UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO., KG,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2016-01842
`Patent 9,189,437
`_______________
`___________________________________
`PATENT OWNER PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO., KG’S MOTION
`FOR OBSERVATION RELATED TO DEPOSITION TESTIMONY OF DR.
`EREZ ZADOK
`___________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO., KG,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2016-01842
`Patent 9,189,437
`_______________
`___________________________________
`PATENT OWNER PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO., KG’S MOTION
`FOR OBSERVATION RELATED TO DEPOSITION TESTIMONY OF DR.
`EREZ ZADOK
`___________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Papst Licensing GMBH & Co., KG (“Patent Owner”) submits this Motion for
`
`Observation Related to the Deposition Testimony of Dr. Erez Zadok, identifying
`
`specific portions of Dr. Zadok’s November 28, 2017 deposition transcript (Exhibit
`
`2007) for the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s consideration. Dr. Zadok is a reply
`
`declarant of Petitioner Apple, Inc. (“Petitioner”). Patent Owner submits the
`
`following observations:
`
`
`
`Observation No. 1
`
`In Exhibit 2007, on page 88, lines 3-10, the witness testified “I think what
`
`they imply here is that there is some application running on the workstation, and
`
`that interfaces with a SCSI driver or standard SCSI driver to the ION node itself,
`
`which then would accept these kinds of commands and process them, namely
`
`through these analog channels, reading data from them, digitizing them, and
`
`returning it back.” This testimony is relevant to Patent Owner’s argument discussed
`
`on pages 25-30 of Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 16) and pages 18-23 of
`
`Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 18). This testimony is relevant because it establishes that
`
`user-loaded file transfer enabling software in addition to the operating system must
`
`be loaded on the workstation to permit data transfer.
`
`
`
`Observation No. 2
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`In Exhibit 2007, on page 90, lines 5-9, the witness testified “I would assume
`
`that this application is a user mode application that’s separate from the standard
`
`SCSI driver that’s usually part of the operating system where that SCSI driver is
`
`what enables the transfer of the data.” This testimony is relevant to Patent Owner’s
`
`argument discussed on pages 25-30 of Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 16) and
`
`pages 18-23 of Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 18). This testimony is relevant because it
`
`suggests that user-loaded file transfer enabling software in addition to the operating
`
`system must be loaded on the workstation to permit data transfer even if the SCSI
`
`driver is still involved in such data transfer.
`
`
`
`Observation No. 3
`
`In Exhibit 2007, on page 116, lines 12-22 through pages 117, lines 1-6, the
`
`witness testified “I don’t recall a specific word ‘signal’ or ‘signaling’ there” when
`
`asked if Pucci explicitly shows the sending of a signal that misidentifies a device
`
`as a hard drive. This testimony is relevant to Patent’s Owner’s arguments that
`
`neither Pucci nor Schmidt disclose a signal being sent from the interface device to
`
`the host device that is capable of misidentifying a device as something that it is not
`
`as discussed on pages 18-24 of Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 16). This is
`
`relevant because it further establishes that neither applied reference, Pucci nor
`
`Schmidt (see below), discloses the misidentification signaling required in the
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`claims.
`
`
`
`Observation No. 4
`
`In Exhibit 2007, on page 118, lines 4-12, the witness testified “I don’t recall,
`
`again, in Schmidt that it describes signals that emulate or misidentify.” This
`
`testimony is relevant to Patent’s Owner’s arguments that neither Pucci nor Schmidt
`
`disclose a signal being sent from the interface device to the host device that is
`
`capable of misidentifying a device as something that it is not as discussed on pages
`
`18-24 of Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 16). This is relevant because it further
`
`establishes that neither applied reference, Pucci nor Schmidt, discloses the
`
`misidentification signaling required in the claims.
`
`
`
`
`Date: December 5, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Gregory S. Donahue
`Gregory S. Donahue
`Reg. No. 47,531
`DiNovo Price LLP
`7000 North MoPac Expressway
`Suite 350
`Austin, TX 78731
`Telephone: (512) 539-2625
`Facsimile: (512) 539-2627
`
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner Papst
`Licensing GMBH & Co., KG
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Michael R. Fleming
`Reg. No. 67,933
`mfleming@irell.com
`Irell & Manella LLP
`1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`Telephone: (310) 277-1010
`Facsimile: (310) 203-7199
`
`Back-Up Counsel for Patent Owner
`Papst Licensing GMBH & Co., KG
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on this 5th day of December 2017, a true and correct copy
`
`of the foregoing Patent Owner Papst Licensing GMBH & Co., KG’s Motion for
`
`Observation Related to Deposition Testimony of Dr. Erez Zadok was served by
`
`electronic mail upon the following counsel of record for Apple, Inc.:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Lori A. Gordon
`Steven W. Peters
`Tyler J. Dutton
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`lgordon-ptab@skgf.com
`speters-ptab@skgf.com
`tdutton-ptab@skgf.com
`ptab@skgf.com
`
`/s/ Gregory S. Donahue
`
`Gregory S. Donahue
`Reg. No. 47,531
`DiNovo Price LLP
`7000 North MoPac Expressway
`Suite 350
`Austin, Texas 78731
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
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
