Case 2:15-cv-00898-RWS Document 159-1 Filed 08/05/16 Page 1 of 91 PageID #: 5260
`
`Automation Middleware Solutions, Inc.
`v.
`lnvensvs svstems, Inc. et al.
`I lead caseJ
`
`In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
`Texarkana Division
`Judge Robert W. Schroeder Ill
`Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Under 35 U.S.C. 101 (Alice)
`August 3, 2016
`
`BRAGALONE CONROY PC
`
`Page 1 of 91
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00898-RWS Document 159-1 Filed 08/05/16 Page 2 of 91 PageID #: 5261
`
`Section 101 and Its bceptions
`
`Section 101 "defines the subject matter that may be
`patented under the Patent Act." ... "Section 101 thus
`specifies four independent categories of inventions or
`discoveries that are eligible for patent protection:
`processes, machines, manufactures, and
`compositions of matter."
`
`Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593, 601 (201 0).
`
`Patent protection is not available for " ... laws of nature,
`physical phenomena, and abstract ideas."
`
`Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 09 (1980).
`
`2
`
`BRAGA LONE CON ROY Pc
`
`Page 2 of 91
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00898-RWS Document 159-1 Filed 08/05/16 Page 3 of 91 PageID #: 5262
`
`The Scope of Section 1011s Broad
`
`The Supreme Court found that "[i]n choosing such
`expansive terms . . . Congress plainly contemplated
`that the patent laws would be given wide scope," ...
`
`Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 308 (1980).
`
`3
`
`BRAGA LONE CONROY PC
`
`Page 3 of 91
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00898-RWS Document 159-1 Filed 08/05/16 Page 4 of 91 PageID #: 5263
`
`The Disqualitvinu Feature Must Be
`Manifest and Overriding
`
`"... this disqualifying characteristic should exhibit
`itself so manifestly as to override the broad statutory
`categories of eligible subject matter and the statutory
`context
`that directs primary attention on
`the
`patentability criteria of the rest of the Patent Act."
`
`Research Corp. Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 627
`F. 3d 859, 868 (Fed. Cir. 201 O)(emphasis added)
`
`4
`
`BflAGALONE CONROY PC
`
`Page 4 of 91
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00898-RWS Document 159-1 Filed 08/05/16 Page 5 of 91 PageID #: 5264
`
`The Two Step Test ol AlictJ
`
`1. "determine whether the claims at issue are directed
`to a atent-ineli ible conce t·"
`
`2. If so "consider the elements of each claim both
`individuall
`and as an ordered combination
`to
`determine whether the additional elements transform
`the nature of
`the claim
`into a patent-eligible
`application."
`
`5
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1334
`(Fed. Cir. 2016) quoting, Alice Corp. Pty Ltd. v. CLS
`Bank lnt'l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014)(internal
`quotations omitted)(emphasis added)
`
`BRAGALONE CONROY Pc
`
`Page 5 of 91
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00898-RWS Document 159-1 Filed 08/05/16 Page 6 of 91 PageID #: 5265
`
`Emerson's Alleged Abstract Idea Is a Moving Target
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`translating
`
`Emerson alleges that the claims are directed to no less than six
`different abstract ideas and concepts:
`1.
`"moving objects
`in desired ways by communicating and
`commands";
`"implementing plant worker commands on a computer by translating them to
`a language understood by a device so it can move in a desired manner";
`"using an intermediary (a software layer) to translate or correlate commands
`from an upper
`level application program
`(what
`the plant worker
`types/commands) to a lower level motion control device, so the device can
`understand the command and perform the desired movement";
`"communicating commands to motion control devices in a way those
`devices can understand";
`"a middle translating layer"; and
`"moving an object in a desired manner by communicating commands."
`
`4.
`
`5.
`6.
`
`6
`
`Dkt. 50 at 1-2, 4, 13-14.
`
`BRAGALONE CONROY PC
`
`Page 6 of 91
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00898-RWS Document 159-1 Filed 08/05/16 Page 7 of 91 PageID #: 5266
`
`Emerson's Alleged Abstract Idea Is a Moving Target
`
`Because Emerson fails to articulate how, let alone prove that,
`each claim relates to the same abstract idea, its motion should be
`denied.
`
`Cronos Techs., LLC v. Expedia, Inc., C.A. No. 13-1538, 2015 WL 5234040, at *3 (D.
`Del. Sept. 8, 2015) (concluding that defendants had failed to show that asserted
`dependent claims covered
`the same alleged abstract idea as an asserted
`independent claim, where defendants proposed "at least four different versions of
`the abstract idea").
`
`Emerson's failure to pinpoint a precise abstract idea covered by
`the claims also shows that this case is not "straightforward" like
`Alice and other cases, where
`the claims plainly covered
`fundamental economic and business practices.
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`7
`
`BRAGALONE CONROY ec
`
`Page 7 of 91
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00898-RWS Document 159-1 Filed 08/05/16 Page 8 of 91 PageID #: 5267
`
`APPivinu the Exceptions Too Broadlv
`Would Eviscerate Patent law
`
`"The Court has recognized, however, that too broad an
`interpretation of this exclusionary principle could
`eviscerate patent law. For all inventions at some level
`embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of
`nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas."
`
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132
`S.Ct. 1289, 1293, (2012)(internal cites and quotations
`omitted).
`
`8
`
`BRAGA LONE CONROY PC
`
`Page 8 of 91
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00898-RWS Document 159-1 Filed 08/05/16 Page 9 of 91 PageID #: 5268
`
`APPivingthe Exceptions Too Broadlv
`Would Eviscerate Patent law
`
`"Thus, in Diehr the Court pointed out that a process is
`not unpatentable simply because it contains a law of
`nature or a mathematical algorithm. It added that an
`application of a law of nature or mathematical formula
`to a known structure or process may well be deserving
`of patent protection."
`
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132
`S.Ct. 1289, 1293, (2012) )(internal cites and quotations
`omitted).
`
`9
`
`BRAGALONE CONROY PC
`
`Page 9 of 91
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00898-RWS Document 159-1 Filed 08/05/16 Page 10 of 91 PageID #: 5269
`
`"Abstract Idea" Is Not Subiectto a Definitive Rule
`
`"The Supreme Court has not established a definitive
`rule to determine what constitutes an "abstract idea"
`sufficient to satisfy the first step of the Mayo/Alice
`inquiry."
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1334
`(Fed. Cir. 2016)
`
`10
`
`BRAGA LONE CONROY Pc
`
`Page 10 of 91
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00898-RWS Document 159-1 Filed 08/05/16 Page 11 of 91 PageID #: 5270
`
`lntish Helotes Emerson's Arguments
`
`Emerson's Argument
`"Because computer
`software comprises a set of
`instructions, the first step of
`Alice is, for the most part, a
`given; i.e., computer(cid:173)
`implemented patents
`generally involve abstract
`ideas." Dkt. 50 at 13.
`
`Federal Circuit Law - Enfish
`"We do not read Alice to broadly hold that all
`improvements in computer related technology are
`inherently abstract .... Nor do we think that claims
`directed to software, as opposed to hardware, are
`inherently abstract. Software can make non-abstract
`improvements to computer technology just as
`hardware improvements can .... We thus see no
`reason to conclude that all claims directed to
`improvements in computer-related technology,
`including those directed to software, are abstract ....
`Therefore, we find it relevant to ask whether the
`claims are directed to an improvement to
`computer functionality versus being directed to an
`abstract idea, even at the first step of the Alice
`analysis."
`• Enfish, 822 F. 3d at 1335 (highlighting added).
`
`11
`
`BRAGALONE CONROY PC
`
`Page 11 of 91
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00898-RWS Document 159-1 Filed 08/05/16 Page 12 of 91 PageID #: 5271
`
`In/ish Refutes Emerson's Arguments
`
`Emerson's Argument
`"Because computer
`software comprises a set of
`instructions, the first step of
`Alice is, for the most part, a
`given; i.e., computer(cid:173)
`implemented patents
`generally involve abstract
`ideas." Dkt. 50 at 13.
`
`Federal Circuit Law - Enfish
`"[A/ice's] formulation plainly contemplates that the
`first step of the inquiry is a meaningful one, i.e., that a
`substantial class of claims are not directed to a
`patent-ineligible concept. The "directed to" inquiry,
`therefore, cannot simply ask whether the
`claims involve a patent-ineligible concept. ... Rather,
`the "directed to" inquiry applies a stage-one filter to
`claims, considered in light of the specification, based
`on whether "their character as a whole is directed to
`excluded subject matter."
`• Enfish, 822 F. 3d at 1335 (highlighting added).
`
`12
`
`BRAGA LONE CONROY PC
`
`Page 12 of 91
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00898-RWS Document 159-1 Filed 08/05/16 Page 13 of 91 PageID #: 5272
`
`In/ish Helotes Emerson's Arguments
`
`Emerson's Argument
`"When trying to characterize the idea of a
`patent '[c]ourts should recite a claim's purpose
`at a reasonably high level of generality.' Enfish,
`LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 56 F. Supp. 3d 1167,
`· 1173 (C.D. Cal. 2014); see also Open Text S.A.
`v. Box, Inc., 78 F. Supp. 3d 1043,1046 (N.D.
`Cal. 2015) (at the first prong of the patent
`eligibility inquiry, a court 'distills the gist of the
`claim')." Dkt. 50 at 13-14.
`
`"[S]tripped of the technical jargon ... and
`further shorn of the typically obtuse syntax of
`patents, the focus of the claims is simply
`commands to effectuate motion." Dkt. 50 at 14.
`
`Federal Circuit Law- Enfish
`"The district court concluded that
`the claims were directed to the
`abstract idea of 'storing,
`organizing, and retrieving
`memory in a logic table' or, more
`simply, 'the concept of organizing
`information using tabular formats.'
`... However, describing the
`claims at such a high level of
`abstraction and untethered from
`the language of the claims all but
`ensures that the exceptions to §
`101 swallow the rule."
`• Enfish, 822 F. 3d at 133 7 (highlighting
`added).
`
`13
`
`BRAGAI.ONE CONROY PC
`
`Page 13 of 91
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00898-RWS Document 159-1 Filed 08/05/16 Page 14 of 91 PageID #: 5273
`
`lntish Refutes Emerson's Arguments
`
`Emerson's Argument
`"That some of the claims of some of
`the asserted patents, include
`hardware limitations does not alter
`this conclusion .... In any event at
`the first stage of the eligibility
`inquiry, 'the Court rna~ isnore the
`physical components,' particularly
`when ... the claimed hardware is
`part of the functional organization
`and configuration of the software
`system." Dkt. 50 at 18.
`
`Federal Circuit Law - Enfish
`"Similarly, that the improvement is not
`defined by reference to 'physical'
`components does not doom the claims. To
`hold otherwise risks resurrecting a bright-line
`machine-or-transformation test, or creating a
`categorical ban on software patents. Much of
`the advancement made in computer
`technology consists of improvements to
`software that, by their very nature, may not
`be defined by particular physical features but
`rather by logical structures and processes."
`• Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1339 (highlighting added) .
`
`14
`
`BRAGALONE CONROY PC
`
`Page 14 of 91
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00898-RWS Document 159-1 Filed 08/05/16 Page 15 of 91 PageID #: 5274
`
`Benefits Of The Claimed Invention Indicate
`Patent Eligible Subiect Maner
`
`"Moreover, our conclusion that the claims are directed
`to an improvement of an existing technology is
`bolstered by the specification's teachings that the
`claimed invention achieves other benefits over
`conventional databases, such as increased flexibility,
`faster search times, and smaller memory
`requirements.''
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1337
`(Fed. Cir. 2016)(citations omitted)
`
`15
`
`BRAGALONE CONROY PC
`
`Page 15 of 91
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00898-RWS Document 159-1 Filed 08/05/16 Page 16 of 91 PageID #: 5275
`
`Improvements To Computer Functions Indicates
`Patent Eligible Subiect Maner
`
`"Moreover, we are not persuaded that the invention's
`ability to run on a general-purpose computer dooms
`the claims. Unlike the claims at issue in Alice or, more
`recently in Versata Development Group v. SAP
`America, Inc., 793 F.3d 1306 (Fed.Cir.2015), which
`Microsoft alleges to be especially similar to the
`present case, ... , the claims here are directed to an
`improvement in the functioning of a computer."
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1338
`(Fed. Cir. 2016)(citations omitted)
`
`16
`
`6RAGALO NE CO N ROY PC
`
`Page 16 of 91
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00898-RWS Document 159-1 Filed 08/05/16 Page 17 of 91 PageID #: 5276
`
`Improvements To Computer Functionalitv Itself
`Are 11111 Abstract Ideas
`
`is on an
`focus of the claims
`'the plain
`"When
`improvement to computer functionality itself, not on
`economic or other tasks for which a computer is used
`in its ordinary capacity,' the claims are not directed to
`an abstract idea."
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335
`(Fed. Cir. 2016)(citations omitted)(emphasis added)
`
`17
`
`BRAGALONE CONROY PC
`
`Page 17 of 91
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00898-RWS Document 159-1 Filed 08/05/16 Page 18 of 91 PageID #: 5277
`
`Specific APPlications Or Improvements Indicate
`And Inventive Concept Under Alice
`
`"[l]nventions with specific applications or
`improvements to technologies in the marketplace are
`not likely to be so abstract that they override the
`statutory language and framework of the Patent Act."
`
`Research Corp. Techs. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859, 869
`(Fed. Cir. 201 0)
`
`18
`
`6RAGALONE CONROY PC
`
`Page 18 of 91
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00898-RWS Document 159-1 Filed 08/05/16 Page 19 of 91 PageID #: 5278
`
`The Claims are Directed to Specific
`Improvements in the Computerized Control
`of Motion Control Systems Embodied in
`Hardware:
`
`-Improvements in the Independent
`Control of Motion Control Devices
`- Improved Functionality and
`lnteroperability Across Devices
`
`BRAGA LONE CONROY PC
`
`Page 19 of 91
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00898-RWS Document 159-1 Filed 08/05/16 Page 20 of 91 PageID #: 5279
`
`The Claimed Inventions Are Directed To
`Motion control svstems
`
`(12) United States Patent
`Brown et al.
`
`(1 o) Patent No.:
`(45) Date of' Patent:
`
`US 6,516,236 Bl
`Feh.4,2003
`
`(54) MOTION CONTI~OL YSTI!.MS
`
`FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS
`
`(75)
`
`Inventors: David W. Brown; .JayS. Clark, both
`of Bingen, WA (US)
`
`(73) Assignee: Roy-G-Biv Corporation, Bingen, WA
`(US)
`
`( *) Notice:
`
`Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this
`patent is extended or adjusted under 35
`U.S.C. 154(b) by 0 days.
`
`EP
`EP
`EP
`EP
`EP
`GH
`JP
`wo
`wo
`wo
`
`0442676 i\2
`0 281 427 131
`0508912 Al
`0 583 908 A2
`0275826 Al
`2 224 H% A
`59 228473
`wo 92/11731
`wo 93/08654
`wo 95/07504
`
`8/1991
`8/1992
`10/1992
`2/1994
`7/1998
`12/1991
`6/1983
`7/1992
`4/1993
`3/1995
`
`£YT'TTnn DTTDT Tr"A'T'TA?I.TC'
`
`20
`
`'236 Patent at p. 1.
`
`BRAGA LONE CONROY Pc
`
`Page 20 of 91
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00898-RWS Document 159-1 Filed 08/05/16 Page 21 of 91 PageID #: 5280
`
`The Claimed Invention Is Directed To A Unique Class
`Not An Abstract Idea
`
`(12) United States Patent
`Brown et al.
`
`(to) Patent No.:
`(45) Date of Patent:
`
`US 6,516,236 Bl
`I~'eb. 4, 2003
`
`(54) MOTION CONTROL SYSTEMS
`
`FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS
`
`(75)
`
`Inventors: David W. Rmwn; .Jay S. Clark, both
`of Bingen, WA (US)
`
`(73) Assignee: Roy-G-Riv Corporation, Bingen, WA
`(US)
`
`( *) Notice:
`
`Suhjectto any disclaimer, the term of this
`patent is extended or adjusted under 35
`U.S.C. 154(b) by 0 days.
`
`(21) Appl. No.: 10/021,669
`
`(22) Filed:
`
`Dl'C. 10, 2001
`
`Related U.S. Application Data
`
`(63) Continuation of application No. 09/191,981, filed on Nov.
`13, 1998, which is a continuation of application No. 08/656,
`421, filed on May 30, t996, now Put. No. 5,R67,3R5, which
`is a continuation-in-part of application No. OR/454,736, filed
`on May 30, 1995, now Pat. No. 5,691,897.
`Int. Cl.7
`.......... ....... .. ...... ...... ........ . ... ..... G05B 19/18
`(51)
`(52) U.S. Ct .
`............................................ 700/56; 700/87
`(58) Field of Search ................................ 700/56, l, 87,
`700/67; 703/25
`
`F.P
`EP
`EP
`F.P
`F.P
`GB
`JP
`wo
`WO
`wo
`
`R/t'l'll
`0442676 A2
`0 281 427 B1
`8/1992
`10/1992
`0508912 A!
`2/t994
`0 583 908 A2
`7/1998
`0275R26 AI
`12/1991
`2 224 896 A
`6/1983
`59 228473
`wo 92/11731
`7/1992
`WO 93/08654
`4/1993
`wo 95/07504
`3/1995
`OTHER PUBLICATIONS
`Wosa Backgrounder: Delivering Enterprise Services to the
`Windows- based Desktop, Jul. 1993, Microsoft Develop(cid:173)
`ment Library; pp. 1-19.
`(List continued on next page.)
`Primarr Examiner-Leo Picard
`Assistarlt Examiner-Zoila Cabrera
`(74) Allorney, Ageflf, or Firm-Michael R. Schacht
`ABSTRACT
`(57)
`
`A system for motion control in which an application is
`developed that is independent from the actual motion control
`hardware used to implement the system. The system com(cid:173)
`prises a software system that employs an application pro-
`
`21
`
`'236 Patent at p. 1.
`
`BRAGA LONE CONROY rc
`
`Page 21 of 91
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00898-RWS Document 159-1 Filed 08/05/16 Page 22 of 91 PageID #: 5281
`
`The Claimed Invention Is Directed To A Unique Class
`Not An Abstract Idea
`
`"The USPC is a system for organizing all U.S. patent
`documents and many other technical documents into
`relatively small collections based on common subject
`matter. Each subject matter division in the USPC
`includes a major component called a class and a
`minor component called a subclass."
`
`Overview of the U.S. Patent Classification System;
`http://www. us pto.gov/s ites/defa u lt/fi les/patents/res
`ources/classification/overview.pdf
`
`22
`
`BRAGA LONE CONROY ec
`
`Page 22 of 91
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00898-RWS Document 159-1 Filed 08/05/16 Page 23 of 91 PageID #: 5282
`
`The Claimed Invention Is Directed To A Unique Class
`Not An Abstract Idea
`
`"A class generally delineates one technology from
`another. Subclasses delineate processes, structural
`features, and functional features of the subject matter
`encompassed within the scope of a class. Every class
`has a unique alphanumeric identifier, as do most
`subclasses."
`
`Overview of the U.S. Patent Classification System;
`http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/patents/res
`ources/classification/overview.pdf
`
`23
`
`BRAGA LONE CONROY PC
`
`Page 23 of 91
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00898-RWS Document 159-1 Filed 08/05/16 Page 24 of 91 PageID #: 5283
`
`The Claimed Invention Is Directed To A Unique Class
`Not An Abstract Idea
`
`"For U.S. patent documents, the classification of
`'invention information' is mandatory, . . . "Invention
`information" is the technical subject matter disclosed
`in a document that is new and non-obvious to one
`having ordinary skill in the technical field ... For U.S.
`patent documents, the invention information is almost
`always in the claims."
`
`Overview of the U.S. Patent Classification System;
`http://www. us pto.gov/s ites/defa u lt/fi les/patents/res
`ources/classification/overview.pdf (emphasis
`added)
`
`24
`
`BRAGAL O NE CONROY Pc
`
`Page 24 of 91
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00898-RWS Document 159-1 Filed 08/05/16 Page 25 of 91 PageID #: 5284
`
`The Claimed Invention Is Directed To A Unique Class
`Not An Abstract Idea
`
`"lnt'l Class G05B 19/18--Numerical control [NC], i.e. automatically
`operating machines,
`in particular machine tools, e.g.
`in a
`manufacturing environment, so as
`to execute positioning,
`movement or co-ordinated operations by means of programme
`data in numerical form (G05B 19/418 takes precedence)"
`
`"lnt'l Class G0 58 19/418--Total factory control, i.e. centrally
`controlling a plurality of machines, e.g. direct or distributed
`numerical control [DNC], flexible manufacturing systems [FMS],
`integrated manufacturing systems [IMS], computer integrated
`manufacturing [CIM]"
`
`http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/cpc/html/cp
`c-GOSB.html
`
`25
`
`BRAGALONE CONROY PC
`
`Page 25 of 91
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00898-RWS Document 159-1 Filed 08/05/16 Page 26 of 91 PageID #: 5285
`
`The Claimed Inventions Are Directed To
`Motion Control svstems
`
`26
`
`BRAGA LONE CONROY Pc
`
`Page 26 of 91
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00898-RWS Document 159-1 Filed 08/05/16 Page 27 of 91 PageID #: 5286
`
`Example Motion Control Device
`
`Controller
`
`Mechanical
`System
`
`Motion Control Device
`
`27
`
`BRAGA LONE CONROY PC
`
`Page 27 of 91
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00898-RWS Document 159-1 Filed 08/05/16 Page 28 of 91 PageID #: 5287
`
`Prior An Problem--Hardware Dependence
`
`'236 Patent
`
`, Unih.•d Stnlt•s l~.ull·nl
`. .. ..... ,,~ ~.
`
`IIHIIIIImi,~.~!IIII,RH I II D
`I i i ··=··'
`, , l'o~l\111 '"-:
`t•s c •. ~u),vr. In
`ll.th uri'.Jhlll:
`
`I
`
`1
`
`:
`
`'
`
`1•-•11 II
`
`IL.• ~,, I"" \ 11!.
`,,,,,
`
`.... . ..... ....
`
`.
`
`'
`
`'
`''
`
`,
`
`II., 1"!"•1
`
`I
`
`•
`•
`
`1
`
`I
`
`•
`
`' .....
`••u
`
`"''"~"q llo .~ ... •'••·I•
`
`"While such low level programs
`offer the programmer
`substantially complete control
`over the hardware, these
`programs are highly hardware
`dependent."
`
`28
`
`'236 Patent, Col. 2, Ln. 1-4
`(emphasis added)
`
`Page 28 of 91
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00898-RWS Document 159-1 Filed 08/05/16 Page 29 of 91 PageID #: 5288
`
`Prior An Motion Control Systems Were
`Manufacturer Specific And Not Interoperable
`
`Driver #1
`
`Driver #3
`
`Motion Control
`Device #1
`
`Motion Control
`Device #2
`
`Motion Control
`Device #3
`
`29
`
`BRAGA LONE CONROY PC
`
`Page 29 of 91
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00898-RWS Document 159-1 Filed 08/05/16 Page 30 of 91 PageID #: 5289
`
`Coordinating the Operation ol
`Multiple Control Devices was Complex and lneHicient
`
`B fl AGA LO\J f- C 0 1,Hl0Y rc
`
`Page 30 of 91
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00898-RWS Document 159-1 Filed 08/05/16 Page 31 of 91 PageID #: 5290
`
`The Inventions' Improvements
`to Computerized Motion
`Control svstems
`
`31
`
`Ill
`
`BRAGA LONE CONROY PC
`
`Page 31 of 91
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00898-RWS Document 159-1 Filed 08/05/16 Page 32 of 91 PageID #: 5291
`
`Improvement to Computer Technolouv
`Hardware Independence
`
`'236 Patent
`
`, Uuill'tl Sh1h:"" Pall' Ill
`l lt uwu ••J ill..
`
`IIIIIII'II,H.IIIIIII,IIll Hill
`I '-"' t1,S ifd .lt. n1
`I d•. I, ~11111.1
`
`l ',oh lll ' " :
`ll~ h t~ l l'.d u ol :
`
`.
`
`'''' ~, 1_." l "~
`
`I• ••I 11
`
`.....
`..:: ..,.. ,.
`
`.. ,,
`.....
`........... .
`
`32
`
`"A system for motion control in
`which an application is developed
`that
`is
`independent
`from
`the
`actual motion control hardware
`used to implement the system."
`
`'236 Patent, Col. 4, Abstract
`
`Page 32 of 91
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00898-RWS Document 159-1 Filed 08/05/16 Page 33 of 91 PageID #: 5292
`
`Improvement to Computer Technolouv
`Hardware Independence
`
`'236 Patent
`
`llllllll~iiiii,I~I.I~IIIUI.IIIItl !UI m
`t ',"1 t•,:Oif•.!Jf'l HJ
`I d1, I, !.1111.\
`
`1' .. 11 111 '"· :
`11.11~ ul 1'-•1~ 111:
`
`,
`·
`
`. ' . '
`
`lU I a o
`
`' •
`
`.
`
`u
`~tr.· • l'l LJo
`
`lJnih:d Stah.'\ l'~•ll'lll
`lh"'"' ~~ .11,
`
`l• ·••otav .• .,, , .. , ,..._
`
`.. 1 ..
`
`~\
`
`I
`
`I ~ ~
`
`..
`
`II"~ I I' I
`
`Iii o l l \ \p i l " ullol•
`
`....... .
`
`"' ' I
`
`•
`
`•·· ··
`.. ~ ........ '
`
`I ~ "
`
`'
`
`.. ,.
`
`33
`
`"The use of component functions
`that are separate from driver
`functions isolates the
`programmer from the
`complexities of programming to a
`specific motion control device.
`This arrangement also allows a
`given application program to be
`used without modification for any
`motion control device having a
`software driver associated
`therewith."
`
`'236 Patent, Col. 4, Ln. 3-8
`
`Page 33 of 91
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00898-RWS Document 159-1 Filed 08/05/16 Page 34 of 91 PageID #: 5293
`
`The Solution: Hardware Independence
`MJddleware Facilitates lnteroperabilitv
`
`IKi. L(..:omprisingort:J(iS.I/\, Lll.lC, JJ), lLand lF)
`is a syst~m int~radion map or a motion <.:ontrul syst~lll
`~·unstru<.:tcd in accordanL'c with. ;~ml cmbodying, thc prin(cid:173)
`..:iplt•s or tlw prcs~lll inv~ntiun;
`. 236 J'Jtc nL Co l. 4. I n. 65-67
`
`PERSONAL
`
`34
`
`14
`
`BRAGALONE CONROY PC
`
`Page 34 of 91
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00898-RWS Document 159-1 Filed 08/05/16 Page 35 of 91 PageID #: 5294
`
`The Solution: Hardware Independence
`Middleware Facilitates lnteroperabilitv
`
`Applications
`
`Middleware
`(Motion
`Control
`Component)
`
`Drivers
`
`v·3!:
`a
`~
`
`~--
`~--·~'
`
`IS..
`
`20b _
`
`.___ _
`
`_
`
`35
`
`BRAGA LONE CONROY PC
`
`Page 35 of 91
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00898-RWS Document 159-1 Filed 08/05/16 Page 36 of 91 PageID #: 5295
`
`The Solution: Hardware Independence
`Middleware Facilitates lnteroperabilitv
`
`Motion Control
`Component
`
`Driver #1
`
`Driver #2
`
`Driver #3
`
`OIOn
`Control Device
`
`010n
`Control Device
`
`OIOn
`Control Device
`
`36
`
`BRAGA LONE CO N ROY PC
`
`Page 36 of 91
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00898-RWS Document 159-1 Filed 08/05/16 Page 37 of 91 PageID #: 5296
`
`The Solution: Hardware Independence
`Middleware Facilitates lnteroperabilitv
`
`Application Program
`
`Applications
`
`Component Function B
`
`Component Function C
`
`Middleware
`(Motion Control
`Component)
`
`Component Code
`Associating Component
`Functions With Driver
`Functions
`
`CelllpOHilt Fundioa A
`
`f C~mpone~t ~unction B]
`
`r~o0,p?..nent Fu·n~ti~n cj
`
`[ Driver Function X
`
`[ Driver Function Z
`
`Service Provider r(cid:173)
`lnteriaces (SPI) L...
`
`Drivers
`
`Driver
`Function X
`Driver
`Code
`
`Driver
`Function Z
`Driver
`Code
`
`Driver
`Code
`
`Driver
`Code
`
`Driver
`Function Z
`Driver
`Code
`
`Driver
`Driver
`Driver
`Function X Function Y Function Z
`Driver
`Driver
`Driver
`Code
`Code
`Code
`
`SPI- Driver 3
`
`Stream 1
`
`Stream 2
`
`Stream 3
`
`Motion Control Device 1
`
`Motion Control Device 2
`
`Motion Control Device 3
`
`37
`
`BRAGALONE CONilOY ec
`
`Page 37 of 91
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00898-RWS Document 159-1 Filed 08/05/16 Page 38 of 91 PageID #: 5297
`
`The Solution: Hardware Independence
`Middleware Facilitates lnteroperabilitv
`
`Application Program
`
`Applications
`
`Component Function A
`
`Component Function B
`
`Component Function C
`
`Middleware
`(Motion Control
`Component)
`
`Component Code
`Associating Component
`Functions With Driver
`Functions
`
`[ Component Function A J
`
`•; Component Function B
`
`----..
`i Component Function~
`
`Driver Function X
`
`[ Driver Function Y
`
`Service Provider C
`lnterfa es (SPI)
`
`Drivers
`
`SPI- Driver 2
`
`SPI - Driver 3
`
`Driver
`Function X
`Driver
`Code
`
`Driver
`Code
`
`Driver
`Code
`
`Driver
`Driver
`Function X Function Y
`Driver
`Driver
`Code
`Code
`
`Driver
`Function Z
`Driver
`Code
`
`Driver
`Function X
`Driver
`Code
`
`Driver
`Function Y
`Driver
`Code
`
`Driver
`Function Z
`Driver
`Code
`
`Stream 1
`
`Stream 2
`
`Stream 3
`
`Motion Control Device 1
`
`Motion Control Device 2
`
`Motion Control Device 3
`
`38
`
`8r?AGA I.ONF CONr\OY P<'
`
`Page 38 of 91
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00898-RWS Document 159-1 Filed 08/05/16 Page 39 of 91 PageID #: 5298
`
`Improvements to computer Technolouv
`Hardware Independence
`
`(a) [the claimed inventions] allow the creation of high-level
`motion control programs that are hardware independent, but
`offer programmability of base motion operations;
`
`(b) allow motion control drivers to communicate with hardware in
`a hardware independent manner; and
`(c) allow motion control streams, used by motion control drivers,
`to communicate with hardware in a hardware independent
`manner.
`
`See e.g. '236 patent, 3:27-42; '897 patent, 3:20-
`34; '058 patent, 3:52-62.
`
`39
`
`Page 39 of 91
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00898-RWS Document 159-1 Filed 08/05/16 Page 40 of 91 PageID #: 5299
`
`Improvement to Computer Technolouv
`Simulation Of Driver Functions
`
`'236 Patent
`
`I• .; I o\ 11.--u~o r" ' • ,~,
`
`...
`
`I
`
`lllo j - • •1•
`
`. . ..
`, .. -.,: ..
`~.~ ....... .. ,....,.. . ........ .
`' ~ ..
`
`'
`
`" ·
`
`I
`
`p11 •1
`I Uo...,..., .,
`
`,
`
`"
`
`· 1'.111111 '"· :
`11.1h ull'lhnl:
`
`li. ... {I,:'Hd.l1'1111
`111 1,!1111 t
`
`\
`
`•
`
`I
`
`" ' '
`
`~ q
`
`... ""' •'"''
`
`"Where the software drivers do
`not support the extended driver
`functions, the functionality
`associated with the extended
`driver functions can normally be
`simulated using some
`combination of core driver
`functions."
`
`Summary of the Invention; '236 Patent, Col. 4, Ln. 14-17
`
`40
`
`Page 40 of 91
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00898-RWS Document 159-1 Filed 08/05/16 Page 41 of 91 PageID #: 5300
`
`Core Driver Functions-Primitive Operations
`Extended Driver Functions-Non-Primitive Operations
`
`'236 Patent
`
`, llnih:cl Slah.•s J•ull·nl
`1 ~111\U•IIII I
`
`Ill 11111111,11~.1~11,11111 UU
`, "· l'..a•u•• '~·:
`li,.., f1,~1o.Bfl Bl
`1 "IJ.IIIl u[ I' ..all Ill:
`1th f ,!LIIol,\
`
`1
`
`'
`
`. . .. ....... -,... -
`
`'
`
`II oid ~~ l!.o.,~n f., ' l '"'
`\ \ \ i l '
`
`I
`
`'
`
`"Driver functions may be either core
`driver functions or extended driver
`functions. Core driver functions are
`associated with primitive operations,
`while extended driver functions are
`associated with non-primitive
`operations."
`
`'236 Patent, Col. 7, Ln. 43-46
`
`.... ,. ... ,,,, .....
`. '
`.
`..
`" .
`
`'
`
`•·
`
`..
`
`I
`
`f
`
`t,
`
`1
`
`U
`
`<o.
`
`.
`'
`. .
`. .
`. ·.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`.
`'
`. . .
`
`.
`
`I.,_
`
`•
`
`•:
`
`..._.
`
`, I I
`
`.
`
`,1.
`
`'
`
`·~ ..
`
`-..
`
`........ ,.
`.......
`..
`
`._
`
`''
`''""'1'"'''
`
`• \
`
`0
`
`..... ,
`\ .. ..
`...... , ......
`
`~'<>"' "" ""'' '
`
`•
`
`'
`. '
`. .
`
`.
`..
`
`>I
`
`I
`
`•
`
`I
`
`41
`
`Page 41 of 91
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00898-RWS Document 159-1 Filed 08/05/16 Page 42 of 91 PageID #: 5301
`
`Motion Control Operations
`Primitive v. Non-Primitive
`
`'236 Patent
`
`. lluih.•tl Slah:..,. 11.atL'III
`lll .. uu ~I ,11,
`
`••
`
`•
`
`\I•IILoo\ \'''<!(HI q~11 q,
`
`,,,
`
`,,,, . ., , ...,., .... , ....
`.
`'.
`
`.
`
`1<:. 1
`
`<I I ~ \j•(lo •
`
`<I 11
`
`' o
`
`I .. I •
`• ~~ot~ .....
`
`~ '" ''"'
`
`., \, ....
`.. ..
`
`...
`
`IIIIIIIIIIIIIU,I,I:_IIIIIID 1,1111 till 111111
`t:s t•.~HdJh 111
`I do
`I, !IIIIJ
`
`, , I'.,LI''' '":
`·
`IJ.1Lc 111 1'-Jillll:
`
`1
`
`' I
`
`"- ~
`
`.
`
`<
`
`IU
`
`t
`
`'
`
`-..
`
`•
`
`I
`
`1" 0 L.- IIIoo • ..
`
`· ~
`
`"Examples of primitive operations
`include ... MOVE RELATIVE, .. and
`cannot be emulated using other motion
`control operations."
`
`"Non-primitive operations are motion
`control operations that do not meet the
`definition of a primitive operations.
`Examples of non-primitive operations
`include CONTOUR MOVE, which may be
`emulated using a combination of
`primitive motion control operations."
`
`42
`
`'236 Patent, Col. 7, Ln. 27-38
`
`Page 42 of 91
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00898-RWS Document 159-1 Filed 08/05/16 Page 43 of 91 PageID #: 5302
`
`bample Core Driver Functions:
`MOVE RElATIVE and GET POSITION
`
`'236 Patent
`
`IIIIIIIU:Hli.II:.JI·JIUI,IIIIIIIHIII
`
`p,,t~lll '''· ~
`ll,o(, •iii'.Jhn l:
`
`L 1,~.t (t,:O if,,!,Ho Ul
`ld• 1,!10111
`
`,. , .. , ,~ ............... , ,,.,.,,,,.
`
`jo ,, I l\ jc., ~" I " " o "~
`... h.
`_lol ,,' ....
`. ,.. . ..
`
`I; , I
`
`<I I
`
`'
`
`\ i j•l -~ .. l) ol '
`
`, ....
`
`,,,,
`
`. ' •
`
`.,
`
`111• 1N\I
`
`.................
`
`43
`
`Motion control operations may either be primitive opera(cid:173)
`tions or non-primitive operations. Primitive operations are
`operations that are necessary for motion control and cannot
`be simulated using a combination of other motion control
`operations. Examples of primitive operations include GET
`POSITION and MOVE RELATIVE, which are necessary
`for motion control and cannot be emulated using other
`motion control operations. Non-primitive operations are
`motion control operations that do not meet the definition of
`a primitive operations. Examples of non-primitive opera(cid:173)
`tions include CONTOUR MOVE, which may be emulated
`using a combination of primitive motion control operations.
`Given the set of motion control operations as defined
`above, the software system designer next defines a service
`provider interface (SPI) comprising a number of driver
`functions. Driver functions may be either core driver func(cid:173)
`tions or extended driver functions. Core driver functions are
`associated with primitive operations, while extended driver
`functions are associated with non-primitive operations.
`
`'236 Patent, Col. 7, Ln. 27-41
`
`Page 43 of 91
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00898-RWS Document 1