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
`
`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. .............................................................. 5 
`The ’144 patent. ............................................................................................. 6 
`A.  Overview of the ’144 patent. ......................................................................... 6 
`B.  Level of ordinary skill in the art. ................................................................... 7 
`C.  Claim construction. ........................................................................................ 8 
`Ground 1: The combination of Pucci, Shinosky, Kepley, and Schmidt
`renders claims 1–3, 5–7, 9, 15–17, 19, 21, 26, 27, 29, 34, 37–39, 41, 49, 52,
`54, 56, 57, 59–64, 67, 78–83, and 86 obvious. ............................................ 11 
`A.  The combination of Pucci, Shinosky, Kepley, and Schmidt renders
`independent claims 1 and 86 obvious. ......................................................... 13 
`1.  Preamble: “an analog data generating and processing device
`(ADGPD)” [1P/86P] ........................................................................... 13 
`2.  The ADGPD architecture elements ..................................................... 17 
`a)  “an input/output (i/o) port” [1A]. .................................................. 17 
`b)  “a program memory” [1B]. ............................................................ 18 
`c)  “a data storage memory” [1C]. ...................................................... 18 
`d)  “a sensor designed to transmit data” [1D] .................................... 19 
`e)  “a processor operatively interfaced with the i/o port, the program
`memory, the data storage memory and the sensor” [1E] ............... 21 
`3.  The data generation and processing limitations of independent claims 1
`and 86 .................................................................................................. 23 
`a)  The analog data generation limitation [1F.1/86F.1]. ..................... 24 
`b)  The analog data processing. ........................................................... 24 
`c)  The file storage limitation [1F.3/86F.3]. ........................................ 25 
`4.  The automatic recognition limitation of claims 1 and 86 ................... 28 
`a)  The automatic recognition operation. ............................................ 30 
`
`- i -
`
`
`I. 
`II. 
`III. 
`
`IV. 
`
`V. 
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144
`
`b)  The end user requirements. ............................................................ 35 
`c)  The temporal limitation. ................................................................. 37 
`d)  The computer manufacturer limitation. ......................................... 38 
`e)  The parameter requirements. .......................................................... 39 
`5.  The file transfer limitation of independent claims 1 and 86 ............... 40 
`a)  The automatic file transfer process. ............................................... 41 
`b)  The computer manufacturer component of the file transfer
`limitation. ....................................................................................... 44 
`c)  The user requirement component of the file transfer limitation .... 46 
`B.  The “interface device” claims 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7. ........................................... 47 
`1.  “interface device that is designed to have the analog data transferred to
`it from the sensor.” .............................................................................. 47 
`2.  “Portable interface device” and “stand alone interface device.” ...... 49 
`3.  “Universal interface device” and “parallel logic circuit.” ................... 50 
`C.  The “cable” interface claims 15 and 16 ....................................................... 50 
`D.  The “detachable sensor” claims. .................................................................. 51 
`E.  The “sensor” claims 17, 19, 26. ................................................................... 52 
`F.  The “at least one parameter” claims 27, 29, 34. .......................................... 54 
`G.  The “data storage memory” claims 37, 38, and 39. ..................................... 55 
`H.  The “program memory” claim 41. ............................................................... 56 
`I.  The “processor implementation” claims 49 and 52. .................................... 57 
`J.  The automatic file transfer process dependent claims 56 and 57. ............... 58 
`K.  The automatic recognition process dependent claims 61–63. ..................... 60 
`L.  Claim 64. ...................................................................................................... 62 
`M.  Claim 59. ...................................................................................................... 62 
`N.  Claim 60. ...................................................................................................... 63 
`O.  Claim 67. ...................................................................................................... 63 
`P.  The “instructions storage” claims 78 and 79. .............................................. 64 
`Q.  The “combination” claims 80, 81, 82, and 83. ............................................ 65 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144
`
`VI. 
`
`VII. 
`
`VIII. 
`
`Ground 2: The combination of Pucci, Shinosky, Kepley, Schmidt, and Li
`renders claim 54 obvious. ............................................................................ 66 
`Ground 3: The combination of Pucci, Shinosky, Kepley, Schmidt, and
`Wilson renders claim 66 obvious. ............................................................... 67 
`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) .................................................................................. 8
`
`KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398, (2007) ............................................................................................... 27
`
`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
`35 U.S.C. § 112 .......................................................................................................... 8
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`- 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 8,966,144 to Tasler
`File History Excerpts for U.S. Patent 8,966,144 to Tasler
`Declaration of Dr. Erez Zadok in Support of Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144
`1004
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Erez Zadok
`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
`The IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics Terms,
`Sixth Edition, 1996.
`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
`1025–1029 Intentionally Left Blank
`1030
`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”)
`1032–1040 Intentionally Left Blank
`
`1017
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1031
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144
`
`Ex. No.
`1041
`
`1042
`
`Description
`Pucci, M., “Configurable Data Manipulation in an Attached
`Multiprocessor, “1991
`U.S. Patent No. 4,790,003 to Kepley et al., titled “Message Service
`System Network”
`Intentionally Left Blank
`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, Jr., titled “Electro-Optical
`and Electronic Switching Systems”
`1046–1051 Intentionally Left Blank
`1052
`Declaration of Michele Nelson, USENIX
`U.S. Patent No. 5,617,423 to Li et al., titled “Voice Over Data
`1053
`Modem With Selectable Voice Compression”
`
`
`
`1043
`1044
`
`1045
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144
`
`
`
`Apple Inc. petitions for inter partes 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 of
`
`United States Patent No. 8,966,144 to Tasler (“the ʼ144 patent”). 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 computer. The purported novelty of the ’144 patent is that,
`
`when attached to a 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 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 earliest possible priority date of the ’144 patent. For
`
`example, nearly six years before the earliest possible priority date of the ’144 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. 8,966,144
`
`workstation was provided “with a peripheral that it knows how to deal with.”
`
`(Pucci, p. 220).
`
`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.);
`
`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
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144
`
`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.
`
`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
`
`and 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.
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144
`
`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
`
`PCT/EP98/01187, filed on March 3, 1998. The ’144 patent further claims priority to
`
`March 4, 1997 German application date.1
`
`Each of the following applied prior art documents 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.)
`
`1 Apple does not acquiesce that the ’144 patent is entitled to benefit of the
`
`German application.
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144
`
`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. 4,065,644 to Shinosky et al. (Ex. 1045) is prior art under at
`
`least 35 U.S.C §§ 102(a) and 102(b) because it issued on December 27, 1977.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,790,003 to Kepley et al. is prior art under at least 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 102(b) because it issued on December 6, 1988. (Ex. 1042.)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,353,374 to Wilson et al. (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. 5,617,423 to Li et al. (Ex. 1053) is prior art under at least 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(e) because it was filed on July 7, 1994.
`
`B.
`
`Statutory grounds for the challenge.
`
`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 Pucci, Shinosky, Kepley, and
`Schmidt
`
`§103 1–3, 5–7, 9, 15–17, 19, 21,
`26, 27, 29, 34, 37–39, 41, 49,
`52, 56, 57, 59–64, 67, 78–83,
`and 86
`
`2 Pucci, Shinosky, Kepley, Schmidt,
`and Li
`
`§103 54
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144
`
`3 Pucci, Shinosky, Kepley, Schmidt,
`and Wilson
`
`
`§103 66
`
`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
`
`limitations. (Id., 1:31–38, 2:4–13, 3:29–32.)
`
`The ’144 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.” (Id., 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.” (Id., 4:63–5:7.)
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Petition ffor Inter PPartes Reviiew of
`
`
`
`UU.S. Patennt No. 8,9666,144
`
`Interfacee
`
`
`device
`
`
`
`
`
`(’144 paatent, Figuure 1.)
`
`
`
`
`
`TThe ’144 paatent disclooses techniiques to maake “the innterface deevice appeaar[] to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the hostt device as a hard disk.” (Id., 6:5–6.) Speccifically, thhe ’144 pattent relies
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`on a
`
`
`
`known hhost systemm identificcation process: when
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a host devvice is bootted, an inquuiry
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`instruction as to ddevices attaached to th
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`e host deviice is issueed to the innput/outputt
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`interfaces of the hhost device. (Id., 5:177–23.) Thu
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`driver fofor the idenntified inpuut/output deevice or a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s, the host
`
`
`
`device usees its custoomary
`
`
`
`
`
`correspondding driverr for a mullti-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`purposee interface to communnicate withh the interfface devicee. (Id., 4:233–30.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`
`
`Leveel of ordinaary skill inn the art.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Based on thhe disclosuure of the ’
`
`
`
`t, a person
`144 patent
`
`
`
`having orddinary skilll in
`
`
`
`B B
`
`
`
`the art ((“POSITA””) at the reelevant timme, would hhave had att least a fouur-year deggree
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144
`
`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.)
`
`C. Claim construction.
`
`Except for the exemplary terms set forth herein, the terms are to be given their
`
`plain and ordinary meaning as understood by a POSITA and consistent with the
`
`disclosure. 2 Papst asserted patents in the family of the ’144 patent in several district
`
`court litigations. In addition, claim construction of certain 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).
`
`
`2 Apple reserves the right to present different constructions in another forum
`
`where a different claim construction standard applies. Apple’s proposed
`
`constructions 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. 8,966,144
`
`Several of the terms construed or proposed for construction in these litigations are
`
`also recited in the challenged claims of the present proceeding. Because the
`
`construction proposed by Papst in these litigations do not rely on statements from
`
`the prosecution history, the broadest reasonable interpretation and Phillips
`
`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. 2.)
`
`
`
`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
`most commercially available host
`devices at the time of the invention.”
`
`
`
`The Board should adopt Apple’s construction because it is consistent with the
`
`specification which describes an “input/output device customary in a host device,
`
`[as] normally present in most commercially available host devices.” (’144 patent,
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144
`
`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 ’144 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.
`
`Apple also proposes the following construction for “data transmit/receive
`
`device”:
`
`Claim Term
`“data transmit/receive device”
`
`Construction
`“a device capable of transmitting or
`receiving data.”
`
`Apple’s construction clarifies that the term is not limited to devices that both
`
`transmit and receive data—only one is necessary. This construction is consistent
`
`with the plain and ordinary meaning of the term because the use of the “/” indicates
`
`alternatives. (See Ex. 1019, Webster, p. 2125 (defining “virgule” as “a short oblique
`
`stroke (/) between two words indicating that whichever is appropriate may be
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144
`
`chosen to complete the sense of the text in which they occur”).) The construction is
`
`also consistent with the specification, which discloses “a data transmit/receive
`
`device which is to receive data from the host device or from which data is to be
`
`read, i.e. acquired, and transferred to the host device.” (’144 patent, 5:5-7 (emphasis
`
`added).) Moreover, the district court’s interpretation that the device “is capable of
`
`either (a) transmitting data to or (b) transmitting data to and receiving data from the
`
`host device” still stands after the Federal Circuit’s decision. (Ex. 1016, p. 17 (“the
`
`parties’ dispute focuses on the ‘when connected’ portion of the court’s
`
`construction”).)
`
`V. Ground 1: The combination of Pucci, Shinosky, Kepley, and Schmidt
`renders claims 1–3, 5–7, 9, 15–17, 19, 21, 26, 27, 29, 34, 37–39, 41, 49, 52,
`54, 56, 57, 59–64, 67, 78–83, and 86 obvious.3
`Pucci, like the ’144 patent, recognized “workstations that exploit the rapidly
`
`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 computers.” (Pucci, p. 217.)
`
`Pucci’s ION Engine “appears to [a] workstation as a large, high speed disk
`
`3 A complete listing of challenged claims including labels for individual claim
`
`limitations is provided as Appendix A.
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144
`
`device.” (Id.) 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.) Moreover, the ION node includes a plurality of
`
`analog-to-digital converters that receive analog data from an I/O device. (Id., p. 220,
`
`Figure 1.) In one 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.) The telephone switch provides analog data to the
`
`A-to-D converters based on an analog signal. Pucci does not explicitly disclose that
`
`the switch generates the analog data. Shinosky discloses a telephone switch in which
`
`an incoming analog signal is converted to an optical signal, the optical signal is
`
`switched, and the switched optical signal is re-converted to analog for coupling to a
`
`recipient line. (Shinosky, Abstract, 9:27–37, 9:65–67; Zadok Decl., ¶63.)
`
`ION temporarily stores the 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 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. (Kepley, Abstract.) Pucci stresses that the
`
`ION node misidentifies itself as a hard disk device to attached workstations, even
`
`though it is not itself a hard disk, and uses SCSI to communicate with workstations.
`
`(Pucci, pp. 217, 220, Figure 1; Zadok Decl., ¶66.) However, Pucci does not
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Petition ffor Inter PPartes Reviiew of
`
`
`
`UU.S. Patennt No. 8,9666,144
`
`
`
`explicitly disclosee the details of the deevice recoggnition proccess. Schmmidt providdes
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`these deetails.
`
`A.
`
`nders
`of Pucci, Shinoskyy, Kepleyy, and Scchmidt ren
`
`
`
`
`The commbination
`
`
`
`
`
`independdent claimss 1 and 866 obvious.
`
`
`
`1. “an
`
`
`[1P//86P].
`
`
`
`analog ddata geneerating annd processsing deviice (ADGGPD)”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AAn ION nodde “is a baack-end sysstem, connnecting to aa workstatiion via the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Small CComputer SSystems Innterface (SCCSI) disk iinterface.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Pucci, p.
`
`
`
`217) In ann
`
`
`
`exemplaary applicaation, the I
`
`
`
`
`
`ON node ““supports aan analog tto digital (AA-to-D)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`converssion application that pprovides voice messaaging serviice for a prrototype
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`telephonne switch.”” (Pucci, p. 221.) Figgure E fromm the Zadook Declarattion
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(reproduuced beloww) illustratees Pucci’s combinedd system foor implemeenting its v
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`messagiing servicee. (Zadok DDecl., ¶¶677, 73–74, FFigure E.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`oice
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144
`
`As shown in Figure E, the combined system receives an analog input signal
`
`and provides analog data to the A-to-D converters of the A-to-D conversion
`
`platform. (Zadok Decl., ¶74.)
`
`Pucci does not explicitly disclose that the telephone switch “generates” the
`
`analog data. However, Shinosky discloses a telephone switch in which an analog
`
`input signal is converted to an optical signal, the optical signal is switched, and the
`
`switched optical signal is re-converted to analog for coupling to a recipient line.
`
`(Zadok Decl., ¶75.) Specifically, Shinosky discloses “[a] switching system,
`
`specifically useful as a telephone central switching system, to establish a number of
`
`simultaneous but independent communication links between selected lines.”
`
`(Shinosky, Abstract.) Figure 1 of Shinosky (below) illustrates the switching system
`
`focusing on a single input.
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144
`
`
`
`The input signal in Shinosky’s switch “is converted to a varying voltage in an
`
`electrical conductor” by the transducing unit 1-E and “applied to the z-axis input of
`
`the [CRT].” (Shinosky, 9:27–31.) The signal causes “the emission of light” due to
`
`the operation of the cathode ray tube (CRT). (Shinosky, 9:30–37.) As Shinosky
`
`states, “the signal which was emitted by the generic source 1-F has now become an
`
`intensity modulated light signal.” (Shinosky, 9:39–41.) The modulated light signal is
`
`“direct[ed]… at a specific chosen photosensor in the array.” (Shinosky, 9:65–67.) A
`
`POSITA would recognize that a photosensor is a transducer that converts a light
`
`signal to an electrical signal. (Zadok Decl., ¶76.) For example, Figure 1 of Shinosky
`
`illustrates that the output of a photosensor is amplified by amplifier 3-C and output
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144
`
`to a speaker 3-D. (Shinosky, 9:56–60.) Thus, in Pucci in view of Shinosky, analog
`
`data is generated in the telephone switch, and the analog data is coupled to the
`
`voicemail service system provided by Pucci’s ION node. (Zadok Decl., ¶76.)
`
`A POSITA would have been motivated to use Shinosky’s switch as part of
`
`Pucci’s telephone switching system because Shinosky’s switch is “wireless and
`
`switchless” (Shinosky, 6:42–44), resulting in “a significant reduction in component
`
`requirements, and a consequent reduction in cost” (Shinosky, 28:44–47). (Zadok
`
`Decl., ¶77.) The combination would have yielded the predictable result of an
`
`operable telephone switching system for routing calls. (Id.)
`
`The generated analog data in Pucci in view of Shinosky is then processed by
`
`being digitized and compressed. “The voicemail application of ION” is structured
`
`around three cooperating tasks. (Pucci, p. 231.) One “extracts the raw data from the
`
`converter, placing it into a queue for temporary storage.” (Id.) The second task “is a
`
`generic system util