Filed on behalf of Apple Inc.
`By:
`Lori A. Gordon
`
`Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC
`
`1100 New York Avenue, NW
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`Tel: (202) 371-2600
`
`Fax: (202) 371-2540
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,966,144
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Mandatory notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)). .................................................. 2
`
`Grounds for standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)). .............................................. 4
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`Identification of challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)). ...................................... 4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Citation of prior art. ............................................................................... 4
`
`Statutory grounds for the challenge. ..................................................... 5
`
`IV. The ’144 patent. .............................................................................................. 5
`
`A. Overview. .............................................................................................. 5
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`The challenged claims of the ’144 patent are not entitled to
`priority benefit as a continuation to the abandoned March 2005
`application. ............................................................................................ 7
`
`Level of ordinary skill in the art. ........................................................... 9
`
`Claim construction. ............................................................................... 9
`
`V. Ground 1: The combination of Moriyasu and Ousley. ................................. 13
`
`A. Overview of Moriyasu and Ousley. ....................................................13
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`I.
`
`The combination of Moriyasu and Ousley renders independent
`claims 1 and 86 obvious. .....................................................................15
`
`The “interface device” claims 2, 5, 6, and 7. ......................................42
`
`“Cable” interface claims 15 and 16. ....................................................45
`
`“Detachable sensor” claims 9 and 21. .................................................46
`
`“Sensor” claims 17, 19 and 26. ...........................................................46
`
`“At least one parameter” claims 27, 29, and 34. .................................48
`
`“Data storage memory” claims 37, 38, and 39. ..................................50
`
`“Program memory” claim 41. .............................................................52
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144
`
`“Processor implementation” claims 49, 52, and 54. ...........................52
`
`“Automatic file transfer process” claims 56 and 57. ..........................54
`
`“Automatic recognition process” claims 61, 62, and 63. ....................58
`
`
`
`J.
`
`K.
`
`L.
`
`M. Claim 64. .............................................................................................60
`
`N.
`
`O.
`
`P.
`
`Q.
`
`R.
`
`S.
`
`Claim 59. .............................................................................................60
`
`Claim 60. .............................................................................................61
`
`Claim 66. .............................................................................................61
`
`Claim 67. .............................................................................................63
`
`“Instructions storage” claims 78 and 79 obvious. ...............................63
`
`“Combination” claims 80, 81, 82, and 83. ..........................................65
`
`VI. Ground 2: The combination of Moriyasu, Ousley, Williams. ...................... 67
`
`I.
`
`The proposed grounds are not redundant to previously filed petitions. ....... 68
`
`VII. Conclusion. ................................................................................................... 69
`
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Cases
`
`In re NTP, Inc.,
` 654 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................... 8
`
`
`In re Papst Licensing Digital Camera Patent Litigation,
`778 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ........................................................................ 10, 11
`
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ........................................................................ 10, 11
`
`
`PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`522 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................................ 8
`
`
`Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................ 8
`
`
`Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar,
` 935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ............................................................................... 8
`
`
`Statutes
`
`§103 .............................................................................................................................. 5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 .................................................................................................. 7, 8, 10
`
`35 U.S.C. § 120 ............................................................................................................ 7
`
`35 U.S.C. §102(b) ........................................................................................................ 5
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................... 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) .................................................................................................. 4
`
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144
`
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) .................................................................................................. 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(a) ..................................................................................................... 3
`
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent 8,966,144 to Tasler
`File History Excerpts for U.S. Patent 8,966,144 to Tasler
`Declaration of Dr. Erez Zadok in Support of Petition for Inter
`Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Erez Zadok
`Intentionally Left Blank
`The SCSI Bus and IDE Interface Protocols, Applications and
`Programming, by Schmidt, First Edition, Addison-Wesley,
`1995.
`Intentionally Left Blank
`U.S. Patent No. 4,727,512 to Birkner
`U.S. Patent No. 4,792,896 to Maclean
`International Publication Number WO 92/21224 to Jorgensen
`Small Computer System Interface-2 (SCSI-2), ANSI X3.131-
`1994, American National Standard for Information Systems
`(ANSI).
`Operating System Concepts, by Silberschatz et al., Fourth
`Edition.
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Third Edition, Microsoft Press,
`1997.
`Intentionally Left Blank
`In re Papst Licensing Digital Camera Patent Litigation, 778
`F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English
`Language, Random House, 1996.
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6-15-
`cv-01095 (E.D. Tex.), Complaint filed November 30, 2015
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Declaration of Scott Bennett
`
`Ex. No.
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005–1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`1009
`1010
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`1015
`1016
`1017–1018
`1019
`
`1020
`1021–1023
`1024
`
`1025-1029
`
`Intentionally Left Blank
`
`1030
`1031
`
`Misc. Action No. 07-493 (RMC), MDL No. 1880, Order
`Regarding Claims Construction
`Plug-and-Play SCSI Specification, Version 1.0, dated March 30,
`
`- v -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144
`
`Ex. No.
`
`1032–1048
`1049
`1050
`1051–1057
`1058
`1059
`1060
`1061
`
`1062
`
`1063
`1064
`
`Description
`
`1994 (“PNP SCSI”)
`Intentionally Left Blank
`’144 German Application (DE 197 08 755)
`’144 German Application Translated (DE 197 08 755)
`Intentionally Left Blank
`U.S. Patent No. 7,184,922 to Ousley et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 4,225,940 to Moriyasu et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 3,425,025 to Williams
`Abandoned U.S. Application No. 11/078,778, filed March
`2005
`Axelson, Jan, “USB Complete – Everything You Need to
`Develop Custom USB Peripherals,” 2nd Edition, Madison,
`WI: Lakeview Research LLC, 2005.
`Universal Serial Bus Specification, Revision 2.0, April 27, 2000.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,351,112 to Felps et al.
`
`- vi -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Apple Inc. petitions for inter partes review of claims 1–3, 5–7, 9, 15–17, 19,
`
`Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144
`
`
`
`21, 26, 27, 29, 34, 37–39, 41, 49, 52, 54, 56, 57, 59–64, 66, 67, 78–83, and 86 of
`
`United States Patent No. 8,966,144 to Tasler (“the ʼ144 patent”). The ’144 patent
`
`claims priority benefit as a continuation to an abandoned application filed on
`
`March 11, 2005. However, the challenged claims recite limitations having no
`
`written description in the abandoned application. Therefore, the earliest possible
`
`priority date of the ’144 patent is, at best, its filing date of August 24, 2006. In the
`
`present petition, Apple presents an intervening reference, U.S. Patent 7,184,922 to
`
`Ousley filed after the March 1997 German application date but before the August
`
`24, 2006 filing date. Apple demonstrates herein that a reasonable likelihood exists
`
`that all of the challenged claims are unpatentable in view of the intervening Ousley
`
`reference.
`
`The challenged claims recite an analog data generating and processing
`
`device and associated method. The device performs well-known tasks such as
`
`acquiring analog data, digitizing the data, storing the digitized data in memory, and
`
`allowing transfer of the digitized data to a host computer. The purported novelty of
`
`the ’144 patent is that, when attached to a host computer, the device identifies itself
`
`using “at least one parameter…consistent with the ADGPD being responsive to
`
`commands issued from a customary driver” thereby allowing transfer to the
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`
`
`computer “without requiring user-loaded file transfer enabling software.” (’144
`
`Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144
`
`patent, claim 1.) This technique is commonly referred to as emulation.
`
`Devices that emulated a digital storage device and used the existing storage
`
`device’s driver for communication with a host computer were well known before
`
`the filing date of the ’144 patent. For example, Ousley disclosed a measurement
`
`device that interfaced via USB with a computer, enabling communication with the
`
`computer via files. The measurement device identified itself as a “USB Mass
`
`Storage Device” upon attachment to the computer’s USB port allowing the
`
`computer “to communicate with measurement device... using its standard driver for
`
`USB Mass Storage device.” (Ex. 1058, Ousley, 11:47–50.)
`
`I. Mandatory notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)).
`REAL PARTY IN INTEREST: The real party-in-interest of Petitioner is Apple
`
`Inc. (“Apple”).
`
`RELATED MATTERS: The ’144 patent is the subject of the following civil
`
`actions.
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6-15-cv-01095
`
`(E.D. Tex.); Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al., Case
`
`No. 6-15-cv-01099 (E.D. Tex.); Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. ZTE
`
`Corporation et al., Case No. 6-15-cv-01100 (E.D. Tex.); Papst Licensing GmbH &
`
`Co., KG v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd. et al., Case No. 6:15-cv-01102 (E.D.
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`
`
`Tex.); Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al.,
`
`Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144
`
`Case No. 6-15-cv-01111 (E.D. Tex.), and In Re Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG
`
`Patent Litigation, MDL No. 1880 (Misc. Action No. 07-493) relating to Nos. 07-
`
`cv-1118, 07-cv-1222, 07-cv-2086, 07-cv-2087, 07-cv-2088 and 08-cv-985.
`
`The following Inter Partes Review petitions have been filed to date against
`
`the ’144 patent: Petition for Inter Partes Review by Canon Inc., IPR2016-01212;
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review by Canon Inc., IPR2016-01216; Petition for Inter
`
`Partes Review by Canon Inc., IPR2016-01222; Petition for Inter Partes Review by
`
`JVC Kenwood Corporation, IPR2016-01214; Petition for Inter Partes Review by
`
`Panasonic Corporation, IPR2016-01225; Petition for Inter Partes Review by
`
`Olympus Corporation, IPR2016-01202; and Petition for Inter Partes Review by
`
`Fujifilm Corporation, IPR2016-01199.
`
`U.S. Application No. 11/928,283, filed on October 30, 2007 and U.S.
`
`Application No. 12/891,443, filed on September 27, 2010 claim the benefit of the
`
`’144 patent.
`
`No other matters related to the ’144 patent are known to the Petitioner.
`
`LEAD AND BACKUP COUNSEL: Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3) and
`
`42.10(a), Petitioner appoints Lori A. Gordon (Reg. No. 50,633) as its lead
`
`counsel, Yasser Mourtada (Reg. No. 61,056) as its back-up counsel, and Steven
`
`W. Peters (Reg. No. 73,193) as its additional back-up counsel, all at the address:
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX, 1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Washington,
`
`Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144
`
`D.C., 20005, phone number (202) 371-2600 and facsimile (202) 371-2540.
`
`SERVICE INFORMATION: Petitioner consents to electronic service by email at
`
`the email addresses: lgordon-PTAB@skgf.com, ymourtad-PTAB@skgf.com,
`
`and speters-PTAB@skgf.com.
`
`II. Grounds for standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)).
`The undersigned and Apple certify that the ʼ144 patent is available for inter
`
`partes review. Apple further certifies that it is not barred or estopped from
`
`requesting this inter partes review on the grounds identified herein. The assignee
`
`of the ’144 patent, Papst, filed a complaint against Apple alleging infringement of
`
`the ’144 patent on November 30, 2015. (Ex. 1020.) The present petition is being
`
`filed within one year of service of Apple.
`
`III.
`
`Identification of challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)).
`A. Citation of prior art.
`The ’144 patent claims priority as a continuation to abandoned U.S.
`
`Application No. 11/078,778 (“the abandoned application”). Apple demonstrates in
`
`Section IV.B that the challenged claims are not entitled to benefit of the abandoned
`
`application and therefore the priority date for the challenged claims is the August
`
`24, 2006 filing date of the ’144 patent.
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`
`Each of the following applied prior art documents were published or filed
`
`Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144
`
`
`
`prior to the August 24, 2006 filing date.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,225,940 to Moriyasu et al. (Ex. 1059) is prior art under at
`
`least 35 U.S.C. §102(b) because it issued on September 30, 1980.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,184,922 to Ousley et al. (Ex. 1058) is prior art under at
`
`least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because it has an effective filing date of at least February
`
`28, 2005.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,425,025 to Williams (Ex. 1060) is prior art under at least
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because it issued on January 28, 1969.
`
`Statutory grounds for the challenge.
`
`B.
`Apple requests review of the challenged claims on the following grounds:
`
`
`
`References
`
`Basis
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`1 Moriyasu and Ousley
`
`§103 1, 2, 5–7, 9, 15–17, 19, 21, 26,
`27, 29, 34, 37–39, 41, 49, 52,
`54, 56, 57, 59–64, 67, 78–83,
`and 86
`
`2 Moriyasu, Ousley, and Williams §103 3
`
`IV. The ’144 patent.
`A. Overview.
`The ’144 patent describes an interface device enabling communication
`
`between a host device and a data transmit/receive device. (Ex. 1001, ’144 patent,
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`
`
`1:18–22.) The patent acknowledges that such interface devices were known; but
`
`Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144
`
`had limitations. (Id., 1:31–38, 2:4–13, 3:29–32.) The ’144 patent discloses an
`
`interface device that purportedly overcomes these limitations and “provides fast
`
`data communication between a host device with input/output interfaces and a data
`
`transmit/receive device.” (Id., Abstract). As illustrated in annotated Figure 1
`
`below, the interface device 10 includes “[a] first connecting device 12… attached
`
`to a host device (not shown) via a host line 11” and a second connecting device
`
`“attached by means of an output line 16 to a data transmit/receive device… from
`
`which data is to be read, i.e. acquired, and transferred to the host device.” (Id.,
`
`4:63–5:7.)
`
`Interface
`device
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`

`
`
`(’144 patent, Figure 1 (annotated).)
`
`Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144
`
`The ’144 patent discloses techniques to make “the interface device appear[]
`
`to the host device as a hard disk.” (’144 patent, 6:5–6.) Specifically, the ’144
`
`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., 5:17–23.) Thus, the host device
`
`uses its customary driver for the identified input/output device or a corresponding
`
`driver for a multi-purpose interface to communicate with the interface device. (Id.,
`
`4:23–30.)
`
`B.
`
`The challenged claims of the ’144 patent are not entitled to
`priority benefit as a continuation to the abandoned March 2005
`application.
`
`The ’144 patent issued from an application filed on August 24, 2006 as a
`
`continuation of abandoned U.S. Application No. 11/078,778 (provided as Exhibit
`
`1061). The priority claim to the abandoned application must be disregarded
`
`because the subject matter of the challenged claims was not disclosed in the
`
`manner required by 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, in the abandoned application.
`
`Accordingly, the effective filing date of the challenged claims is the August 24,
`
`2006 filing date of the ’144 patent.
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 120, a claim in a U.S. application is entitled to the benefit
`
`of the filing date of an earlier filed U.S. application if the subject matter of the
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`
`
`claim is disclosed in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, in
`
`Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144
`
`the earlier filed application. See, e.g., In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 1277 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2011). To comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112,
`
`the disclosure must “convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that,
`
`as of the filing date sought, [the inventor] was in possession of the invention.” Vas-
`
`Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563–64 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Accordingly, the
`
`written description must actually or inherently disclose the claim element.
`
`PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`Each of the challenged claims recites an end user file system negative
`
`limitation: “an automatic recognition process… in which ... at least one
`
`parameter… [is] automatically sent ... (b) without requiring any end user to
`
`interact with the computer to set up a file system in the ADGPD at any time.”
`
`(See ’144 patent, claim 1; compare claim 86 reciting substantially similar
`
`limitation.) To provide support for a negative limitation, the “specification [must]
`
`describe[] a reason to exclude the relevant limitation.” Santarus, Inc. v. Par
`
`Pharmaceutical, Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`The abandoned application includes no mention whatsoever of the “file
`
`system in the ADGPD,” let alone that the “automatic recognition process... in
`
`which... [the] at least one parameter... [is] automatically sent” occurs “without
`
`requiring any end user to interact with the computer to set up a file system in the
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`
`
`ADGPD at any time.” (Ex. 1003, Zadok Decl., ¶¶183-185.) The abandoned
`
`Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144
`
`application also fails to disclose anything that may be understood as a reason to
`
`exclude the limitation of an “end user... interact[ing] with the computer to set up a
`
`file system in the ADGDP at any time.” (Id.) Accordingly, the abandoned
`
`application does not provide adequate written description support for this negative
`
`limitation.
`
`C. Level of ordinary skill in the art.
`Based on the disclosure of the ’144 patent, a person having ordinary skill in
`
`the art (“POSITA”) at the relevant time, would have had at least a four-year degree
`
`in electrical engineering, computer science, computer engineering, or related field
`
`of study, or equivalent experience, and at least two years’ experience in studying or
`
`developing computer interfaces or peripherals and storage related software. (Zadok
`
`Decl., ¶28.) A POSITA would also be familiar with operating systems (e.g., MS-
`
`DOS, Windows, Unix), their associated file systems (e.g., FAT, UFS, FFS), device
`
`drivers for computer components and peripherals (e.g., mass storage device
`
`drivers), and communication interfaces (e.g., SCSI, USB, PCMCIA). (Id.)
`
`D. Claim construction.
`Except for the exemplary terms set forth herein, the terms are to be given
`
`their plain and ordinary meaning as understood by a POSITA and consistent with
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`
`
`the disclosure. 1 Papst asserted patents in the family of the ’144 patent in several
`
`Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144
`
`district court litigations. In addition, claim construction of certain terms in related
`
`U.S. patent 6,470,399 was the subject of an appeal to the Federal Circuit. In re
`
`Papst Licensing Digital Camera Patent Litigation, 778 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`Several of the terms construed or proposed for construction in these litigations are
`
`also recited in the challenged claims of the present inter partes review proceeding.
`
`Because the construction proposed by Papst in the above-referenced litigations do
`
`not rely on statements from the prosecution history, the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation and Phillips constructions are the same. Therefore, Apple proposes
`
`that the same construction be adopted in this proceeding:
`
`Claim Term
`“multi-purpose interface of the host
`
`computer”
`
`Construction
`“a communication interface designed for
`use with multiple devices that can have
`different functions from each other.”
`(Ex. 1030, Order, p. 31.)
`
`
`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. Apple reserves the right to challenge the patentability of any claim
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 112 in other forums.
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144
`
`In addition, Apple proposes the following construction for the term
`
`
`
`
`“customary device driver”:
`
`Claim Term
`“customary device driver”
`
`Construction
`“driver for a device normally present in
`most commercially available host
`devices at the time of the invention.”
`
`
`
`The Board should adopt Apple’s construction because it is consistent with
`
`the specification which describes an “input/output device customary in a host
`
`device, [as] normally present in most commercially available host devices.” (’144
`
`patent, 3:33–37.) Further, it well settled that a claim term must be interpreted from
`
`the perspective of a POSITA at the time of the invention. See Phillips v. AWH
`
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Thus, a “customary device driver” is
`
`a driver for a device normally present in most commercially available host devices
`
`at the time of the invention. Indeed, when addressing the term “input/output device
`
`customary in a host device” in the claims of the ’144 patent, the Federal Circuit
`
`found that “[t]he written description makes clear that it is enough for the device to
`
`be one that was normally part of commercially available computer systems at the
`
`time of the invention.” In re Papst Licensing Digital Camera Patent Litigation,
`
`778 F.3d at 1270.
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`
`Apple also proposes the following construction for “data transmit/receive
`
`Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144
`
`
`
`device”:
`
`Claim Term
`“data transmit/receive device”
`
`Construction
`“a device capable of transmitting or
`receiving data.”
`
`Apple’s construction clarifies that the term is not limited to devices that both
`
`transmit and receive data—only one is necessary. This construction is consistent
`
`with the plain and ordinary meaning of the term because the use of the “/” indicates
`
`alternatives. (See Ex. 1019, Webster, p. 2125 (defining “virgule” as “a short
`
`oblique stroke (/) between two words indicating that whichever is appropriate may
`
`be chosen to complete the sense of the text in which they occur”).) The
`
`construction is also consistent with the specification, which discloses “a data
`
`transmit/receive device which is to receive data from the host device or from which
`
`data is to be read, i.e. acquired, and transferred to the host device.” (’144 patent,
`
`5:3–7.) Moreover, the district court’s interpretation that the device “is capable of
`
`either (a) transmitting data to or (b) transmitting data to and receiving data from
`
`the host device” still stands after the Federal Circuit’s decision. (Ex. 1016, p. 17
`
`(“the parties’ dispute focuses on the ‘when connected’ portion of the court’s
`
`construction”).)
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144
`
`
`V. Ground 1: The combination of Moriyasu and Ousley. 2
`A. Overview of Moriyasu and Ousley.
`Moriyasu discloses an oscilloscope coupled to an external computer. (Ex.
`
`1059, Moriyasu, 3:53–58.) Analog waveform data is acquired via vertical and
`
`horizontal plug-ins of the oscilloscope, sampled and digitized, and stored in a
`
`memory of the oscilloscope. (Id., 4–4:11, 4:28–40, 4:52–55.) The computer reads
`
`the stored digitized waveform from the oscilloscope. (Id., 4:66–5:2.) Moriyasu
`
`does not explicitly disclose that the digitized waveform is stored in the memory “as
`
`at least one file of digitized analog data.” However, Ousley teaches a
`
`“measurement device operable to communicate with a computer system via files.”
`
`(Ousley, Abstract.) Ousley’s device can be an oscilloscope, like Moriyasu’s. (Id.,
`
`6:28–29.) A POSITA would have found it obvious to modify Moriyasu according
`
`to Ousley to store the digitized waveform as a file, allowing the computer “to
`
`obtain the [digital waveform file] in the same standard manner in which it would
`
`obtain files stored on any other USB Mass Storage device.” (Ousley, Abstract;
`
`Zadok Decl., ¶63.)
`
`Moriyasu also does not explicitly disclose that the oscilloscope engages in
`
`
`2 A complete listing of challenged claims including labels for individual
`
`claim limitations is provided as Appendix A.
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`
`
`an “automatic recognition process of the host computer.” Ousley teaches such a
`
`Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144
`
`process: “in response to the measurement device 80 being connected [to a USB
`
`port or hub of the computer system 82], the computer system 82 may initiate a
`
`query/response protocol with the measurement device 80 to obtain information
`
`about the measurement device 80. The measurement device 80 may inform the
`
`computer system 82 that it belongs to the USB ‘Mass Storage’ device class, as well
`
`as providing other details that the computer system 82 needs to know to
`
`communicate with the measurement device 80.” (Ousley, 11:34–41.) Thus, the
`
`computer communicates with the oscilloscope “using its standard driver for USB
`
`Mass Storage devices, [which] may be advantageous to the user that he can easily
`
`and quickly set up the [oscilloscope] on any computer system with an operating
`
`system that supports USB devices, without needing to possess or install specialized
`
`drivers for the” oscilloscope. (Ousley, 11:47–54.) It would have been obvious to a
`
`POSITA to modify Moriyasu according to Ousley such that Moriyasu’s
`
`oscilloscope, when connected to a computer’s USB port, automatically identifies
`
`as a USB Mass Storage device to the computer. (Zadok Decl., ¶64.) This
`
`identification allows the “computer system... to configure itself to communicate
`
`with the” oscilloscope “as a USB Mass Storage device.” (Ousley, 11:42–44; Zadok
`
`Decl., ¶64.) Thus, the computer system communicates with the oscilloscope “using
`
`its standard driver for USB Mass Storage devices, [which] may be advantageous to
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`
`
`the user that he can easily and quickly set up the [oscilloscope] on any computer
`
`Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144
`
`system with an operating system that supports USB devices, without needing to
`
`possess or install specialized drivers for the” oscilloscope. (Ousley, 11:47–54.)
`
`B.
`
`The combination of Moriyasu and Ousley renders independent
`claims 1 and 86 obvious.
`1.
`
`“an analog data generating and processing device
`(ADGPD)” [1P/86P].
`
`Moriyasu discloses an oscilloscope that connects to a computer 53.
`
`(Moriyasu, 3:53–58.) The oscilloscope includes an acquisition unit 50, a
`
`processing unit 51, and a display unit 52. (Id.) Analog data is generated by
`
`acquisition unit 50, using vertical and horizontal plug-ins, and provided to
`
`processing unit 51. (Id., 3:64–4:11, 4:28–30.) In processing unit 51, the analog data
`
`is sampled, digitized, and stored in memory. (Id., 4:30–40, 4:52–55.) Thus,
`
`Moriyasu’s oscilloscope is dedicated to generating and processing analog data and
`
`is an “ADGPD.” Additionally, Ousley teaches a “measurement device operable to
`
`communicate with a computer system via files.” (Ousley, Abstract.) Ousley’s
`
`measurement device can be an oscilloscope, like Moriyasu’s oscilloscope (id.,
`
`6:28–29), and is thus also an “ADGPD.”
`
`The ADGPD architecture elements.
`
`2.
`Independent claims 1 and 86 each recites five architectural elements of the
`
`ADGPD: (1) an input/output (i/o) port, (2) a program memory, (3) a data storage
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`
`
`memory, (4) a sensor designed to transmit data and (4) a processor operatively
`
`Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144
`
`interfaced with the i/o port, the program memory, the data storage memory and the
`
`sensor. The combination teaches or suggests each of these elements. Annotated
`
`Figure 3 from Moriyasu (below) maps the claim limitations to Moriyasu’s
`
`oscilloscope.
`
`“an input/output (i/o) port.”
`(a)
`As shown in Moriyasu’s annotated Figure 3 (below), the oscilloscope
`
`includes an input-output interface 85 enabling two-way communication with
`
`computer 53. (Id., 4:66–5:3, 5:11–13.) Input-output interface 85 is an “input/output
`
`(i/o) port.” Additionally, Ousley’s measurement device includes a USB connector
`
`for interfacing with a computer. (Ousley, Figures 2 and 3.) As discussed below, in
`
`the combined system, input-output interface 85 is adapted to be a USB connector
`
`as taught by Ousley, thus providing an “input/output (i/o) port” that interfaces with
`
`a computer USB port.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`
`ADGPD
`
`
`
`Sensor
`attached
`to vertical
`plug-ins
`
`Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144
`
`processor
`
`
`data
`storage
`memory
`
`i/o port
`
`
`
`
`“a program memory.”
`(b)
`Moriyasu’s oscilloscope includes a front-panel logic 86 that controls various
`
`functions performed within the oscilloscope. (Id., 5:17–30.) As discussed in
`
`section V.B.2.e below, front-panel logic 86 is a “processor.” Moriyasu teaches that
`
`front-panel logic 86 “select[s] computer programs to perform required functions”
`
`and provides “instructions to the external computer.” (Id.) But Moriyasu does not
`
`explicitly disclose where the “computer programs” and the “instructions” are
`
`stored. However, it was well known to a POSITA, as of the filing date of the ’144
`
`patent, to store computer programs/instructions in a memory (e.g., a nonvolatile
`
`memory). (Zadok Decl., ¶68.) For example, Ousley teaches that a “memory
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`

`
`
`medium” is used “store program instructions/data structures.” (Ousley, 5:14–17.)
`
`Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144
`
`Accordingly, a POSITA would have found it obvious to store Moriyasu’s
`
`“computer programs” and “instructions” in a memory (“program memory”)
`
`accessible by front-panel logic 86 as disclosed by Moriyasu. (Zadok Decl., ¶68.)
`
`Thus, the combination teaches or suggests “a program memory.” (Id.)
`
`“a data storage memory.”
`(c)
`As dis