5. ................................................................................................. 43
`C.
`Claim 6. ................................................................................................. 43
`D.
`Claim 9. ................................................................................................. 43
`E.
`Claim 10. ............................................................................................... 44
`F.
`Claim 11. ............................................................................................... 44
`G.
`Claim 12. ............................................................................................... 45
`H.
`Claim 14. ............................................................................................... 47
`I.
`Claim 15. ............................................................................................... 48
`J.
`Claim 30. ............................................................................................... 48
`K.
`Claim 34. ............................................................................................... 49
`L.
`VI. Ground 2: The combination of Pucci, Kepley, Schmidt, and Shinosky
`renders claim 16 obvious. ................................................................................ 50
`VII. Ground 3: The combination of Pucci, Kepley, Schmidt, and Campbell
`renders claims 13 and 18 obvious. .................................................................. 54
`A.
`Claim 13 ................................................................................................ 54
`B.
`Claim 18 ................................................................................................ 58
`VIII. Ground 4: The combination of Pucci, Kepley, Schmidt, and Wilson
`renders claim 32 obvious. ................................................................................ 58
`IX. Ground 5: The combination of Pucci and Schmidt renders claim 43
`obvious. ............................................................................................................ 60
`A.
`Preamble: “[a]n analog data generating and processing method
`for acquiring analog data and for communicating with a host
`computer” [43P] .................................................................................... 60
`The architecture elements of claim 43 .................................................. 61
`B.
`[1P] An analog data generating and processing device (ADGPD),
`comprising: ...................................................................................................... 62
`[1B] a program memory; ........................................................................................... 62
`
`- ii -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`[1C] a data storage memory; ..................................................................................... 62
`[1D] a processor...; .................................................................................................... 62
`C.
`The acquisition and processing limitations [43B]. ................................ 62
`a) Pucci teaches the acquisition limitation of independent
`claim 43. ............................................................................62
`b) The processing limitation ..................................................63
`[1E.2a] the analog data from each respective channel is digitized ........................... 63
`[1E.2b] coupled into the processor, and is processed by the processor ................... 63
`[43B.2] converting the acquired analog data to digitized acquired analog
`data .................................................................................................................. 63
`[43B.3] coupling the digitized acquired analog data into the digital processor
`for processing by the digital processor ........................................................... 63
`D.
`The automatic recognition limitation .................................................... 64
`E.
`The transferring limitation .................................................................... 64
`F.
`“wherein the identification parameter is consistent with the
`ADGPD being responsive to commands issued from a customary
`device driver.” ....................................................................................... 66
`X. Ground 6: The combination of Pucci, Schmidt, and Campbell, Jr.
`renders claim 45 obvious. ................................................................................ 66
`XI. The proposed grounds are not redundant. ....................................................... 67
`XII. Conclusion. ...................................................................................................... 67
`
`
`- 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, 10
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ................................................................................................. 24
`
`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) ..................................................................................................... 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`
`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
`
`1032-1036
`1037
`1038
`1039
`1040
`1041
`
`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
`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
`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
`U.S. Patent No. 6,111,831 to Alon et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 4,856,871 to Van Sant
`U.S. Patent No. 5,515,237 to Ogami et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,590,375 to Sangveraphunsiri et al.
`Pucci, M., “Configurable Data Manipulation in an Attached
`
`- v -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`
`Ex. No.
`
`1042
`
`1043
`
`1044
`
`1045
`
`1046-1048
`1049
`1050
`1051
`1052
`
`Description
`
`Multiprocessor, “1991
`U.S. Patent No. 4,790,003 to Kepley et al., titled “Message Service
`System Network”
`U.S. Patent No. 5,081,454 to Campbell, Jr. et al., titled “Automatic
`A/D Converter Operation Using Programmable Sample Time”
`U.S. Patent No. 5,353,374 to Wilson et al., titled “Low Bit Rate
`Voice Transmission for Use in a Noisy Environment”
`U.S. Patent No. 4,065,644 to Shinosky
`
`Intentionally left blank
`’144 German Application (DE 197 08 755)
`’144 German Application Translated (DE 197 08 755)
`Intentionally left blank
`USENIX Declaration
`
`- 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 device
`
`(ADGPD) and associated method for acquiring analog data and communicating
`
`with a host computer. The device performs well-known 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, nearly six years before the earliest possible priority date of the ’437
`
`patent, Pucci (Ex. 1041) described a multiprocessor tasking system, named ION,
`
`that connected to workstation using a SCSI disk interface and that “appear[ed] to
`
`the workstation as a large, high speed disk device.” (Pucci, p. 217.) As such, the
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`workstation was provided “with a peripheral that it knows how to deal with.”
`
`(Pucci, p. 220).
`
`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.
`
`- 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.
`
`Petitioner is concurrently filing additional petitions for inter partes review of
`
`the ’437 patent.
`
`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 number (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 -
`
`

`
`III.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`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.
`
`Configurable Data Manipulation in an Attached Multiprocessor, by Marc
`
`F. Pucci (Ex. 1041) is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 102(b)
`
`because it was published in 1991. (See Ex. 1052.)
`
`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. 4,790,003 to Kepley et al., titled “Message Service System
`
`Network” (Ex. 1042) is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 102(b)
`
`because it issued on December 6, 1988.
`
`
`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
`U.S. Patent No. 5,081,454 to Campbell, Jr. et al., titled “Automatic A/D
`
`Converter Operation Using Programmable Sample Time” (Ex. 1043) is prior art
`
`under at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 102(b) because it issued on January 14, 1992.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,353,374 to Wilson et al., titled “Low Bit Rate Voice
`
`Transmission for Use in a Noisy Environment” (Ex. 1044) is prior art under at least
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 102(b) because it issued on October 4, 1994.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,065,644 to Shinosky et al., titled “Electro-Optical and
`
`Electronic Switching Systems” (Ex. 1045) is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C
`
`§§ 102(a) and 102(b) because it issued on December 27, 1977.
`
`B. Statutory grounds for the challenge.
`Apple requests review of claims 1, 4–6, 9–16, 18, 30, 32, 34, 43, and 45 on
`
`the following grounds:
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`References
`
`Basis
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt
`
`§103 1, 4–6, 9–12, 14, 15, 30, and 34
`
`Pucci, Kepley, Schmidt, and
`Shinosky
`
`Pucci, Kepley, Schmidt, and
`Campbell, Jr.
`
`Pucci, Kepley, Schmidt, and
`Wilson
`
`Pucci and Schmidt
`
`§103 16
`
`§103 13 and 18
`
`§103 32
`
`§103 43
`
`Pucci, Schmidt, and Campbell,
`
`§103 45
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`
`
`
`References
`
`Basis
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`
`Jr.
`
`
`
`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. (’437 patent, 1:18–22.)
`
`The patent acknowledges that such interface devices were known. However, the
`
`patent alleges that these existing interfaces traded high data transfer rates for host-
`
`device independence. (’437 patent, 3:29–32.)
`
`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 “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.” (’437 patent, 4:63 to 5:7.)
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`
`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.) 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.)
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`
`B. Level of ordinary skill in the art.
`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 herein2, the terms are to be given
`
`their plain and ordinary meaning as understood by a POSITA and consistent with
`
`the disclosure.
`
`
`2 Petitioner reserves the right to present different constructions in another
`
`forum where a different claim construction standard applies. Apple’s proposed
`
`construction 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.
`
`- 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
`computer”
`
`Construction
`“a communication interface designed for
`use with multiple devices that can have
`different functions from each other.”
`(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
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`
`most commercially available host
`devices at the time of the invention.”
`
`
`
`The Board should adopt Apple’s construction for this term 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 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 ’399 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 time of the invention.” In re Papst Licensing Digital Camera Patent
`
`Litigation, 778 F.3d at 1270.
`
`V. Ground 1: The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt renders
`claims 1, 4–6, 9–12, 14, 15, 30, and 34 obvious.3
`Pucci, like the ’437 patent, recognized “workstations that exploit the rapidly
`
`
`3 A complete listing of challenged claims is provided as Appendix A. For ease
`
`of discussion, labels have been added to individual claim limitations.
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`advancing state-of-the-art in processor technology can often be a bane to developers
`
`of applications that utilize dedicated special purpose hardware or that impose strict
`
`access requirements on conventional hardware.” (Pucci, p. 218.) Pucci addressed the
`
`problems of these systems through the ION Data Engine—“a multiprocessor tasking
`
`system that provides data manipulation services for collections of workstations or
`
`other conventional computers.” (Pucci, p. 217.)
`
`Pucci’s ION Engine “appears to [a] workstation as a large, high speed disk
`
`device.” (Pucci, p. 217.) The “[s]oftware running within the ION system mimics the
`
`behavior of a conventional device, providing the workstation with a peripheral that
`
`it knows how to deal with.” (Pucci, p. 220.) In addition, the ION node includes a
`
`plurality of analog-to-digital converters that receive analog data from an I/O device.
`
`(See Pucci, p. 220, Figure 1.) ION temporarily stores the digital output data from the
`
`A-to-D converters in memory before transfer to the workstation upon request.
`
`(Pucci, pp. 231–232.) However, Pucci does not explicitly disclose that the converted
`
`digital data is stored as a file on the ION node.
`
`Kepley discloses a voice mail system that stores a “digitally encoded and
`
`compressed voice mail message” as a file. (Ex. 1042, Kepley, Abstract, claim 1.) A
`
`POSITA would have found it obvious to store the digitized A-to-D converted data
`
`as a file in Pucci’s voice messaging service application to enable “computer-to-
`
`computer data file transfer over high speed data lines” between the ION-enabled
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`voice messaging service system and other messaging service systems as taught by
`
`Kepley. (Kepley, Abstract; Zadok Decl., ¶¶96–97.)
`
`Pucci stresses throughout that the ION node identifies itself as a hard disk
`
`device to attached workstations. (Pucci, pp. 217, 220, Figure 1; Zadok Decl., ¶102.)
`
`However, Pucci does not explicitly disclose the details of the recognition process.
`
`Schmidt, titled “The SCSI Bus and IDE Interface Protocols, Applications and
`
`Programming,” provides at detailed discussion of the device recognition process. A
`
`POSITA would have combined Pucci and Kepley with Schmidt for a number of
`
`reasons. First, Pucci discloses that the ION node connects to the workstation via a
`
`SCSI bus. (Pucci, p. 217, 2:62–64.) A POSITA would have looked to a reference,
`
`like Schmidt, to provide details of the SCSI interface. Additionally, 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 involved the
`
`peripheral device identifying its device class and type to the host computer. (Zadok
`
`Decl., ¶103.) Schmidt provides the details of this well-known process. (Zadok Decl.,
`
`¶103.)
`
`A. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt renders
`independent claim 1 obvious.
`1. Preamble: “an analog data generating and processing device
`(ADGPD)” [1P].
`An ION node “is a back-end system, connecting to a workstation via the
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`Small Computer Systems Interface (SCSI) disk interface.” (Pucci, p. 217) In an
`
`exemplary application, the ION node “supports an analog to digital (A-to-D)
`
`conversion application that provides voice messaging service for a prototype
`
`telephone switch.” (Pucci, p. 221.) As shown in Pucci’s annotated Figure 1 below,
`
`the ION node includes A to D converters for converting analog voice messages
`
`received on respective analog channels. (Pucci, p. 221; Zadok Decl., ¶¶61–62.)
`
`When an analog voice message is received on a given analog channel, analog data is
`
`generated at the input of the corresponding A to D converter. (Zadok Decl., ¶63.)
`
`The generated analog data is then processed by being digitized and compressed. The
`
`voicemail application of ION “is structured around three cooperating tasks.” (Pucci,
`
`p. 231.) One task “extracts the raw data from the converter, placing it into a queue
`
`for temporary storage.” (Pucci, p. 231.) The second task “is a generic system utility
`
`that translates 16-bit linear data into 8-bit mu-law data....” (Pucci, p. 231.) And, the
`
`third task “interfaces to the SCSI bus and returns data to the workstation when
`
`requested.” (Pucci, p. 232.) Accordingly, in Pucci’s A-to-D conversion application,
`
`the ION node is dedicated to generating and processing analog data. (Zadok Decl.,
`
`¶65.) The ION node is thus an “ADGPD.” (Zadok Decl., ¶65.)
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`
`analog
`data
`generating
`and
`processing
`device
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2. 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 Pucci, Kepley, and
`
`Schmidt teaches or suggests each of these limitations.
`
`a) “an input/output (i/o) port” [1A].
`Figure 2 of Pucci (reproduced below with annotations) depicts the hardware
`
`configuration of an ION node. The depicted configuration uses a set of single board
`
`computers (SBCs). “An SBC is dedicated to each workstation connection” and
`
`“[e]ach SBC contains its own SCSI interface chip....” (Pucci, p. 222, Figure 2.) The
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`SCSI interface chip of an SBC is “an input/output (i/o) port.” (Zadok Decl., ¶¶67–
`
`68.)
`
`
`
`b) “a program memory” [1B].
`Pucci discloses that “[s]oftware run[s] within the ION system....” (Pucci,
`
`p. 220.) Specifically, “a variety of applications” can be “managed by tasks running
`
`within the ION system.” (Pucci, p. 221.) “All ION tasks are memory resident and
`
`execute with their own flow of control.” (Pucci, p. 223.) Accordingly, a POSITA
`
`would recognize Pucci’s tasks as programs that are stored in “a program memory.”
`
`(Zadok Decl., ¶69.)
`
`c) “a data storage memory” [1C].
`Pucci’s ION node also includes “local ION storage” and a “large buffer
`
`memory.” (Pucci, p. 222, Figure 2.) The local ION storage “may consist of file
`
`system data and or application managed object repositories.” (Pucci, p. 222.) The
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`“[l]arge buffer memory, on the order of hundreds of