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
`
`Mandatory notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)). ................................................. 2 
`Grounds for standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a))............................................... 4 
`Identification of challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)). ..................................... 4 
`A.  Citation of prior art. ....................................................................................... 4 
`B.  Statutory grounds for the challenge. .............................................................. 6 
`The ’437 patent. ............................................................................................. 6 
`A.  Overview of the ’437 patent. ......................................................................... 6 
`B.  The challenged claims of the ’437 patent are not entitled to priority benefit
`of the German application. ............................................................................ 8 
`C.  Level of ordinary skill in the art. ................................................................. 15 
`D.  Claim construction. ...................................................................................... 15 
`Ground 1: The combination of Ard, Salomon, and Schmidt renders claims
`1, 5, 6, 9–12, 14–16, 30, 34, and 43 obvious. .............................................. 18 
`A.  Overview of Ard. ......................................................................................... 18 
`B.  Overview of Schmidt. .................................................................................. 21 
`C.  Overview of Salomon. ................................................................................. 21 
`D.  The combination of Ard, Salomon, and Schmidt renders independent claim
`1 obvious. ..................................................................................................... 22 
`1.  The combination of Ard, Salomon, and Schmidt discloses the preamble:
`“an analog data generating and processing device (ADGPD).” ........ 22 
`2.  The combination of Ard, Salomon, and Schmidt discloses the ADGPD
`architecture elements. .......................................................................... 22 
`a)  The combination teaches or suggests “an input/output (i/o) port.”23 
`b)  The combination teaches “a program memory.” ........................... 24 
`c)  The combination teaches “a data storage memory.” ..................... 24 
`d)  The combination teaches “a processor operatively interfaced with
`the i/o port, the program memory and the data storage memory.” 24 
`3.  The combination of Ard, Salomon, and Schmidt teaches or suggests the
`acquisition and processing limitations of independent claim 1. ......... 26 
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`I. 
`II. 
`III. 
`
`IV. 
`
`V. 
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`a)  The combination teaches or suggests the acquisition limitation
`[1E.1]. ............................................................................................. 27 
`b)  The combination teaches or suggests the processing limitation
`[1E.2]. ............................................................................................. 29 
`4.  The combination of Ard, Salomon, and Schmidt teaches or suggests the
`automatic recognition limitation [1F]. ................................................ 30 
`a)  The combination teaches the claimed automatic recognition
`operation [1F.1]. ............................................................................. 32 
`b)  The combination teaches or suggests the end user requirements
`[1F.2]. ............................................................................................. 36 
`c)  The combination teaches the automatic recognition data element
`requirements [1F.3]. ....................................................................... 37 
`5.  The combination of Ard, Salomon, and Schmidt teaches or suggests the
`file transfer limitation of independent claim 1. ................................... 39 
`a)  The combination discloses the recited automatic file transfer
`process. ........................................................................................... 40 
`b)  The combination discloses the emulation and user requirement
`component of the file transfer limitation. ...................................... 42 
`E.  The combination of Ard, Salomon, and Schmidt renders claim 5 obvious. 44 
`F.  The combination of Ard, Salomon, and Schmidt renders claim 6 obvious. 45 
`G.  The combination of Ard, Salomon, and Schmidt renders claim 9 obvious. 45 
`H.  The combination of Ard, Salomon, and Schmidt renders claim 10 obvious.
` ...................................................................................................................... 47 
`I.  The combination of Ard, Salomon, and Schmidt renders claim 11 obvious.
` ...................................................................................................................... 47 
`J.  The combination of Ard, Salomon, and Schmidt renders claim 12 obvious.
` ...................................................................................................................... 49 
`K.  The combination of Ard, Salomon, and Schmidt renders claim 14 obvious.
` ...................................................................................................................... 50 
`L.  The combination of Ard, Salomon, and Schmidt renders claim 15 obvious.
` ...................................................................................................................... 51 
`M.  The combination of Ard, Salomon, and Schmidt renders claim 16 obvious.
` ...................................................................................................................... 51 
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`N.  The combination of Ard, Salomon, and Schmidt renders claim 30 obvious.
` ...................................................................................................................... 52 
`O.  The combination of Ard, Salomon, and Schmidt renders claim 34 obvious.
` ...................................................................................................................... 53 
`P.  The combination of Ard, Salomon, and Schmidt renders independent claim
`43 obvious. ................................................................................................... 54 
`1.  The combination of Ard, Salomon, and Schmidt discloses “[a]n analog
`data generating and processing method for acquiring analog data and
`for communicating with a host computer” [43P]. ............................... 54 
`2.  The combination of Ard, Salomon, and Schmidt discloses the
`architecture elements of claim 43. ....................................................... 56 
`3.  The combination suggests the acquisition and processing limitations of
`independent claim 43. ......................................................................... 57 
`a)  The combination teaches or suggests the acquisition limitation of
`independent claim 43. .................................................................... 57 
`b)  The combination of Ard, Salomon, and Schmidt teaches or suggests
`the processing limitations of independent claim 43. ...................... 57 
`4.  The combination of Ard, Salomon, and Schmidt teaches or suggests the
`automatic recognition limitation of independent claim 43. ................ 58 
`5.  The combination of Ard, Salomon, and Schmidt teaches or suggests the
`transferring limitation of independent claim 43. ................................. 59 
`6.  The combination of Ard, 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.”
` 61 
`Ground 2: The combination of Ard, Salomon, Schmidt, and Araghi renders
`claim 4 obvious. ........................................................................................... 61 
`Ground 3: The combination of Ard, Salomon, Schmidt, and Compton
`renders claims 13, 18, and 45 obvious. ........................................................ 62 
`A.  The combination of Ard, Salomon, Schmidt, and Compton renders claim
`13 obvious. ................................................................................................... 62 
`B.  The combination of Ard, Salomon, Schmidt, and Compton renders claims
`18 and 45 obvious. ....................................................................................... 64 
`
`
`- iii -
`
`
`VI. 
`
`VII. 
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`VIII.  Ground 4: The combination of Ard, Salomon, Schmidt, and Reisch renders
`claim 32 obvious. ......................................................................................... 64 
`Conclusion. .................................................................................................. 66 
`
`IX. 
`
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`
`

`
`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) ................................................................................ 16
`
`Martin v. Mayer,
`823 F.2d 500 (Fed. Cir. 1987) .................................................................................. 10
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ................................................................................ 17
`
`PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`522 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................................ 10
`
`Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................ 14
`
`Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar,
`935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ................................................................................ 10
`
`Statutes:
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ..................................................................................................... 5
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ..................................................................................................... 5
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ................................................................................................. 5, 6
`35 U.S.C. § 112 .................................................................................................... 9, 16
`35 U.S.C. § 120 .......................................................................................................... 9
`35 U.S.C. § 365(c) ..................................................................................................... 9
`
`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) ................................................................................................. 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ................................................................................................ 4
`
`
`- v -
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`
`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, by Schmidt, First Edition, Addison-Wesley, 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
`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
`Intentionally left blank
`Declaration of Scott Bennett
`Intentionally left blank
`U.S. Patent No. 4,698,131 to Araghi et al.
`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,
`
`
`- vi -
`
`
`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
`1026
`1027
`1028
`1029
`1030
`
`1031
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`
`
`Description
`
`1994 (“PNP SCSI”)
`Intentionally left blank
`U.S. Patent No. 6,111,831 to Alon et al.
`Intentionally left blank
`U.S. Patent No. 5,915,106 to Ard
`Intentionally left blank
`’144 German Application (DE 197 08 755)
`’144 German Application Translated (DE 197 08 755)
`Intentionally left blank
`Livingston, Brian “Windows 3.1 Secrets”
`RFC 1314, “A File Format for the Exchange of Images in the
`Internet,” published April 1992, https://tools.ietf.org/pdf/rfc1314.pdf,
`Intentionally left blank
`MacPaint Manual
`
`
`- vii -
`
`
`Ex. No.
`
`1032-1036
`1037
`1038-1045
`1046
`1047-1048
`1049
`1050
`1051-1053
`1054
`1055
`
`1056
`1057
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`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 ’437 patent claims priority benefit to a March 1997 German application.
`
`However, the challenged claims recite limitations having no written description
`
`support in the German application. Therefore, the earliest possible priority date of
`
`the ’437 patent is the March 3, 1998 filing date of the PCT application. In the
`
`present petition, Apple Inc. presents an intervening reference, U.S. Patent 5,915,106
`
`to Ard (“Ard”) filed after the March 1997 German application date but before the
`
`March 3, 1998 PCT application date. Apple demonstrates herein that none of the
`
`challenged claims are patentable in view of the intervening Ard reference.
`
`
`
`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 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
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`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 before the March 3, 1998 filing date of the PCT application to
`
`which the’437 patent claims priority (“the ’437 PCT application”). For example,
`
`U.S. Patent 5,915,106 to Ard (“Ard”), filed more than a year before the filing date
`
`of the PCT application, disclosed a scanner that emulates a disk drive such that a
`
`“general purpose computer identifies the scanner as a disk drive” and controls the
`
`scanner “via standard operating system disk drive commands without utilizing a
`
`specifically developed device driver.” (Ex. 1046, Ard, Abstract, 1:15–16.)
`
`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
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`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.
`
`Apple is concurrently filing additional petitions against claims of the ’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.
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`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.
`
`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.
`
`Apple demonstrates in Section IV.B that none of the challenged claims are entitled
`
`to priority benefit of the March 3, 1998 application date.1
`
`
`1 Apple does not acquiesce that the ’437 patent is entitled to benefit of the
`
`PCT application or any earlier filed continuation or divisional applications.
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`Each of the following prior art documents applied in the grounds of
`
`unpatentability were published or filed prior to the PCT application date.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,915,106 to Ard, titled “Method and System for Operating a
`
`Scanner which Emulates a Disk Drive” (Ex. 1046) is prior art under at least 35
`
`U.S.C. §102(e) because it was filed on March 20, 1997.
`
`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.
`
`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.
`
`However, these priority determinations are not necessary for the purposes of the
`
`present petition.
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`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 Ard, Salomon, and Schmidt
`
`§103 1, 5, 6, 9–12, 14–16, 30, 34, 43
`
`2 Ard, Salomon, Schmidt, and
`Araghi
`
`3 Ard, Salomon, Schmidt, and
`Compton
`
`4 Ard, Salomon, Schmidt, and
`Reisch
`
`
`
`§103 4
`
`§103 13, 18, 45
`
`§103 32
`
`IV. The ’437 patent.
`A. Overview of the ’437 patent.
`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. (Ex. 1001, ’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,
`
`- 6 -
`
`

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

`
`
`
`
`Petition ffor Inter PPartes Reviiew of
`
`
`
`UU.S. Patennt No. 9,1889,437
`
`Interfacee
`
`
`device
`
`
`
`
`
`(’437 paatent, Figuure 1.)
`
`
`
`
`
`TThe ’437 paatent disclooses techniiques to maake “the innterface deevice appeaar[] to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`device uuses its cusstomary drriver for th
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`e identifiedd input/outtput devicee or a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`correspoonding drivver for a mmulti-purpoose interfacce to commmunicate wwith the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`interface device. ((’437 patennt, 5:23–300.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BB.
`
`
`
`challengedd claims oof the ’4377 patent arre not entiitled to prriority
`
`
`
`The
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`benefit of the GGerman applicationn.
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`The ’437 patent claims priority through a series of continuation and divisional
`
`applications to 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, referred to herein as “the ’437 German application.” (Ex.
`
`1049). A certified translation of the German application is provided as Ex. 1050.
`
`An international application designating the United States is entitled to the
`
`right of priority based on a prior national application provided that the conditions of
`
`35 U.S.C. § 120 are met. See 35 U.S.C. § 365(c). Section 120, in turn, requires that
`
`the claims meet the written description and enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 112 to obtain benefit of the earlier filing date. See 35 U.S.C. §§ 112 and 120. The
`
`challenged claims of the ’437 patent are not entitled to priority benefit of the ’437
`
`German application because the ’437 German application does not provide written
`
`description support for the challenged claims.
`
`Each of the challenged claims requires that the host device comprises “a
`
`multi-purpose interface.” (See ’437 patent, claims 1 and 86). Further, claims 1, 4–6,
`
`9–16, 18, 30, 32, and 34 require an end user file system negative limitation: “an
`
`automatic recognition process... in which… at least one parameter identifying the
`
`analog data generating and processing device… [is] automatically sent… (b)
`
`without requiring any end user to interact with the computer to set up a file system
`
`in the ADGPD at any time.” (See ’437 patent, claim 1.) The ’437 German
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`application fails to provide written description support for these claim limitations.
`
`(Zadok Decl., ¶207.)
`
`To satisfy the written description requirement, the disclosure of the ’437
`
`German application must “convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art
`
`that, as of the filing date sought, [the inventor] was in possession of the invention.”
`
`Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563–64 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Accordingly,
`
`the written description must actually or inherently disclose the claim element.
`
`PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`Here, there is not a single reference in the written description of the German
`
`application which suggests that the inventor understood the invention to include a
`
`“multi-purpose interface.” (Zadok Decl., ¶¶207–209.) Nor is the inclusion of a
`
`multi-purpose interface necessarily present in the ’437 German application. (Zadok
`
`Decl., ¶208.) See Martin v. Mayer, 823 F.2d 500, 505 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (holding that
`
`the written description requirement is “not a question of whether one skilled in the
`
`art might be able to construct the patentee’s device from the teachings of the
`
`disclosure…. Rather, it is a question whether the application necessarily discloses
`
`that particular device”) (emphasis in original).
`
`The chart below compares language from the German application and the
`
`’437 application as filed highlighting that the concept of a multi-purpose interface
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`was specifically added as a new embodiment, after the filing of the ’437 German
`
`application.
`
`
`
`’437 Patent – Application As Filed
`
`“When the host device system with
`which the interface device according to
`the present invention is connected is
`booted and a data transmit/receive
`device is also attached to the interface
`device 10,
`
`usual BIOS routines or multi-purpose
`interface programs issue an
`instruction,
`
`known by those skilled in the art as the
`INQUIRY instruction,
`
`Corresponding Disclosure in
`’437 German Application
`
`“If the host device system with which
`the interface device as per the present
`invention is connected for which a data
`sending/receiving unit is also linked to
`the interface device 10, is booted,
`
`normal BIOS routines output a
`command
`
`to each input/output interface available
`in the host device
`
`that is recognized among experts as an
`“INQUIRY” command.”
`
`to the input/output interfaces in the host
`device.”
`
`(Ex. 1050, p. 3.)
`
`(’437 patent, 5:17–23.)
`
`“For persons skilled in the art it is
`however obvious that the interface
`device 10 is not necessarily signed on
`when the computer system is powered
`up
`
`“However, it is obvious for experts that
`the interface device 10 is not
`necessarily registered when switching
`on the computer
`
`rather than a special BIOS routine
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`Corresponding Disclosure in
`’437 German Application
`can be started on the host device also
`while the computer runs in order to
`connect or “mount” the interface
`device 10 as an additional hard disk.”
`
`(Ex. 1050, p. 4.)
`
`’437 Patent – Application As Filed
`
`but that a special BIOS routine or a
`driver for a multi-purpose interface
`
`can also be started on the host device
`during current operation of the
`computer system in order to sign on or
`mount the interface device 10 as an
`additional hard disk.”
`
`(’437 patent, 7:27–33)
`
`An important advantage of the
`interface device 10 of the present
`invention is that it also permits
`extremely high data transfer rates by
`using,
`
`“A significant advantage of the
`interface device 10 of this invention
`also consists of it enabling extremely
`high data transfer rates and this already
`by using
`
`for data interchange,
`
`the host unit’s own BIOS routines,
`
`the host device-own BIOS routines
`
`which are optimized for each host
`device by the host device manufacturer
`or BIOS system manufacturer, or by
`using driver programs which are
`normally optimized and included by
`the manufacturers of multi-purpose
`interfaces.
`
`which the manufacturer of the host unit
`or BIOS system has optimized for each
`host unit,
`
`for exchanging data.”
`
`(Ex. 1050, p. 5.)
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`Corresponding Disclosure in
`’437 German Application
`
`’437 Patent – Application As Filed
`
`(’437 patent, 7:57–64.)
`
`
`
`The inventor also did not recognize BIOS routines implementing SCSI
`
`commands as a multi-purpose interface. (Zadok Decl., ¶208.) Rather, the inventor
`
`understood such BIOS routines as providing a “classical input/output interface.” For
`
`example, the ’437 patent includes the following disclosure not found in the ’437
`
`German application:
`
`Multi-purpose interfaces comprise both an interface card
`and specific driver software for the interface card. The
`driver software can be designed so that it can replace the
`basic input/output system (BIOS) driver routines.
`Communication between the host device and the devices
`attached to the multi-purpose interface then essentially
`takes place by means of the specific driver software for the
`multi-purpose interface and no longer primarily by
`means of BIOS routines of the host device. Recently
`however drivers for multi-purpose interfaces can also
`already be integrated in the BIOS sy