ATTORNEY REFERENCE NO.: 8954-89860-02
`FILED VIA PRPS ON: November 21, 2012
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`FILED VIA THE PATENT REVIEW PROCESSING SYSTEM
`
`Trial Number: To be assigned
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`In re Inter Partes Review of:
`U.S. Patent No. 6,516,236 B1
`
`Issued: February 4, 2003
`
`Applicants: David W. Brown and Jay
`
`
`S. Clark
`
`Application No. 10/021,669
`
`Filed: December 10, 2001
`
`Title: Motion Control Systems
`
`Currently in Litigation Styled:
`ROY-G-BIV Corporation v. ABB, Ltd.
`et al., 6:11-cv-00622-LED – ED Tex.
`(Tyler)
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`PO Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313–1450.
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`CLAIMS 1-10 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,516,236 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 70
`
`AMS
`Exhibit 2014
`RA v AMS
`IPR2017-00048
`
`

`

`ATTORNEY REFERENCE NO.: 8954-89860-02
`FILED VIA PRPS ON: November 21, 2012
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 2
`
`BACKGROUND OF THE TECHNOLOGY AND PATENT ....................... 2
`
`A.
`
`Summary of the Patented System ......................................................... 3
`
`B. Middleware: Microsoft Windows & WOSA ....................................... 6
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`“Motion Control Devices” .................................................................... 7
`
`The Confluence of WOSA and “Motion Control Devices” .................. 8
`
`III. APPROPRIATE PRIORITY DATE FOR THE ’236 PATENT CLAIMS .... 9
`
`IV. PRINCIPLES OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .............................................10
`
`V.
`
`THE PRIOR ART ..........................................................................................10
`
`A.
`
`The Gertz Thesis .................................................................................10
`
`B. Microsoft’s WOSA/XFS Specifications .............................................13
`
`C.
`
`Stewart .................................................................................................15
`
`D. Morrow ................................................................................................15
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`DDAG..................................................................................................16
`
`Hall ......................................................................................................16
`
`G. Wright ..................................................................................................17
`
`VI. PROPOSED GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY
`NO. 1: GERTZ ANTICIPATES CLAIMS 1-10. ..........................................17
`
`A. A System for Generating a Sequence of Control Commands .............17
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Primitive and Non-Primitive Operations (all claims) .........................18
`
`Core and Extended Driver Functions (all claims) ...............................21
`
`D. A Set of Component Functions (all claims) ........................................22
`
`i
`Page 2 of 70
`
`AMS
`Exhibit 2014
`RA v AMS
`IPR2017-00048
`
`

`

`ATTORNEY REFERENCE NO.: 8954-89860-02
`FILED VIA PRPS ON: November 21, 2012
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Component Code (all claims) ..............................................................22
`
`A Set of Software Drivers and a
`Selected Software Driver (all claims) .................................................23
`
`G. Application Program (all claims) ........................................................24
`
`H. Motion Control Component (all claims) .............................................25
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`K.
`
`L.
`
`Driver Code for Implementing All of the Core Driver Functions
`and at Least Some of the Extended Driver Functions (Claims 2-6) ...25
`
`Non-Supported Extended Driver Functions and
`Combinations of Core Driver Functions (Claims 4-6) ........................26
`
`Pointer Table (Claims 5-6) ..................................................................27
`
`Driver Unit System, Application Unit System and
`Means for Determining and Converting (Claim 7) .............................28
`
`M. A Plurality of Destinations, a Plurality
`of Streams, and Stream Control Means
`for Communicating the Control Commands (Claim 8) ......................29
`
`N.
`
`O.
`
`Response Data, Response Stream Code (Claim 9) .............................30
`
`Command Format Template, Response Format
`Template, Means for Generating, Means for Parsing (Claim 10) .......30
`
`VII. PROPOSED GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY
`NO. 2: WOSA/XFS ANTICIPATES CLAIMS 1-10. ...................................32
`
`A. A System for Generating a Sequence of Control Commands .............33
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Primitive and Non-Primitive Operations (All Claims) .......................33
`
`Core and Extended Driver Functions (All Claims) .............................34
`
`D. A Set of Component Functions (All Claims) ......................................35
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Component Code (All Claims) ............................................................35
`
`A Set of Software Drivers and a
`Selected Software Driver (All Claims) ...............................................36
`
`ii
`Page 3 of 70
`
`AMS
`Exhibit 2014
`RA v AMS
`IPR2017-00048
`
`

`

`ATTORNEY REFERENCE NO.: 8954-89860-02
`FILED VIA PRPS ON: November 21, 2012
`
`G. Application Program (All Claims) ......................................................37
`
`H. Motion Control Component (All Claims) ...........................................38
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`Driver Code for Implementing All of
`the Core Driver Functions and at Least
`Some of the Extended Driver Functions (Claims 2-6) ........................38
`
`Driver Unit System, Application Unit System
`and Means for Determining and Converting (Claim 7) ......................39
`
`K. A Plurality of Destinations, a Plurality
`of Streams, and Stream Control Means
`for Communicating the Control Commands (Claim 8) ......................40
`
`L.
`
`Response Data, Response Stream Code (Claim 9) .............................40
`
`M. Command Format Template, Response
`Format Template, Command Data Strings,
`Response Data Strings (Claim 10) ......................................................41
`
`VIII. PROPOSED GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY
`NO. 3: GERTZ, STEWART, AND MORROW RENDER
`OBVIOUS ALL CHALLENGED CLAIMS: 1-10 .......................................42
`
`A. Obviousness: Content of the Prior Art ...............................................42
`
`B. Obviousness: Objective Indicia ..........................................................43
`
`C. Obviousness: Reasons To Combine the References ..........................44
`
`IX. PROPOSED GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY
`NO. 4: GERTZ AND DDAG RENDER OBVIOUS CLAIMS 1-10 ............44
`
`X.
`
`PROPOSED GROUNDS FOR
`UNPATENTABILITY NO. 5: GERTZ,
`DDAG, AND HALL RENDER OBVIOUS CLAIMS 1-10 .........................45
`
`XI. PROPOSED GROUNDS FOR
`UNPATENTABILITY NO. 6: WOSA/XFS
`AND DDAG RENDER OBVIOUS CLAIMS 1-4 AND 7-10 .....................46
`
`iii
`Page 4 of 70
`
`AMS
`Exhibit 2014
`RA v AMS
`IPR2017-00048
`
`

`

`ATTORNEY REFERENCE NO.: 8954-89860-02
`FILED VIA PRPS ON: November 21, 2012
`
`XII. PROPOSED GROUNDS FOR
`UNPATENTABILITY NO. 7: WOSA/XFS,
`DDAG, AND HALL RENDER OBVIOUS CLAIMS 1-10 .........................47
`
`XIII. PROPOSED GROUNDS FOR
`UNPATENTABILITY NO. 8: GERTZ, WOSA/XFS,
`AND WRIGHT RENDER OBVIOUS CLAIMS 1-10 .................................48
`
`XIV. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................49
`
`iv
`Page 5 of 70
`
`AMS
`Exhibit 2014
`RA v AMS
`IPR2017-00048
`
`

`

`ATTORNEY REFERENCE NO.: 8954-89860-02
`FILED VIA PRPS ON: November 21, 2012
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`Cases
`
`Chiron Corp. v Genentech, Inc.,
` 363 F.3d 1247, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ................................................................... 9
`
`In re Tiffin,
`448 F.2d 791 (CCPA 1971) ..................................................................................43
`
`In re Vamco Machine & Tool, Inc.,
`752 F.2d 1564 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ............................................................................43
`
`In re Yamamoto,
`740 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ............................................................................10
`
`PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
` 552 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................... 9
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ...................................................................................................13
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 .................................................................................... 28, 29, 31
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 et seq. ............................................................................................... 1
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 (b) .............................................................................................10
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15 ....................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`Page 6 of 70
`
`AMS
`Exhibit 2014
`RA v AMS
`IPR2017-00048
`
`

`

`ATTORNEY REFERENCE NO.: 8954-89860-02
`FILED VIA PRPS ON: November 21, 2012
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`Ex. 1001: David W. Brown et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,516,236, “Motion Control
`Systems”, Issued February 4, 2003.The ’236 Patent.
`
`CITED PRIOR ART
`
`Ex. 1002: Gertz, M.W., A Visual Programming Environment for Real-Time
`Control Systems. Ph.D. dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University,
`Nov. 22, 1994 (“Gertz”).
`
`Ex. 1003: Microsoft Corporation, WOSA (Windows Open Services Architecture)
`Extensions for Financial Services, April 14, 1994 (“WOSA/XFS”).
`
`Ex. 1004: Stewart, D.B., Real-Time Software Design and Analysis of
`Reconfigurable Multi-Sensor Based Systems. Ph.D. dissertation,
`Carnegie Mellon University, April 1, 1994 (“Stewart”).
`
`Ex. 1005: Morrow, J. Dan; Nelson, Bradley J.; and Khosla, Pradeep, Vision and
`Force Driven Sensorimotor Primitives for Robotic Assembly Skills.
`Institute for Software Research, paper 574, January 1, 1995
`(“Morrow”).
`
`Ex. 1006: Microsoft Press, MS Windows 3.1 Device Driver Adaptation Guide,
`© 1991, Chs. 1-2, 4, 10-12 (“DDAG”).
`
`Ex. 1007: Hall, Marty and Mayfield, James, Improving the Performance of AI
`Software: Payoffs and Pitfalls in Using Automatic Memoization.
`Proceedings of Sixth International Symposium on Artificial
`Intelligence, Monterrey, Mexico, September 1993 (“Hall”).
`
`Ex. 1008: Michael Wright et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,453,933, “CNC Control
`System,” issued Sept. 26, 1995 (“Wright”).
`
`Ex. 1009: David B. Stewart et al., The Chimera II Real-Time Operating System
`for Advanced Sensor-Based Control Applications. Institute for
`Software Research, paper 613, January 1, 1992 (“Chimera II”).
`
`OTHER EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1010: Cashin, J., WOSA: Windows Open Services Architecture, January 11,
`1994 (“Cashin”).
`
`vi
`Page 7 of 70
`
`AMS
`Exhibit 2014
`RA v AMS
`IPR2017-00048
`
`

`

`ATTORNEY REFERENCE NO.: 8954-89860-02
`FILED VIA PRPS ON: November 21, 2012
`
`Ex. 1011: Kevin Holloway, Motion Software Heads Toward Friendlier User
`Environments, published at www.roygbiv.com/XMCreview1.htm,
`January 21, 1997 (“Holloway”).1
`
`Ex. 1012: Plaintiff Roy-G-Biv Corporation’s Opening Markman Brief, Roy-G-
`Biv Corp., v. Fanuc Ltd., et al. (E.D.Tex., Nov. 21, 2008) (CASE NO.
`2:07-CV-0418-DF-CE) (“RGB Markman Brief”).
`
`Ex. 1013: Claim Construction Order, Roy-G-Biv Corp., v. Fanuc Ltd., et al.
`(E.D.Tex., Nov. 21, 2008) (CASE NO. 2:07-CV-0418-DF-CE)
`(“Markman Order”).
`
`Ex. 1014: U.S. Patent No. 5,881,230, “Method and System for Remote
`Automation of Object Oriented Applications,” issued Mar. 9, 1999
`(“Christensen”).
`
`Ex. 1015: U.S. Patent No. 5,691,897, “Motion Control Systems,” issued Nov.
`25, 1997 (“the ’897 Patent”).
`
`Ex. 1016: U.S. Patent No. 5,867,385, “Motion Control Systems,” issued Feb. 2,
`1999 (“the 385 Patent”).
`
`Ex. 1017:
`
`Jacob Tal, Step by Step Design of Motion Control Systems, Chapters 9
`and 10, Galil Motion Control, Inc., 1994 (“Tal”).
`
`Ex. 1018: Hewlett Packard, Matrix/Plotter Programming, HP 9831A Desktop
`Computer, 1977 (“HP77”).
`
`Ex. 1019: Hewlett Packard, Interface and Programming Manual, HP 7550
`Graphics Plotter, 3rd ed., 1986 (“HP86”).
`
`Ex. 1020: Hewlett Packard, User’s Guide, HP 7550 Plus Plotter, 1990 (“HP90”).
`
`Ex. 1021: Martin L. Stone et al., An Intelligent Plotter for High-Throughput,
`Unattended Operation, Hewlett-Packard Journal, April, 1985
`(“HP85”).
`
`
`1 Retrieved via the Internet Archive on Dec. 27, 2011 at:
`http://web.archive.org/web/19970121074306/http://www.roygbiv.com/XMCrevie
`X1.htm.
`
`vii
`Page 8 of 70
`
`AMS
`Exhibit 2014
`RA v AMS
`IPR2017-00048
`
`

`

`ATTORNEY REFERENCE NO.: 8954-89860-02
`FILED VIA PRPS ON: November 21, 2012
`
`Ex. 1022: Preliminary Infringement Contentions, ROY-G-BIV Corp., v. ABB,
`Ltd. et al. (E.D.Tex., Sept. 14, 2012) (CASE NO. 6:11-CV-00622-
`LED) (“RGB PIC”).
`
`Ex. 1023: Preliminary Infringement Contentions, Exhibit B, ROY-G-BIV Corp.,
`v. ABB, Ltd. et al. (E.D.Tex., Sept. 14, 2012) (CASE NO. 6:11-CV-
`00622-LED) (“RGB PIC, Ex. B”).
`
`viii
`Page 9 of 70
`
`AMS
`Exhibit 2014
`RA v AMS
`IPR2017-00048
`
`

`

`ATTORNEY REFERENCE NO.: 8954-89860-02
`FILED VIA PRPS ON: November 21, 2012
`
`Fee: In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.15, 42.103, please charge the fee
`
`for inter partes review of $27,200.00 to Deposit Account 02-4550.
`
`Identification of Challenge: Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311 et seq., Petitioner
`
`ABB Inc. (“ABB”) requests inter partes review of claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,516,236 B1, issued to Roy-G-Biv Corporation (“RGB”), and ruling that claims 1-
`
`10 are unpatentable based on one or more of the grounds under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102
`
`or 103 set forth herein. Sections VI-XIII and Appendix A provide the detailed
`
`statement of the reasons for the relief requested for each claim challenged, per 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.104(b).
`
`Standing: ABB certifies that this patent is available for inter partes review
`
`and that ABB is not barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review
`
`challenging the patent claims on the grounds identified in this petition.
`
`Real-Party-in-Interest: ABB is the real-party-in-interest.
`
`Related Matters: Judicial Matters: ROY-G-BIV Corporation v. ABB, Ltd. et
`
`al., 6:11-cv-00622-LED – ED Tex. (Tyler). Administrative Matters: U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,513,058, for which a petition for Inter Partes review is also being filed.
`
`Lead and Backup Counsel; Service Information:
`
`Richard D. Mc Leod (Lead Counsel, PTO Reg. No. 46,921)
`rick.mcleod@klarquist.com
`John D. Vandenberg (Backup Counsel, PTO Reg. No. 31,312)
`john.vandenberg@klarquist.com
`Klarquist Sparkman LLP
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,516,236 B1
`Page 10 of 70
`
`Page 1
`AMS
`Exhibit 2014
`RA v AMS
`IPR2017-00048
`
`

`

`ATTORNEY REFERENCE NO.: 8954-89860-02
`FILED VIA PRPS ON: November 21, 2012
`
`One World Trade Center, Suite 1600
`121 S.W. Salmon Street
`Portland, Oregon 97204
`Telephone: (503) 595-5300
`Facsimile: (503) 595-5301
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`I.
`
`ABB requests inter partes review on each of the following grounds:
`
`1. Gertz anticipates claims 1-10.
`
`2. WOSA/XFS anticipates claims 1-3 and 7-10.
`
`3. Gertz, Stewart, and Morrow render obvious claims 1-10.
`
`4. Gertz and DDAG render obvious claims 1-10.
`
`5. Gertz, DDAG, and Hall render obvious claims 1-10.
`
`6. WOSA/XFS and DDAG render obvious claims 1-4 and 7-10.
`
`7. WOSA/XFS, DDAG, and Hall render obvious claims 1-10.
`
`8. WOSA/XFS, Gertz, and Wright render obvious claims 1-10.
`
`This petition includes its Appendix A which maps each challenged claim to
`
`the aforementioned references. For each ground, the petition demonstrates at least
`
`a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the claims challenged is unpatentable.
`
`II. BACKGROUND OF THE TECHNOLOGY AND PATENT
`
`The technology relates to the concepts of “device independence” and
`
`“motion control.” First, the subject matter is discussed in the context of the ’236
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,516,236 B1
`Page 11 of 70
`
`Page 2
`AMS
`Exhibit 2014
`RA v AMS
`IPR2017-00048
`
`

`

`ATTORNEY REFERENCE NO.: 8954-89860-02
`FILED VIA PRPS ON: November 21, 2012
`
`specification. Subsequently, these concepts are explained in the context of the
`
`“common knowledge” prior to the applicants’ alleged invention.
`
`A.
`
`Summary of the Patented System2
`
`The ’236 Patent, titled “MOTION CONTROL SYSTEMS,” issued from
`
`U.S. App. No. 10/021,669, filed Dec. 10, 2001, and alleges priority from the
`
`following earlier-filed applications (collectively, the “Prior Applications”):
`
`• U.S. Appl. No. 09/191,981 filed Nov. 13, 1998 (the ’981 Application);
`
`• U.S. Pat. No. 5,867,385 (the ’385 Patent), filed May 30, 1996; and
`
`• U.S. Pat. No. 5,691,897 (the ’897 Patent), filed May 30, 1995.
`
`The ’236 Patent allegedly describes “interface software that facilitates the
`
`creation of hardware independent motion control software,” for providing
`
`improved methods and devices for moving objects. (’236, 1:13-16; 3:24-26). It
`
`describes a software system which runs on a personal computer and is connected to
`
`motion control devices (described as hardware controllers combined with
`
`mechanical systems) via a hardware bus. (Id., 6:6-29). The patent admits as prior
`
`art the hardware bus, hardware controllers and the mechanical systems, leaving the
`
`software system as the claimed point of novelty. (Id., 6:30-34).
`
`
`2 This summary of the patent disclosure is not an admission that the patent’s
`disclosure is true.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,516,236 B1
`Page 12 of 70
`
`Page 3
`AMS
`Exhibit 2014
`RA v AMS
`IPR2017-00048
`
`

`

`ATTORNEY REFERENCE NO.: 8954-89860-02
`FILED VIA PRPS ON: November 21, 2012
`
`
`
`The software system of the ’236 Patent allows users to create applications
`
`that control motion control devices. (Id., 6:35-38). It allows applications to be
`
`created independently of (“isolated from”) the requirements of any specific motion
`
`control device, and without requiring the user to have an extensive knowledge of
`
`the coding requirements of individual devices. (Id., 6:51-7:4). The process of
`
`controlling a motion control device begins by defining several physical actions
`
`capable of being performed by a motion control device in the abstract (“motion
`
`control operations”), without any connection to specific hardware or software
`
`modules. (Id., 7:19-27). The software system is then configured so that these
`
`operations can be requested by a user through an application and performed by a
`
`device upon request.
`
`The software system includes an application programming interface (“API”)
`
`which allows a user to develop motion control applications from API functions
`
`(labeled “component functions”). (Id., 7:54-65). A completed application
`
`program defines a series of steps the user desires a motion control device to
`
`perform. (Id., 8:25-35). The software system then converts the device-neutral
`
`instructions of the application to device-specific instructions and transmits them to
`
`the device that will perform the desired motion sequence. (Id., 6:39-50).
`
`The ’236 Patent describes how the conversion of instructions is
`
`accomplished. The software system includes, in addition to the application
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,516,236 B1
`Page 13 of 70
`
`Page 4
`AMS
`Exhibit 2014
`RA v AMS
`IPR2017-00048
`
`

`

`ATTORNEY REFERENCE NO.: 8954-89860-02
`
`FILED VIA PRPS ON: November 21, 2012
`
`program and the API, a service provider interface (“SPI”), a motion control
`
`component containing component code, and software drivers containing driver
`
`code3. (Li, 7:40-8:14). The SPI includes a number of SPI functions (labeled
`
`“driver functions”), each of which is associated with one of the pre-defined motion
`
`control operations. (Q, 7:40-53). The component code contained in the motion
`
`control component then associates API functions (component functions) with SP1
`
`functions (driver functions), and the driver code contained in the software drivers
`
`associate SPI functions with device specific control commands. (Q, 7:54-65; 8:8-
`
`14). In this way, a user can build a motion control application program from API
`
`functions. The running of that application program causes the API functions to be
`
`translated into SPI functions by the component code, and the SP1 functions to be
`
`translated into device—specific control commands by the software drivers. As
`
`stated in the ’236 patent at column 8, lines 55-59:
`
`V
`
`‘
`
`Finally, the ’236 patent discloses that the software system operates on a
`
`single computer system. The specification explains, with reference to its fig. 1,
`
`3 The ’236 Patent admits as prior art “the common programming practice in
`which drivers are provided for hardware such as printers or the like. .
`(’236, 3: 1-
`3).
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,516,236 B]
`Page 14 of 70
`
`Page 5
`AMS
`
`Exhibit 2014
`
`RA V AMS
`
`IPR2017—00048
`
`

`

`ATTORNEY REFERENCE NO.: 8954-89860-02
`FILED VIA PRPS ON: November 21, 2012
`
`that the system “comprises a personal computer portion 12 having a hardware bus
`
`14, a plurality of motion control hardware controllers 16a, 16b, and 16c, and
`
`mechanical systems 18a, 18b, and 18c that interact with one or more objects (not
`
`shown) to be moved.” (Id., 6:9-13). Fig. 1 clearly illustrates that the system for
`
`generating the sequence of control commands, including the entire software
`
`system, the hardware bus, and the personal computer hardware, is contained within
`
`the personal computer 12. The specification further explains that “The hardware
`
`bus 14 provides the physical connections necessary for the computer 12 to
`
`communicate with the hardware controllers 16.” (Id., 6:20-22; see also, Id., 6:46-
`
`50). The specification also makes clear that “stream” components allow
`
`communication between drivers and motion control devices, and are implemented
`
`via a PC Bus or a Serial Port. (Id., 17:42-48; 18:11-34).
`
`
`
`The specification also makes repeated reference to the use of OLE and OLE
`
`2.0 for communication between components. At the time the ’897 patent was
`
`filed, OLE was capable of providing communication only between components on
`
`a single computer. (See, e.g., Christensen, 1:60 – 2:24). Thus, the system
`
`described in the ’236 Patent is confined to a single personal computer.
`
`B. Middleware: Microsoft Windows & WOSA
`
`During the 1980s, “device independence” referred to the practice of using
`
`“middleware” (i.e. an application programming interface or API) between
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,516,236 B1
`Page 15 of 70
`
`Page 6
`AMS
`Exhibit 2014
`RA v AMS
`IPR2017-00048
`
`

`

`ATTORNEY REFERENCE NO.: 8954-89860-02
`FILED VIA PRPS ON: November 21, 2012
`
`application programs and hardware devices. In Windows 3.1, the operating system
`
`incorporated middleware for a variety of standard computer peripherals,
`
`particularly displays and printers. (See DDAG). Thus, an application (e.g., MS
`
`Word) could draw/print the same content on any compatible display or printer.
`
`Long before the Prior Applications were filed, Microsoft was extending
`
`device independence to various devices/data via its Windows Open Services
`
`Architecture (“WOSA”) and Object Linking and Embedding (“OLE”)
`
`technologies. (Cashin at 6). Microsoft published several extensions for WOSA,
`
`including WOSA/XRT and WOSA/XFS.
`
`In view of the above, the technique of creating a middleware API to improve
`
`reliability and efficiency was well-known and commonly practiced in the art.
`
`C.
`
`“Motion Control Devices”
`
`RGB asserts a broad meaning for “motion control” in its Patents and the
`
`Litigation. The ’236 Patent states that the “purpose of a motion control device is to
`
`move an object in a desired manner” (’236, 1:18-19) and that “the principles of the
`
`present invention are generally applicable to any mechanical system that generates
`
`movement based on a control signal. The scope of the present invention should
`
`thus be determined based on the claims appended hereto and not the following
`
`detailed description.” (Id., 1:34-40). Further, RGB has alleged that process control
`
`systems infringe the claims. (See generally, RGB PIC).
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,516,236 B1
`Page 16 of 70
`
`Page 7
`AMS
`Exhibit 2014
`RA v AMS
`IPR2017-00048
`
`

`

`ATTORNEY REFERENCE NO.: 8954-89860-02
`FILED VIA PRPS ON: November 21, 2012
`
`The majority of computer peripherals are “motion control device” under the
`
`above definition. Tape drives and hard drives have precision motors that can be
`
`finely controlled to read/write data from a moving medium. In some cases, another
`
`motor moves a magnetic or laser “head” across the surface. In others, the media
`
`may be removable, and in fact, automatically retrieved/stored from an attached
`
`storage library. Long ago, graphic plotters printed high resolution drawings. In a
`
`typical desktop plotter, one stepper motor moved the paper along one axis, while
`
`another motor moved the pen along a perpendicular axis. (HP90, A-6 (describing
`
`a pen axis and a paper axis); HP85, 27-28 (describing the orientation of a sheet of
`
`paper with respect to a pen axis). See generally, HP77; HP86). Additional
`
`motors/relays allowed the pen holder to select different colored pens.
`
`If “motion control” is interpreted as broadly as suggested by column 1 of the
`
`specification, then the Windows operating system configured to read/write data
`
`from a network file server necessarily invalidates all of the claims.
`
`D. The Confluence of WOSA and “Motion Control Devices”
`
`The system disclosed in the ’236 Patent is exclusively described using
`
`WOSA and OLE. Yet, the ’236 Patent baldly asserts that “[t]he WOSA model has
`
`no relation to motion control devices.” (’236, 2:66-67).
`
`Roy-G-Biv’s President and CEO Dave Brown (first named inventor on the
`
`’236 Patent) has expressly contradicted this statement:
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,516,236 B1
`Page 17 of 70
`
`Page 8
`AMS
`Exhibit 2014
`RA v AMS
`IPR2017-00048
`
`

`

`ATTORNEY REFERENCE NO.: 8954-89860-02
`FILED VIA PRPS ON: November 21, 2012
`
`At ROY-G-BIV, we found WOSA to be an excellent framework that
`
`brings together all proprietary motion control command languages
`
`under one API. We have designed and developed a WOSA-compliant,
`
`OLE-based technology called XMC. Patent pending XMC is an open
`
`system for motion control, designed for software application
`
`developers. (Holloway, page 5).
`
`
`
`As explained below, WOSA/XFS (and the WOSA framework generally)
`
`was directed to “motion control devices” and thus, highly relevant to patentability.
`
`III. APPROPRIATE PRIORITY DATE FOR THE ’236 PATENT CLAIMS
`
`Section IX of the ’236 Patent was not present in the disclosure of the ’897
`
`patent, thus RGB cannot claim priority to the ’897 patent for claims which are
`
`supported only by the material in section IX. Claims supported by this material
`
`can claim priority no earlier than the filing of the ’385 Patent on May 30, 1996.
`
`Further, as explained above, the claimed system is confined to a single
`
`personal computer. In co-pending litigation, RGB has asserted that the claims
`
`cover networked systems. (See generally, RGB PIC, Ex. B). RGB cannot argue
`
`for such a construction here without losing their claim of priority to May 30, 1995.
`
`See, e.g., PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 552 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2008); Chiron Corp. v Genentech, Inc., 363 F.3d 1247, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,516,236 B1
`Page 18 of 70
`
`Page 9
`AMS
`Exhibit 2014
`RA v AMS
`IPR2017-00048
`
`

`

`ATTORNEY REFERENCE NO.: 8954-89860-02
`FILED VIA PRPS ON: November 21, 2012
`
`IV. PRINCIPLES OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
`
`specification (“BRI”). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 (b). For this proceeding,4 each term
`
`should be given its plain meaning, except as indicated otherwise in this petition,
`
`which must be at least as broad as the courts have used in litigation.5 Further, RGB
`
`has made clear statements regarding the claims in prior reexaminations of the ’236
`
`and related patents, and in public, some of which are highly relevant and cited
`
`herein. See, e.g., MPEP 2172.
`
`V. THE PRIOR ART
`
`A. The Gertz Thesis
`
`Gertz describes the efforts (and the success) of researchers at Carnegie
`
`Mellon University (“CMU”) to develop a visual programming environment
`
`(“VPE”) called “Onika.” (Gertz, § 1.3). Onika provides a software system that
`
`allows the rapid development of device-independent motion control application
`
`programs. (Id., § 1.1-1.2). The Onika software system runs on the Chimera real-
`
`time operating system (also designed at CMU), and is capable of creating,
`
`
`4 ABB reserves the right to argue different claim constructions in litigation.
`5 See, e.g., In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The ’236 patent
`was the subject of prior litigation, in the case captioned Roy-G-Biv Corp. v.
`FANUC Ltd. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-00418-DF, and in which RGB filed a
`Markman Brief and a Markman Order was issued. (RGB Markman Brief,
`Markman Order).
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,516,236 B1
`Page 19 of 70
`
`Page 10
`AMS
`Exhibit 2014
`RA v AMS
`IPR2017-00048
`
`

`

`ATTORNEY REFERENCE NO.: 8954-89860-02
`FILED VIA PRPS ON: November 21, 2012
`
`simulating, and executing motion control application programs which are capable
`
`of controlling a variety of motion control devices. (Id., § 1.1; § 1.3). Onika
`
`provides a VPE in which application subsystems are represented iconically,
`
`meaning that no knowledge of textual coding rules is required to build motion
`
`control applications. (Id., § 1.3). Onika comprises lower and upper level
`
`interfaces and a host of software modules of varying complexity. (Id., § 4). These
`
`features allow a user to create complex motion control application programs
`
`incrementally, starting with low level modules and building increasingly complex
`
`sequences of commands. (Id., § 4).
`
`In the lower level interface, a user interacts with “tasks,” which are the
`
`lowest level unit of combination for the creation of an application program. (Id., §
`
`3.3). Tasks represent instructions to perform some motion control operation, such
`
`as “read data from trackball” or “perform forward kinematics.” (Id., § 3.3).
`
`Working in the lower level, the user can combine tasks to create “configurations,”
`
`which represent instructions to perform more complex motion control operations,
`
`such as “move to x.” (Id., § 3.3). Configurations can then be used to build even
`
`more complex motion control operations in the higher level interface. (Id., § 4).
`
`When assembled, configurations of tasks perform “jobs” in the higher level
`
`interface. (Id., § 3.2.4). In the higher level interface, a job and a “target” can be
`
`combined to create an “action.” (Id., § 3.2.8). A target is, for example, the “x” in
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,516,236 B1
`Page 20 of 70
`
`Page 11
`AMS
`Exhibit 2014
`RA v AMS
`IPR2017-00048
`
`

`

`ATTORNEY REFERENCE NO.: 8954-89860-02
`FILED VIA PRPS ON: November 21, 2012
`
`the operation “move to x,” and actions include, for example, “move to the peg.”
`
`(Id., § 3.2.6; § 3.2.8). The user can then create “control subsystems” by combining
`
`actions or previously created control subsystems (in turn made up of sequences of
`
`actions). (Id., § 3.2.9). Control subsystems include, for example, “place all of the
`
`pegs in the appropriate holes.” (Id., § 3.2.9). Finally, an application can be created
`
`by combining subsystems for execution in parallel. (Id., § 3.2.10). Applications
`
`include, for example, the instructions for two motion control devices to work
`
`together to assemble parts in a specific order. (Id., § 3.2.10).
`
`Gertz also describes functionality which allows the Onika system to operate
`
`over a network and the capability to access soft