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. 8,966,144
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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. 8,966,144
`
`
`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)). .................................................. 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 
`IV.  The ’144 patent. ................................................................................................. 6 
`A.  Overview of the ’144 patent. ................................................................... 6 
`B. 
`The challenged claims of the ’144 patent are not entitled to
`priority benefit of the German application. ............................................. 8 
`Level of ordinary skill in the art. ........................................................... 14 
`C. 
`Claim construction. ............................................................................... 14 
`D. 
`V.  Ground 1: The combination of Ard, Salomon, and Schmidt renders
`claims 1–3, 5–7, 15–17, 19, 26, 27, 29, 34, 37–39, 41, 49, 52, 54, 56,
`57, 59–64, 67, 78–83, and 86 obvious. ............................................................ 18 
`A.  Overview of Ard. ................................................................................... 18 
`B. 
`Overview of Schmidt. ........................................................................... 20 
`C. 
`Overview of Salomon. ........................................................................... 21 
`D. 
`The combination of Ard, Salomon, and Schmidt renders
`independent claims 1 and 86 obvious. .................................................. 22 
`1.  Preamble: “an analog data generating and processing device
`(ADGPD)” [1P/86P]. .......................................................................... 22 
`2.  The ADGPD architecture elements. .................................................... 22 
`“an input/output (i/o) port.” ........................................................ 23 
`a) 
`“a program memory.” .................................................................. 23 
`b) 
`c) 
`“a data storage memory.” ............................................................ 24 
`d) 
`“a sensor designed to transmit data.” .......................................... 24 
`e) 
`“a processor operatively interfaced with the i/o port, the program
`memory, the data storage memory and the sensor.” ................... 26 
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144
`
`3.  The data generation and processing limitations of independent claims 1
`and 86. ................................................................................................. 28 
`a)  The analog data generation limitation of independent claims 1 and
`86. ................................................................................................ 28 
`b)  The analog data processing limitation of independent claims 1 and
`86. ................................................................................................ 29 
`4.  The automatic recognition limitation of independent claims 1 and 86.30 
`a)  The automatic recognition operation. .......................................... 32 
`b)  The end user requirements. .......................................................... 37 
`c)  The temporal limitation. .............................................................. 38 
`d)  The computer manufacturer limitations. ..................................... 38 
`e)  The parameter requirements. ....................................................... 40 
`5.  The file transfer limitation of independent claims 1 and 86. .............. 41 
`a)  The recited automatic file transfer process. ................................. 42 
`b)  The computer manufacturer component of the file transfer
`limitations. ................................................................................... 45 
`c)  The user requirement component of the file transfer limitation.46 
`The “interface device” claims 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7. .................................... 48 
`“Interface device that is designed to have the analog data transferred to
`it from the sensor.” .............................................................................. 48 
`“Portable interface device” [claim 3] and “stand alone interface device”
`[claim 6]. ............................................................................................. 50 
`“Universal interface device” and “parallel logic circuit.” ................... 50 
`The “cable” interface claims 15 and 16. ............................................... 51 
`The “sensor” claims 17, 19, and 26. ...................................................... 52 
`The “at least one parameter” claims 27, 29, and 34. ............................. 54 
`The “data storage memory” claims 37, 38, and 39. .............................. 55 
`The “program memory” claim 41. ........................................................ 56 
`The “processor implementation” claims 49, 52, and 54. ...................... 57 
`The “automatic file transfer process” in dependent claims 56 and
`57. .......................................................................................................... 59 
`
`E. 
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`F. 
`G. 
`H. 
`I. 
`J. 
`K. 
`L. 
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144
`
`M. 
`
`The “automatic recognition process” in dependent claim 61, 62,
`and 63. ................................................................................................... 61 
`Claim 64. ............................................................................................... 63 
`N. 
`Claim 59. ............................................................................................... 64 
`O. 
`Claim 60. ............................................................................................... 64 
`P. 
`Claim 67. ............................................................................................... 65 
`Q. 
`The “instructions storage” dependent claims 78 and 79. ...................... 65 
`R. 
`The “combination” claims 80, 81, 82, and 83. ...................................... 66 
`S. 
`VI.  Ground 2: The combination of Ard, Salomon, Schmidt, and Araghi
`renders claims 9 and 21 obvious...................................................................... 67 
`VII.  Ground 3: The combination of Ard, Salomon, Schmidt, and Reisch
`renders claim 66 obvious. ................................................................................ 68 
`VIII.  Conclusion. ...................................................................................................... 69 
` 
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Cases:
`
`In re Papst Licensing Digital Camera Patent Litigation,
`778 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................................................ 15
`
`Martin v. Mayer,
`823 F.2d 500 (Fed. Cir. 1987) .................................................................................... 9
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ................................................................................ 16
`
`PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`522 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .................................................................................. 9
`
`Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................ 13
`
`
`Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar,
`935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991) .................................................................................. 9
`
`Statutes:
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ................................................................................................. 5, 6
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ................................................................................................. 5, 6
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ................................................................................................. 5, 6
`35 U.S.C. § 112 .................................................................................................... 8, 15
`35 U.S.C. § 120 ........................................................................................................ 15
`
`Regulations:
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1) ................................................................................................ 2
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ................................................................................................ 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(a) ................................................................................................... 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ................................................................................................ 4
`
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Ex. No.
`1001
`1002
`1003
`
`1008
`1009
`1010
`1011
`1012
`
`1013
`1014
`
`1015
`1016
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144 to Tasler
`File History Excerpts for U.S. Patent 8,966,144
`Declaration of Dr. Erez Zadok in Support of Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Erez Zadok
`1004
`1005–1006 Intentionally left blank
`The SCSI Bus and IDE Interface Protocols, Applications and
`1007
`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
`In re Papst Licensing Digital Camera Patent Litigation, 778 F.3d
`1255 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`Intentionally left blank
`Intentionally left blank
`Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English
`Language, Random House, 1996.
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6-15-cv-
`01095 (E.D. Tex.), Complaint filed November 30, 2015
`1021–1023 Intentionally left blank
`1024
`Declaration of Scott Bennett
`Discrete-Time Signal Processing, by Oppenheim et al., First Edition,
`1025
`Prentice-Hall, 1989
`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
`
`1017
`1018
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1026
`1027
`1028
`1029
`1030
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144
`
`Ex. No.
`1031
`
`Description
`Plug-and-Play SCSI Specification, Version 1.0, dated March 30,
`1994 (“PNP SCSI”)
`Intentionally left blank
`1032
`U.S. Patent No. 4,970,605 to Fogaroli et al.
`1033
`U.S. Patent No. 5,623,556 to Murayama et al.
`1034
`U.S. Patent No. 5,196,946 to Balkanski et al.
`1035
`Intentionally left blank
`1036-1045
`1046
`U.S. Patent No. 5,915,106 to Ard
`1047–1048 Intentionally left blank
`1049
`German Patent Application DE 197 08 755 A1 to Tasler
`1050
`German Patent Application DE 197 08 755 A1 to Tasler (English
`Translation)
`1051–1053 Intentionally left blank
`1054
`Livingston, Brian “Windows 3.1 Secrets”
`1055
`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
`Macintosh MacPaint Manual, Apple Computer, Inc., 1983
`
`1056
`1057
`
`
`- vi -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Apple Inc. petitions for inter partes review of claims 1–3, 5–7, 9, 15–17, 19,
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144
`
`
`21, 26, 27, 29, 34, 37–39, 41, 49, 52, 54, 56, 57, 59–64, 66, 67, 78–83, and 86 of
`
`United States Patent No. 8,966,144 to Tasler (Ex. 1001, “the ʼ144 patent”). The ’144
`
`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 ’144 patent
`
`is the March 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 1998 PCT
`
`application date. Apple demonstrates herein that a reasonable likelihood exists that
`
`all of the challenged claims are unpatentable in view of the intervening Ard
`
`reference.
`
`The challenged claims recite an analog data generating and processing device
`
`and associated method. The device performs well-known tasks such as acquiring
`
`analog data, digitizing the data, storing the digitized data in memory, and allowing
`
`transfer of the digitized data to a host computer. The purported novelty of the ’144
`
`patent is that, when attached to a host computer, the ADGPD device identifies itself
`
`using “at least one parameter…consistent with the ADGPD being responsive to
`
`commands issued from a customary driver” thereby allowing transfer to the
`
`
`
`- 1-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144
`
`computer “without requiring user-loaded file transfer enabling software.” (’144
`
`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 1998 filing date of the PCT application. For
`
`example, Ard, filed more than a year before the PCT application date, 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.)
`
`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 ’144 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.);
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al., Case No. 6-
`
`15-cv-01111 (E.D. Tex.), and In Re Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG Patent
`
`Litigation, MDL No. 1880 (Misc. Action No. 07-493) relating to Nos. 07-cv-1118,
`
`07-cv-1222, 07-cv-2086, 07-cv-2088, 08-cv-865, 08-cv-985, 08-cv-1406, and 09-
`
`cv-530.
`
`The following Inter Partes Review petitions have been filed to date against
`
`the ’144 patent: Petition for Inter Partes Review by Canon Inc., IPR2016-01212;
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review by Canon Inc., IPR2016-01216; Petition for Inter
`
`Partes Review by Canon Inc., IPR2016-01222; Petition for Inter Partes Review by
`
`JVC Kenwood Corporation, IPR2016-01214; Petition for Inter Partes Review by
`
`Panasonic Corporation, IPR2016-01225; Petition for Inter Partes Review by
`
`Olympus Corporation, IPR2016-01202; and Petition for Inter Partes Review by
`
`Fujifilm Corporation, IPR2016-01199.
`
`U.S. Application No. 11/928,283, filed on October 30, 2007 and U.S.
`
`Application No. 12/891,443, filed on September 27, 2010 claim the benefit of the
`
`’144 patent.
`
`Apple is concurrently filing additional petitions against claims of the ’144
`
`patent.
`
`No other matters related to the ’144 patent are known to the Petitioner.
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144
`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 ʼ144 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 ’144 patent, Papst, filed a complaint against Apple alleging infringement of the
`
`’144 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 ’144 patent claims priority through a series of applications to U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,470,399 which is the national stage of international application
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144
`
`PCT/EP98/01187, filed on March 3, 1998. The ’144 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 German
`
`application.1
`
`Each of the following applied prior art documents were published prior to the
`
`PCT application date.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,915,106 to Ard (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. (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. (Ex. 1026) is prior art under at
`
`least 35 U.S.C. §§102(a), 102(b) and 102(e) because it issued on October 6, 1987.
`
`
`1 Apple does not acquiesce that the ’144 patent is entitled to benefit of the
`
`PCT application or any earlier filed applications. 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. 8,966,144
`U.S. Patent No. 5,442,465 to Compton (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 (Ex. 1028) is prior art under at least 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 102(e) because it was filed on July 28, 1995.
`
`Statutory grounds for the challenge.
`
`B.
`Apple requests review of claims 1–3, 5–7, 9, 15–17, 19, 21, 26, 27, 29, 34,
`
`37–39, 41, 49, 52, 54, 56, 57, 59–64, 66, 67, 78–83, and 86 on the following
`
`grounds:
`
`
`
`References
`
`Basis
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`1 Ard, Salomon,
`and Schmidt
`
`§103 1–3, 5–7, 15–17, 19, 26, 27, 29, 34, 37–39, 41,
`49, 52, 54, 56, 57, 59–64, 67, 78–83, and 86
`
`§103 9, 21
`
`§103 66
`
`2 Ard, Salomon,
`Schmidt, and
`Araghi
`
`3 Ard, Salomon,
`Schmidt, and
`Reisch
`
`
`IV. The ’144 patent.
`A. Overview.
`The ’144 patent describes an interface device enabling communication
`
`between a host device and a data transmit/receive device. (’144 patent, 1:18–22.)
`
`The patent acknowledges that such interface devices were known; but had
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`
`
`
`limitatioons. (Id., 1:31–38, 2:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`face es an interfnt disclosee ’144 paten4–13, 3:299–32.) The
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition ffor Inter PPartes Reviiew of
`
`
`
`UU.S. Patennt No. 8,9666,144
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`device tthat purporrtedly overrcomes these limitatioons and “pprovides faast data
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`communnication beetween a hhost device with inputt/output innterfaces annd a data
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`transmitt/receive ddevice.” (Idd., Abstractt). As illusstrated in aannotated FFigure 1 beelow,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the interrface devicce 10 incluudes “[a] first conneccting devicee 12…attaached to a hhost
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`device ((not shownn) via a hosst line 11” and a secoond conneccting devicce “attacheed by
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`means oof an outpuut line 16 too a data traansmit/receeive devicee…from wwhich data
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`is to
`
`
`
`be read,, i.e. acquirred, and traansferred tto the host
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`device.” (IId., 4:63–55:7.)
`
`
`
`Interfacee
`
`
`device
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(’144 paatent, Figuure 1 (annootated).)
`
`
`
`TThe ’144 paatent disclooses techniiques to maake “the innterface deevice appeaar[] to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the hostt device as a hard disk.” (’144 ppatent, 6:5––6.) Speciffically, thee ’144 pateent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144
`
`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. (Id., 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. (Id., 4:23–
`
`30.)
`
`B.
`
`The challenged claims of the ’144 patent are not entitled to priority
`benefit of the German application.
`
`The ’144 patent claims priority through a series of prior applications to the
`
`national stage of international application PCT/EP98/01187, filed on March 3, 1998.
`
`The ’144 patent further claims priority to a German application, filed on March 4,
`
`1997, referred to herein as “the ’144 German application.” (Ex. 1049.) A certified
`
`translation of the German application is provided as Ex. 1050.
`
`An international application is entitled to priority of 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 ’144 patent are not
`
`entitled to priority benefit of the German application because the German
`
`application does not provide written description support for the challenged claims.
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144
`Each of the challenged claims requires “a multi-purpose interface of a
`
`[first/second] computer.” (See ’144 patent, claims 1 and 86). Further, each of the
`
`challenged claims recites an end user file system negative limitation: “an automatic
`
`recognition process… in which ... at least one parameter… [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 ’144 patent, claim 1; compare claim 86
`
`reciting substantially similar limitation.) The ’144 German application fails to
`
`provide written description support for these claim limitations. (Zadok Decl., ¶214.)
`
`To satisfy the written description requirement, the disclosure 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., ¶215-217.) Nor is the inclusion of a multi-purpose interface necessarily
`
`present in the German application. (Id., ¶216.) 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
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144
`
`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
`
`’144 application highlighting that the concept of a multi-purpose interface was
`
`added as a new embodiment after the filing of the German application.
`
`
`
`’144 Application As Filed
`
`
`German Application
`
`“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,
`
`“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.” (’144 patent, 5:17–23.)
`
`(Ex. 1050, p. 3.)
`
`“For persons skilled in the art it is
`however obvious that the interface
`device 10 is not necessarily signed on
`
`“However, it is obvious for experts that
`the interface device 10 is not
`necessarily registered when switching
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144
`
`
`German Application
`on the computer
`
`rather than a special BIOS routine
`
`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.)
`
`’144 Application As Filed
`
`when the computer system is powered
`up
`
`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.”
`
`(’144 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
`
`which the manufacturer of the host unit
`or BIOS system has optimized for each
`host unit,
`
`for exchanging data.”
`
`(Ex. 1050, p. 5.)
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144
`
`
`German Application
`
`’144 Application As Filed
`
`the manufacturers of multi-purpose
`interfaces.”
`
`(’144 patent, 7:57–64.)
`
`
`
`The inventor did not recognize BIOS routines implementing SCSI commands
`
`as a multi-purpose interface. (Zadok Decl., ¶216.) Rather, the inventor understood
`
`such BIOS routines as providing a “classical input/output interface.” For example,
`
`the ’144 patent includes the following disclosure not found in the 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 system of the host
`device, as alongside classical input/output interfaces,
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144
`
`multi-purpose interfaces are becoming increasingly
`common in host devices.”
`(’144 patent, 3:56-4:1 (emphasis added).)
`
`The inventor understood multi-purpose interfaces as a replacement for BIOS
`
`routines integrating classical input/output interfaces. As such, the German
`
`application does not explicitly or inherently disclose a multi-purpose interface.
`
`Further, the German application fails to provide written description support
`
`for the end user file system negative limitation. (Zadok Decl., ¶218.) To provide
`
`support for a negative limitation, the “specification [must] describe[] a reason to
`
`exclude the relevant limitation.” Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., 694
`
`F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The German application (and the ’144 patent
`
`itself) includes no mention whatsoever of the “file system in the ADGPD,” let alone
`
`that the “automatic recognition process... in which... [the] at least one parameter...
`
`[is] automatically sent” occurs “without requiring any end user to interact with the
`
`computer to set up a file system in the ADGPD at any time.” (Zadok Decl., ¶218.)
`
`The German application (and the ’144 patent) also fails to disclose anything that
`
`may be understood as a reason to exclude the limitation of an “end user...
`
`interact[ing] with the computer to set up a file system in the ADGDP at any time.”
`
`(Id.) Accordingly, the German application fails to support this negative limitation.
`
`Because the German application does not actually or inherently disclose the
`
`“multi-purpose interface” limitation or the end user file system negative limitation
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144
`
`such that one skilled in the art would recognize such a disclosure, the challenged
`
`claims are not entitled to priority benefit of the German application. Accordingly,
`
`the earliest possible priority date for purposes of this inter partes review proceeding
`
`is the March 3, 1998 PCT application date.
`
`C. Level of ordinary skill in the art.
`Based on the disclosure of the ’144 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. (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). (Id..)
`
`D. Claim construction.
`Except for the exemplary terms set forth herein, the terms are to be given their
`
`pl