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. 9,189,437
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`Mandatory notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)). ..................................................... 2
`Grounds for standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)). ................................................. 4
`Identification of challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)). ......................................... 4
`A.
`Citation of prior art. ................................................................................. 4
`B.
`Statutory grounds for the challenge. ....................................................... 5
`IV. The ’437 Patent .................................................................................................. 5
`A. Overview of the ’437 patent. ................................................................... 5
`B.
`The challenged claims of the ’437 patent are not entitled to
`priority benefit as a continuation to the abandoned March 2005
`application. .............................................................................................. 8
`Level of ordinary skill in the art. ........................................................... 10
`C.
`Claim construction. ............................................................................... 10
`D.
`V. Ground 1: The combination of Moriyasu and Ousley renders claims 1,
`5, 6, 9, 11–16, 18, 30, 32, and 34 obvious. ...................................................... 13
`A. Overview of Moriyasu and Ousley. ...................................................... 13
`B.
`The combination of Moriyasu and Ousley renders independent
`claim 1 obvious. .................................................................................... 15
`The combination of Moriyasu and Ousley renders claim 5
`obvious .................................................................................................. 39
`The combination of Moriyasu and Ousley renders claim 6
`obvious .................................................................................................. 40
`The combination of Moriyasu and Ousley renders claim 9
`obvious .................................................................................................. 41
`The combination of Moriyasu and Ousley renders claim 11
`obvious .................................................................................................. 43
`The combination of Moriyasu and Ousley renders claim 12
`obvious .................................................................................................. 44
`The combination of Moriyasu and Ousley renders claim 13
`obvious .................................................................................................. 45
`The combination of Moriyasu and Ousley renders claim 14
`obvious .................................................................................................. 48
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`I.
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`
`J.
`
`K.
`
`L.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`The combination of Moriyasu and Ousley renders claim 15
`obvious .................................................................................................. 49
`The combination of Moriyasu and Ousley renders claim 16
`obvious .................................................................................................. 50
`The combination of Moriyasu and Ousley renders claim 18
`obvious .................................................................................................. 51
`The combination of Moriyasu and Ousley renders claim 30
`obvious. ................................................................................................. 51
`The combination of Moriyasu and Ousley renders claim 32
`obvious .................................................................................................. 53
`The combination of Moriyasu and Ousley renders claim 34
`obvious. ................................................................................................. 55
`VI. Ground 2: The combination of Moriyasu, Ousley, and Williams renders
`claims 4 and 10 obvious. ................................................................................. 56
`A.
`The combination of Moriyasu, Ousley, and Williams renders
`claim 4 obvious ..................................................................................... 56
`The combination of Moriyasu, Ousley, and Williams renders
`claim 10 obvious ................................................................................... 58
`VII. The proposed grounds are not redundant to previously filed petitions. .......... 59
`VIII. Conclusion. ...................................................................................................... 59
`
`
`M.
`
`N.
`
`O.
`
`B.
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`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) ........................................................................ 11, 12
`
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .............................................................................. 12
`
`
`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) ................................................................................ 9
`
`
`Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar,
`935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ................................................................................ 8
`
`
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ............................................................................................................ 8
`
`35 U.S.C. § 120 ............................................................................................................ 8
`
`35 U.S.C. §103 ............................................................................................................. 5
`
`
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................... 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) .................................................................................................. 4
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1) .................................................................................................. 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) .................................................................................................. 3
`
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437 to Tasler
`File History excerpts for U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`Declaration of Dr. Erez Zadok in Support of Petition for Inter
`Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`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
`The IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics Terms,
`Sixth Edition, 1996
`Intentionally left blank
`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
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Misc. Action No. 07-493 (RMC), MDL No. 1880, Order Regarding
`Claims Construction
`Plug-and-Play SCSI Specification, Version 1.0, dated March 30,
`
`Ex. No.
`1001
`1002
`1003
`
`1004
`1005 - 1006
`1007
`
`1008
`1009
`1010
`1011
`1012
`
`1013
`1014
`
`1015-1017
`1018
`
`1019
`1020
`
`1021–1023
`1024
`1025–1029
`1030
`
`1031
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`
`Ex. No.
`
`1032 - 1057
`1058
`1059
`1060
`1061
`1062
`
`1063
`1064
`
`
`Description
`
`1994 (“PNP SCSI”)
`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 11, 2005
`Axelson, Jan, “USB Complete – Everything You Need to Develop
`Custom USB Peripherals,” 2nd Edition, Madison, WI: Lakeview
`Research LLC, 2001.
`Universal Serial Bus Specification, Revision 2.0, April 27, 2000.
`Intentionally left blank
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`Apple Inc. petitions for inter partes review of claims 1, 4-6, 9-16, 18, 30, 32,
`
`and 34 of United States Patent No. 9,189,437 to Tasler ( “the ʼ437 patent”). The
`
`’437 patent claims 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 ’437 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 (“Ousley”) filed after the March 1997 German application date but before
`
`the August 24, 2006 filing date. Apple demonstrates herein that none of the
`
`challenged claims are patentable in view of the intervening Ousley reference.
`
`The challenged claims recite an analog data generating and processing
`
`(ADGPD) device and associated method for acquiring analog data and
`
`communicating with a host computer. The device performs well-known tasks such
`
`as acquiring analog data, digitizing the analog data, storing the digitized data in
`
`memory, and allowing transfer of the digitized data to a host computer. The
`
`purported novelty of the ’437 patent is that, when attached to a host computer, the
`
`ADGPD device identifies itself as “digital storage device instead of as an analog
`
`data generating and processing device” thereby allowing the digitized data “to be
`
`transferred to the computer using the customary device driver for the digital storage
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`device.” (Ex. 1001, ’437 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
`
`August 24, 2006 filing date of the ’437 patent. For example, U.S. Patent No.
`
`4,225,940 to Moriyasu et al. (“Moriyasu”) disclosed an oscilloscope that acquired
`
`analog data from multiple channels, digitized the analog data, stored the digitized
`
`data in memory, and allowed an external computer to read the stored data. 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.” (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 ’437 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
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`No. 6-15-cv-01099 (E.D. Tex.); Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. ZTE
`
`Corporation et al., Case No. 6-15-cv-01100 (E.D. Tex.); Papst Licensing GmbH &
`
`Co., KG v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd. et al., Case No. 6:15-cv-01102 (E.D. Tex.);
`
`and Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al., Case
`
`No. 6-15-cv-01111 (E.D. Tex.).
`
`Pending U.S. Application No. 14/859,266, filed on September 19, 2015,
`
`claims the benefit of the ’437 patent.
`
`The ’437 patent is also the subject of the following Inter Partes Review
`
`proceedings: Inter Partes Review by Apple Inc., IPR2016-01840 filed October 11,
`
`2016; Inter Partes Review by Apple Inc., IPR2016-01841 filed October 11, 2016;
`
`Inter Partes Review by Apple Inc., IPR2016-01842 filed October 11, 2016; and
`
`Inter Partes Review by Apple Inc., IPR2016-01844 filed October 11, 2016.
`
`No other matters related to the ’437 patent are known to the Petitioner.
`
`LEAD AND BACKUP COUNSEL: Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) and
`
`42.10(a), Petitioner appoints Lori A. Gordon (Reg. No. 50,633) as its lead counsel
`
`and Yasser Mourtada (Reg. No. 61,056) as its back-up counsel; and Steven W.
`
`Peters (Reg. No. 73,193) as its additional back-up counsel, all at the address:
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX, 1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Washington,
`
`D.C., 20005, phone number (202) 371-2600 and facsimile (202) 371-2540.
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`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 ʼ437 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 ’437 patent, Papst, filed a complaint against Apple alleging infringement of the
`
`’437 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 ’437 patent claims priority as a continuation to abandoned U.S.
`
`Application No. 11/078, 778 (“the abandoned March 2005 application”). Apple
`
`demonstrates in Section IV.B that the challenged claims are not entitled to benefit of
`
`the abandoned March 2005 application and therefore the earliest possible priority
`
`date for the challenged claims is the August 24, 2006 filing date of the ’437 patent.
`
`Each of the following prior art documents applied in the grounds of
`
`unpatentability were published or filed prior to the August 24, 2006 filing date of
`
`the ’437 patent.
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`U.S. Patent No. 4,225,940 to Moriyasu et al., titled “Oscilloscope System for
`
`Acquiring, Processing, and Displaying Information” (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. , titled “Measurement Device that
`
`Appears to a Computer System as a File Storage Device” (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, titled “Dual Plug-In Module” (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 claims 1, 4–6, 9–16, 18, 30, 32, and 34 on the
`
`following grounds:
`
`
`
`References
`
`Basis
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`1 Moriyasu and Ousley
`
`§103 1, 5, 6, 9, 11–16, 18, 30, 32, and
`34
`
`2 Moriyasu, Ousley, and Williams §103 4 and 10
`
`IV. The ’437 Patent
`A. Overview of the ’437 patent.
`The ’437 patent describes an interface device that enables communication
`
`between a host device and a data transmit/receive device from which data is
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`acquired. (Ex. 1001, ’437 patent, 1:18–22.) The patent acknowledges that such
`
`interface devices were known. However, the patent alleges that these existing
`
`interfaces traded high data transfer rates for host-device independence. (’437 patent,
`
`3:29–32.) For example, in existing interfaces devices, high data transfer rates could
`
`be achieved using host-specific interface devices; but, these interfaces were not
`
`suitable for use with other types of host systems. (’437 patent, 2:4–13.) Other
`
`devices achieved host independence through the use of standard interfaces; but these
`
`interfaces required specific driver software that in turn, resulted in reduced data
`
`transfer speed. (’437 patent, 1:31–38.)
`
`The ’437 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.” (’437 patent, 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.” (’437 patent, 4:63–5:7.)
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`
`Interface
`device
`
`
`
`(’437 patent, Figure 1.)
`
`The ’437 patent discloses techniques to make “the interface device appear[] to
`
`the host device as a hard disk.” (’437 patent, 6:5–6.) Specifically, the ’437 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. (’437 patent, 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. (’437 patent, 5:23–30.)
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`The challenged claims of the ’437 patent are not entitled to priority
`benefit as a continuation to the abandoned March 2005 application.
`
`B.
`
`The ’437 patent issued from an application filed on August 24, 2006 as a
`
`continuation of abandoned U.S. Application No. 11/078,778 (“the abandoned March
`
`2005 application”). A copy of the abandoned March 2005 application is provided as
`
`Exhibit 1061. The priority claim to the abandoned March 2005 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 March
`
`2005 application. Accordingly, the effective filing date of the challenged claims is
`
`the August 24, 2006 filing date of the ’437 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 claim
`
`is disclosed in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, in 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).
`
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`Each of the challenged claims recites an end user file system negative
`
`limitation: “an automatic recognition process... in which… at least one parameter
`
`identifying the analog data generating and processing device… [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 ’437 patent, claim 1.) 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 March 2005 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
`
`ADGPD at any time.” (Zadok Decl., ¶¶ 144-149.) The abandoned March 2005
`
`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 March
`
`2005 application does not provide adequate written description support for this
`
`negative limitation.
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`
`C. Level of ordinary skill in the art.
`Based on the disclosure of the ’437 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. (Ex.
`
`1003, Zadok Decl., ¶¶ 28-29.) 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).
`
`(Zadok Decl., ¶ 28.)
`
`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 the
`
`disclosure. 1
`
`1 Apple reserves the right to present different constructions in another forum
`
`where a different claim construction standard applies. Apple’s proposed
`
`constructions do not constitute an admission that the claims are valid under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 112. Therefore, Apple reserves the right to challenge the patentability of
`
`any claim under 35 U.S.C. § 112 in other forums.
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`Papst asserted patents in the family of the ’437 patent sharing a common
`
`specification with the ’437 patent in several district court litigations. In addition, the
`
`construction of certain claim terms in related U.S. patent 6,470,399 was a subject of
`
`an Appeal to the Federal Circuit. In re Papst Licensing Digital Camera Patent
`
`Litigation, 778 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2015). 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 constructions
`
`proposed by Papst in the above-referenced litigations do not rely on statements from
`
`the prosecution history, the broadest reasonable interpretation and Philips
`
`constructions are the same, therefore, Apple proposes that the same construction be
`
`adopted in this proceeding:
`
`Claim Term
`“multi-purpose interface of the host
`
`Construction
`“a communication interface designed for
`
`computer”
`
`use with multiple devices that can have
`
`different functions from each other.”
`
`(Ex. 1030, MDL No. 1880, Order
`
`Regarding Claims Construction, p. 31.)
`
`
`
`In addition, Apple proposes the following construction for the term
`
`“customary device driver”:
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`
`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. The ’437 patent describes an “input/output device customary in a host
`
`device, [as] normally present in most commercially available host devices.” (’437
`
`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 ’437 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.
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`V. Ground 1: The combination of Moriyasu and Ousley renders claims 1, 5,
`6, 9, 11–16, 18, 30, 32, and 34 obvious.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., 64:4–11, 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, in a related field of endeavor,
`
`Ousley teaches a “measurement device operable to communicate with a computer
`
`system via files.” (Ousley, Abstract.) Like Moriyasu’s oscilloscope, Ousley’s
`
`measurement device is dedicated to generating and processing analog data. Even
`
`further, Ousley’s measurement device can be an oscilloscope, like the oscilloscope
`
`disclosed in Moriyasu. (Id., 6:28–29.) A POSITA would have found it obvious to
`
`modify Moriyasu according to the teachings of Ousley to store the digitized
`
`waveform as a file in memory, thereby allowing a computer “to obtain the [digital
`
`waveform file] in the same standard manner in which it would obtain files stored on
`
`
`2 A complete listing of challenged claims including labels for individual claim
`
`limitations is provided as Appendix A.
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`any other USB Mass Storage device.” (Ousley, Abstract; Zadok Decl., ¶ 62.)
`
`Moriyasu also does not explicitly disclose that the oscilloscope engages in an
`
`“automatic recognition process of the host computer.” Ousley teaches such a
`
`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.) As such, the
`
`computer system can communicate 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 USB port of a computer, automatically identifies
`
`as a USB Mass Storage device to the computer. (Zadok Decl., ¶ 63.) The
`
`identification as a USB Mass Storage device allows the “computer system... to
`
`configure itself to communicate with the” oscilloscope “as a USB Mass Storage
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`device.” (Ousley, 11:42–44; Zadok Decl., ¶ 63.) As such, the computer system can
`
`communicate 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.)
`
`B.
`
`The combination of Moriyasu and Ousley renders independent
`claim 1 obvious.
`1.
`
`The combination of Moriyasu and Ousley discloses the
`preamble: “an analog data generating and processing device
`(ADGPD).”
`
`Moriyasu discloses an oscilloscope that can be connected to an external
`
`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
`
`thus 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.”
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437
`The combination of Moriyasu and Ousley teaches or suggests
`the ADGPD architecture elements.
`Independent claim 1 recites four architectural elements of the ADGPD: (1) an
`
`2.
`
`input/output (i/o) port [1A], (2) a program memory [1B], (3) a data storage memory
`
`[1C], and (4) a processor operatively interfaced with the i/o port, the program
`
`memory and the data storage memory [1D]. The combination of Moriyasu and
`
`Ousley teaches or suggests each of these architectural elements. Annotated Figure 3
`
`from Moriyasu (provided below) maps claim limitations to Moriyasu’s oscilloscope.
`
`a)
`
`The combination of Moriyasu and Ousley teaches “an
`input/output (i/o) port.”
`As shown in Moriyasu’s annotated Figure 3 (above), the oscilloscope includes
`
`an input-output interface 85 that enables two-way communication with external
`
`computer 53. (Id., 4:66–5:3, 5:11–13.) Input-output interface 85 is thus 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
`
`further discussed below, in the combination of Moriyasu and Ousley, input-output
`
`interface 85 is adapted to be a USB connector as taught by Ousley, thus providing
`
`an “input/output (i/o) port” that can be interfaced with a computer USB port.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`
`ADGPD
`Vertical analog channel
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No