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. 8,504,746
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
`
`
`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 ’746 patent. ............................................................................................. 6
`A. Overview of the ’746 patent. ......................................................................... 6
`B. Level of ordinary skill in the art. ................................................................... 8
`C. Claim construction. ........................................................................................ 9
`Ground 1: The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt renders claims
`1, 4, 6–8, 10, 11, 20, 21, 30, 34, 35 obvious................................................ 12
`A. Overview of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt. ................................................... 12
`B. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt renders claim 1 obvious. 15
`1. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt discloses the “analog
`data acquisition device” recited in the preamble of claim 1 [1P]. ...... 15
`a) “analog data acquisition device” [1P.1]. ...................................... 16
`b) Computer architecture/operation component [1P.2]. ................... 18
`2. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt discloses the analog
`data acquisition device architectural limitations. ................................ 22
`a) “program memory” [1A]. ............................................................. 22
`b) “an analog signal acquisition channel for receiving a signal from
`an analog source” [1B]. ................................................................ 23
`c) The “processor” limitation [1C]. .................................................. 24
`3. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt discloses the “data
`generation process” of claim element [1D]. ....................................... 25
`a) “Data generation process” [1D.1]. ................................................ 26
`b) “Analog data is processed and digitized” [1D.2]. ........................ 27
`c) “File system” [1D.3]. .................................................................... 28
`4. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt discloses claim
`limitation [1E]. .................................................................................... 31
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
`
`
`a) “the processor executes at least one instruction set” [1E.1]. ....... 31
`b) “automatically causes at least one parameter indicative of the class
`of devices to be sent” [1E.2]. ........................................................ 32
`c) “not within the class of devices” [1E.3]. ....................................... 33
`5. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt discloses claim
`element [1F]. ....................................................................................... 34
`a) “at least one other instruction set” [1F.1]. .................................... 34
`b) File transfer “using the device driver” [1F.2]. .............................. 36
`c) Appearance of the device as part of the class of devices [1F.3]. .. 37
`6. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt discloses claim
`limitation [1G]. .................................................................................... 37
`C. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt, renders claim 4 obvious.
` ...................................................................................................................... 38
`D. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt renders claim 6 obvious. 39
`E. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt renders claim 7 obvious. 40
`F. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt renders claim 8 obvious. 42
`G. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt renders claim 10 obvious.
` ...................................................................................................................... 42
`H. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt, renders claim 11 obvious.
` ...................................................................................................................... 45
`I. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt renders claim 20 obvious.
` ...................................................................................................................... 47
`J. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt renders claim 21 obvious.
` ...................................................................................................................... 48
`K. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt renders claim 30 obvious.
` ...................................................................................................................... 49
`L. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt renders independent claim
`34 obvious. ................................................................................................... 51
`1. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt discloses “[a] method
`for analog data acquisition and interfacing to a host device wherein the
`host device includes a device driver” as recited in the preamble of
`claim 34 [34P]. .................................................................................... 51
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
`
`
`2. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt discloses the
`“interfacing” step [34A]. ..................................................................... 51
`3. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt discloses the
`“acquiring” step of claim 34 [34B]. .................................................... 52
`4. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt discloses the
`“sending” step of claim 34 [34C]. ....................................................... 53
`5. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt discloses the
`“transferring” step of claim 34 [34D]. ................................................ 54
`M. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt renders claim 35 obvious.
` ...................................................................................................................... 56
`Ground 2: The combination of Pucci, Kepley, Schmidt, and Shinosky
`renders claim 14 obvious. ............................................................................ 57
`Ground 3: The combination of Pucci, Kepley, Schmidt, and Wilson renders
`claim 23 obvious. ......................................................................................... 61
`The proposed grounds are not redundant to previously filed petitions. ...... 63
`Conclusion ................................................................................................... 64
`
`VI.
`
`VII.
`
`VIII.
`IX.
`
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Cases:
`
`In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC,
`778 F.3d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .................................................................................. 9
`
`In re Papst Licensing Digital Camera Patent Litigation,
`778 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .................................................................................. 9
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................ 9, 12
`
`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 ......................................................................................................... 9
`
`Regulations:
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................ 9
`
`
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Ex. No.
`1001
`1002
`1003
`
`1008
`1009
`1010
`1011
`1012
`
`1013
`1014
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent 8,504,746 to Tasler
`Excerpts of File History of U.S. Patent 8,504,746 to Tasler
`Declaration of Dr. Erez Zadok in Support of Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
`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).
`1017–1018 Intentionally Left Blank
`Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English
`1019
`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
`1025–1030 Intentionally Left Blank
`1031
`Plug-and-Play SCSI Specification, Version 1.0, dated March 30,
`1994 (“PNP SCSI”)
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Pucci, M., “Configurable Data Manipulation in an Attached
`Multiprocessor,” 1991
`
`1015
`1016
`
`1020
`
`1032–1040
`1041
`
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`

`
`Ex. No.
`1042
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
`
`
`Description
`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
`
`
`1043
`1044
`
`1045
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
`
`Apple Inc. petitions for inter partes review of claims 1, 4, 6–8, 10, 11, 14, 20,
`
`21, 23, 30, 34, and 35 of United States Patent No. 8,504,746 to Tasler (“the ʼ746
`
`patent”). The challenged claims recite an analog data acquisition device and
`
`associated method for acquiring analog data and communicating with a host
`
`computer. The device performs well-known routine 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 ’746
`
`patent is that, when attached to a host computer, the analog data acquisition device
`
`identifies itself as “automatically causes at least one parameter indicative of the
`
`class of devices” of which the device is not a member, such that for file transfer, the
`
`“analog data acquisition device appears to the computer as if it were a device of the
`
`class of devices.” (Ex. 1001, ’746 patent, claim 1.) This technique is commonly
`
`referred to as emulation.
`
`Devices that emulated a digital storage device (e.g., hard disk drives) and
`
`used the existing storage device’s driver for communication with a host computer
`
`were well known years before the earliest possible priority date of the ’746 patent.
`
`For example, nearly six years before the earliest possible priority date of the ’746
`
`patent, Pucci (Ex. 1041) described a multiprocessor tasking system, named ION,
`
`that connected to workstations 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 -
`
`

`
`workstation was provided “with a peripheral that it knows how to deal with.”
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
`
`
`(Pucci, p. 220).
`
`Apple demonstrates below that a reasonable likelihood exists that all
`
`challenged claims of the ’746 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 ’746 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.); Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. Huawei
`
`Technologies Co., Ltd. et al, Case No. 6:15-cv-01115 (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.
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`
`The ’746 patent is also the subject of the following Inter Partes Review
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
`
`
`proceedings: Inter Partes Review by Canon Inc., IPR2016-01211 filed June 17,
`
`2016; Inter Partes Review by Canon Inc., IPR2016-01224 filed June 17, 2016; Inter
`
`Partes Review by JVC Kenwood Corporation, IPR2016-01213 filed June 17, 2016;
`
`Inter Partes Review by Panasonic Corporation, IPR2016-01223 filed June 17, 2016;
`
`Inter Partes Review by Olympus Corporation., IPR2016-01206 filed June 16, 2016;
`
`and Inter Partes Review by Fujifilm Corporation, IPR2016-01200 filed June 14,
`
`2016.
`
`Apple is concurrently filing additional petitions against claims of the ’746
`
`patent.
`
`No other matters related to the ’746 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,
`
`Steven W. Peters (Reg. No. 73,193) as its back-up counsel, and Yasser Mourtada
`
`(Reg. No. 61,056) 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, speters-PTAB@skgf.com, and
`
`ymourtad-PTAB@skgf.com.
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`
`II. Grounds for standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)).
`The undersigned and Apple certify that the ʼ746 patent is available for inter
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
`
`
`partes review. Apple certifies that it is not barred or estopped from requesting this
`
`inter partes review on the grounds identified herein. The assignee of the ’746 patent,
`
`Papst, filed a complaint against Apple alleging infringement of the ’746 patent on
`
`November 30, 2015. (Ex. 1020.) The present petition is being filed within one year
`
`of service of Petitioner.
`
`Identification of challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)).
`III.
`A. Citation of prior art.
`In support of the grounds of unpatentability cited above, Apple cites the
`
`following prior art references:
`
`Configurable Data Manipulation in an Attached Multiprocessor, by Marc
`
`F. Pucci (Ex. 1041) is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 102(b)
`
`because it was published in 1991. (See Ex. 1052.)
`
`The SCSI Bus and IDE Interface—Protocols, Applications and
`
`Programming, by Friedhelm Schmidt (Ex. 1007) is prior art under at least 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 102(b) because it was published in 1995. (See Ex. 1024.)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,790,003 to Kepley et al., titled “Message Service System
`
`Network” (Ex. 1042) is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 102(b)
`
`because it issued on December 6, 1988.
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,065,644 to Shinosky et al., titled “Electro-Optical and
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
`
`
`Electronic Switching Systems” (Ex. 1045) is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C
`
`§§ 102(a) and 102(b) because it issued on December 27, 1977.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,353,374 to Wilson et al., titled “Low Bit Rate Voice
`
`Transmission for Use in a Noisy Environment” (Ex. 1044) is prior art under at least
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), 102(b), and 102(e) because it issued on October 4, 1994.
`
`B. Statutory grounds for the challenge.
`Apple requests review of claims 1, 4, 6–8, 10, 11, 14, 20, 21, 23, 30, 34, and
`
`35 on the following grounds:
`
`References
`
`Basis
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt
`
`§ 103
`
`1, 4, 6–8, 10, 11, 20, 21,
`30, 34, 35
`
`Pucci, Kepley, Schmidt, and
`Shinosky
`
`Pucci, Kepley, Schmidt, and
`Wilson
`
`§ 103
`
`14
`
`§ 103
`
`23
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
`
`
`IV. The ’746 patent.
`A. Overview of the ’746 patent.
`The ’746 patent describes an interface device that enables communication
`
`between a host device and a data transmit/receive device from which data is
`
`acquired. (See Ex. 1001, ’746 patent, 1:20–24.) 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. (Id., 3:28–
`
`31.) 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. (’746 patent, 2:6–15.) Other devices
`
`achieved host-device independence through the use of standard interfaces; but these
`
`interfaces required specific driver software that in turn, resulted in reduced data
`
`transfer speed. (Id., 1:33–40.)
`
`The ’746 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.” (’746 patent, Abstract).
`
`As illustrated in Figure 1, reproduced below, the interface device 10 includes “[a]
`
`first connecting device 12… attached to a host device (not shown) a second
`
`connecting device attached by means of an output line 16 to a data transmit/receive
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`
`device… from which data is to be read, i.e. acquired, and transferred to the host
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
`
`
`device.” (’746 patent, 4:67 to 5:4.)
`
`
`
`The ’746 patent discloses techniques to make “the interface device appear[] to
`
`the host device as a hard disk.” (’746 patent, 6:2–3.) Specifically, the ’746 patent
`
`relies on a known host system identification process: when a host device is booted,
`
`an inquiry instruction as to devices attached to the host device is issued to the
`
`input/output interfaces of the host device. (Id., 5:14–20.) When the interface device
`
`receives the inquiry instruction, the interface device identifies itself, regardless of
`
`the type of attached data transmit/receive device, as a customary input/output device
`
`to the host device. (See ’746 patent, 4:5–13.) Thus, the host device uses its
`
`customary driver for the identified input/output device or a corresponding driver for
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`
`a multipurpose interface to communicate with the interface device. (’746 patent,
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
`
`
`3:49–55.)
`
`B. Level of ordinary skill in the art.
`Based on the disclosure of the ’746 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 of experience in studying or
`
`developing computer interfaces or peripherals and storage related software. (Zadok
`
`Decl., ¶28.) A person of ordinary skill in the art 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,
`
`PCMCIA). (Zadok Decl., ¶28.)
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
`
`
`C. Claim construction.
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are interpreted
`
`according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of
`
`the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); In re Cuozzo Speed Techs.,
`
`LLC, 778 F.3d 1271, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Except for the exemplary terms set forth
`
`herein, the terms are to be given their plain and ordinary meaning as understood by a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art and consistent with the disclosure. 1
`
`Papst asserted patents in the family of the ’746 patent sharing a common
`
`specification with the ’746 patent in several district court litigations. In addition,
`
`claim construction of certain terms in related U.S. patent 6,470,399 was the subject
`
`of Appeal 2014-1110 to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit from the
`
`United States Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:07-mc-00493-RMC). In re
`
`Papst Licensing Digital Camera Patent Litigation, 778 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`The Federal Circuit construed the following terms under the Phillips standard:
`
`
`1 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.
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
`
`
`Claim term
`
`District Court Construction
`
`CAFC Ruling
`
`“interface device”
`
`may not be “a permanent part of
`either the data transmit/receive
`device or the host
`device/computer.” (Ex. 1016, p.
`8.)
`
`“second connecting
`device”
`
`“a physical plug or socket for
`permitting a user readily to attach
`and detach the interface device
`with a plurality of dissimilar data
`transmit/receive devices.” (Ex.
`1016, p. 10.)
`
`“is not limited to…a
`device that is physically
`separate and apart from,
`and not permanently
`attached to, a data device
`(or a host computer).”
`(Ex. 1016, p. 8.)
`
`does not require “a
`physical plug, socket, or
`other structure that
`permits a user to readily
`attach and detach
`something else.” (Ex.
`1016, p. 11.)
`
`“data
`transmit/receive
`device”
`
`“virtual files”
`
`“a device that is capable of either
`(a) transmitting data to or (b)
`transmitting data to and receiving
`data from the host device when
`connected to the host device by
`the interface device.” (Ex. 1016,
`p. 11.)
`
`“need not be capable of
`communicating ‘when
`connected to the host
`device by the interface
`device.’” (Ex. 1016, p.
`12.)
`
`not limited to a file
`“whose content is stored
`off the interface device,
`though it includes such
`files.” (Ex. 1016, p. 14.)
`
`“files that appear to be but are
`not physically stored; rather they
`are constructed or derived from
`existing data when their contents
`are requested by an application
`program so that they appear to
`exist as files from the point of
`view of the host device.” (Ex.
`1016, p. 13.)
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
`
`
`Claim term
`
`District Court Construction
`
`CAFC Ruling
`
`“input/output device
`customary in a host
`device”
`
`“data input/output device that
`was normally present within the
`chassis of most commercially
`available computers at the time
`of the invention.” (Ex. 1016, p.
`16.)
`
`not limited to a device
`“‘normally present
`within the chassis’ of a
`computer.” (Ex. 1016,
`p. 16 (emphasis in
`original).)
`
`Of these five terms, Apple proposes to construe the term “data
`
`transmit/receive device.” The other terms construed by the Federal Circuit do not
`
`appear in any of the claims challenged in this Petition.
`
`“data transmit/receive device” [claim 7]
`
`Apple proposes to construe the term “data transmit/receive device” as “a
`
`device capable of transmitting or receiving data.” This 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, Websters, p.
`
`2125 (defining “virgule” as “a short oblique stroke (/) between two words indicating
`
`that whichever is appropriate may be 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.” (’746 patent, 5:56–60.) Moreover, the portion of the district court’s
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`
`interpretation under Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) that the
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
`
`
`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, Kepley, and Schmidt renders
`claims 1, 4, 6–8, 10, 11, 20, 21, 30, 34, 35 obvious.2
`A. Overview of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt.
`Pucci, like the ’746 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 collections of workstations or
`
`other conventional computers.” (Pucci, p. 217.)
`
`Pucci’s ION Engine “appears to [a] workstation as a large, high speed disk
`
`device.” (Pucci, p. 217.) The “[s]oftware running within the ION system mimics the
`
`behavior of a conventional device, providing the workstation with a peripheral that
`
`
`2 A complete listing of challenged claims is provided as Appendix A. For ease
`
`of discussion, labels have been added to individual claim limitations.
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`
`it knows how to deal with.” (Pucci, p. 220.) In addition, the ION node includes a
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
`
`
`plurality of analog-to-digital converters that receive analog data from an I/O device.
`
`(See Pucci, p. 220, Figure 1.) ION temporarily stores the output data from the A-to-
`
`D converters in memory before transfer to the workstation upon request. (Pucci, pp.
`
`231–232.) However, Pucci does not explicitly disclose that the converted data is
`
`stored as a file on the ION node.
`
`Kepley discloses a voice mail system that stores a “digitally encoded and
`
`compressed voice mail message” as a file. (Ex. 1042, Kepley, Abstract, claim 1.) A
`
`POSITA would have found it obvious to combine Pucci’s ION system with
`
`Kepley’s voicemail system. Pucci provides an explicit motivation explaining that an
`
`application of the ION node is a “platform for analog to digital (A-to-D) services for
`
`a voice messaging application of a prototype programmable telephone switch
`
`system called GARDEN.” (Pucci, p. 231.) But, Pucci does not provide details of the
`
`voice messaging application. A POSITA would have looked to Kepley for those
`
`details because Kepley describes a voice mail messaging system and application.
`
`(Zadok Decl., ¶66.)
`
`The file storage of Kepley allows the voice mail message service system to
`
`perform “voice mail message transfer... as a computer-to-computer data file transfer
`
`operation over high speed data lines” to other message service systems. (Kepley,
`
`Abstract.) A POSITA would have found it obvious to store the digitized A-to-D
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`
`converted data as a file in Pucci’s voice messaging service application to enable
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
`
`
`“computer-to-computer data file transfer” between the ION-enabled voice
`
`messaging service system and other messaging service systems as taught by Kepley.
`
`(Zadok Decl., ¶67.) Further, the modification would have involved a simple
`
`substitution of one known element (Kepley’s analog voice message processing) for
`
`another (Pucci’s analog voice message processing) to obtain predictable results.
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415–416 (2007). Digital storage of
`
`voice message data, in the form of a file or otherwise, was well known in the art as
`
`taught by Pucci and Kepley. Further, Pucci discloses that the ION node may include
`
`a file system. (Pucci, p. 222) Thus, substitution of Kepley’s analog voice message
`
`processing (which includes storage of the digitized voice message as a file) for
`
`Pucci’s analog voice message processing (which includes digital conversion but
`
`lacks file storage) could have been readily implemented by a POSITA using Pucci’s
`
`file system. (Zadok Decl., ¶¶68–69.) The results of such substitution would have
`
`been predictable because the digitized voice message data would have been stored
`
`like any other file in Pucci’s file system. (Zadok Decl., ¶69.)
`
`Pucci stresses that the ION node mimics a hard disk device to attached
`
`workstations and uses the SCSI protocol to communicate with the workstations.
`
`(Pucci, pp. 217, 220, Figure 1.) However, Pucci does not explicitly disclose the
`
`details of the recognition process. Schmidt provides a detailed discussion of the
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`
`device recognition process. A POSITA would have combined Pucci and Kepley
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
`
`
`with Schmidt for a number of reasons. First, Pucci discloses that the ION node
`
`connects to the workstation via a SCSI bus. (Pucci, p. 217.) A POSITA would have
`
`looked to a reference, like Schmidt, to provide details of the SCSI interface. (Zadok
`
`Decl., ¶73.) Schmidt shows that it was well known at the earliest possible priority
`
`date of the ’746 patent that SCSI bus initialization between a host computer and a
`
`peripheral device involved the peripheral device identifying its device class and type
`
`to the host computer. (Zadok Decl., ¶72.)
`
`B. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt renders claim 1 obvious.
`1. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt discloses the
`“analog data acquisition device” recited in the preamble of claim 1
`[1P].
`
`The preamble of claim 1 recites:
`
`[1P.1] An analog data acquisition device operatively
`connectable
`to a computer
`through a multipurpose
`interface of the computer,
`
`[1P.2] the computer having [a] an operating system
`programmed so that, when the computer [b] receives a
`sig