IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Huawei Device Co., Ltd., LG Electronics, Inc., and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`
`Petitioner,
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case No. To Be Assigned
`Patent No. 6,895,449 B2
`
`_____*__
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO.
`6,895,449 UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq.
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,895,449 B2
`
`PETITIONER’ s EXHIBIT LIST
`
`I
`
`Exhibit
`Ex. 1001
`
`iDescription
`U.S. Patent No. 6,895,449 B2 to Tasler
`
`Ex. 1002
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 6,895,449
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`Declaration of Kevin C. Almeroth
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`Curriculum vitae of Kevin C. Almeroth
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,508,821 to Murata
`
`J
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`Friedhelm Schmidt, The SCSI Bus and IDE Interface (1995)
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,850,484 to Beretta et al.
`
`Ex. 1008
`Ex. 1009
`
`Ex. 1010
`Ex. 1011
`
`Ex. 1012
`
`Ex. 1013
`
`Ex. 1014
`
`LEuropean Patent Office Publication Number 0 685 799 A1
`IBM Corp., Communication Method Between Devices Through
`FDD Interface 38 IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin 245
`
`* Ray Duncan, The MS-DOS Encyclopedia (1988)
`In re Papst Licensing Dig. Camera Pat. Litig., 778 F.3d 1255,
`1265 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`Papst’s Opening Claim Constr. Brief and Appendix 8 of Papst’s
`Opening Claim Constr. Brief, Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG
`v. Apple, Inc., et al., No. 6:15-cv—01095-RWS (E.D. Tex. Nov. 22,
`% 2016)
`Papst’s Opening Claim Constr. Brief and Decl. of Robert
`Zeidman, In re Papst Licensing Dig. Camera Pat. Litig., MDL
`No. 1880, 1:07—mc—00493, (D.D.C. June 3, 2016)
`
`J
`
`lnc., Am. Nat’l Standard for Info.
`Am. Nat’l Standards Inst.,
`Sys’s, Small Computer System Interface-2, ANSI X3.131-1994
`(1994) (“SCSI Standard”)
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,895,449 B2
`
`
`
`
`Description
`
`EX. 1015
`
`Dave Williams, The Programmer ’s Technical Reference: MS-
`DOS, IBM PC & Compatibles (1990)
`
`EX. 1016
`
`File History for U.S. Patent Application No. 08/411,369
`
`EX 1017
`.
`
`Comparison of excerpts of File History for U.S. Patent
`Application No. 08/411,369 and U.S. Patent No. 5,850,484 to
`Beretta et al._(Ex. 1007)
`
`
`
`Ex. 1018
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,589,063 to Shah et al.
`
`Ex. 1019
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,038,320 to Heath et al.
`
`Ex. 1020
`
`Ex. 1021
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,787,246 to Lichtman et al.
`
`Vetterli & Nussbaumer, Simple FFTandDCTAlgorithms, 6
`
`‘l
`
`Signal Processing 267-78 (1984)
`
`Ex. 1022
`
`EX. 1023
`
`
`
`Papst’s Brief, In re Papst Licensing Dig. Camera Pat. Litig., No.
`2014-1110 (Fed. Cir. February 20, 2014)
`
`Rufus P. Turner et al., The Illustrated Dictionary ofElectronics
`(1991)
`
`

`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,895,449 B2
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ................................................................................................... .. 1
`
`Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)) ................................................. .. 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Real Parties—In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) ............................... .. 3
`
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) ........................................... .. 4
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Related Litigation ..................................................................... .. 4
`
`Related Inter Partes Review Petitions ..................................... .. 4
`
`C.
`
`Counsel and Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) and
`(b)(4)) .................................................................................................. .. 5
`
`Fees (37 C.F.R. § 42.103) ............................................................................. .. 6
`
`Requirements for Inter Partes Review Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 .............. .. 7
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)) ................................... .. 7
`
`(37 C.F.R.
`for Which Review is Requested
`Claims
`§ 42.104(b)(1)) .................................................................................... .. 7
`
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge and Prior Art Relied Upon for
`Each Ground (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2)) ........................................... .. 7
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................................... 8 I
`
`(37 C.F.R.
`the Construed Claims
`of
`Unpatentability
`§ 42.104(b)(4)) .................................................................................... .. 9
`
`F.
`
`Supporting Evidence (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5)) ............................... .. 9
`
`The ’449 Patent ............................................................................................. .. 9
`
`A.
`
`Overview of the ’449 Patent ............................................................... .. 9
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Prosecution History of the ’449 Patent ............................................. .. 10
`
`Claim Construction (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)) ............................... .. 11
`
`1.
`
`“data transmit/receive device” ................................................ .. 12
`
`-iii~
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of US. Patent No. 6,895,449 B2
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`“simulating a virtual file system to the host” ......................... .. 12
`
`“interface device” ................................................................... .. 13
`
`VI.
`
`Summary of the References Applied in this Petition .................................. .. 13
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,508,821 to Murata (Ex. 1005) ............................. .. 13
`
`Schmidt (Ex. 1006) ........................................................................... .. 14
`
`C. MS-DOS Encyclopedia
`
`1010) .................................................. .. 16
`
`D.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,850,484 to Beretta et al. (EX. 1007) .................... .. 17
`
`VII. Detailed Explanation of Grounds ................................................................ .. 17
`
`A.
`
`and 15-18 are
`12-13,
`Ground I: Claims 1-3, 6-10,
`Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Over the Combination
`of Murata, Schmidt, and MS-DOS Encyclopedia ............................ .. 18
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Rationale for Combining Murata, Schmidt, and MS-DOS
`Encyclopedia .......................................................................... .. 18
`
`Claim 1 ................................................................................... .. 21
`
`Claim 2 ................................................................................... .. 34
`
`Claim 3 ................................................................................... .. 35
`
`Claim 6 ................................................................................... .. 36
`
`Claim 7 ................................................................................... .. 37
`
`Claim 8 ................................................................................... .. 39
`
`Claim 9 ................................................................................... .. 40
`
`Claim 10 ................................................................................. .. 43
`
`10.
`
`Claim 12 ................................................................................. .. 45
`
`11.
`
`Claim 13 ................................................................................. .. 47
`
`12.
`
`Claim 15 ................................................................................. .. 48
`
`_iV_
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,895,449 B2
`
`13.
`
`Claim 16 ................................................................................. .. 48
`
`14.
`
`Claim 17 ................................................................................. ..49
`
`15.
`
`Claim 18 ................................................................................. ..53
`
`B.
`
`Ground II: Claims 4 and 5 are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) Over the Combination of Murata, Schmidt, MS—DOS
`Encyclopedia and Beretta ................................................................. .. 60
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Schmidt, MS—DOS
`for Combining Murata,
`Rationale
`Encyclopedia and Beretta ....................................................... .. 60
`
`Claim 4 ................................................................................... .. 62
`
`Claim 5 ................................................................................... .. 64
`
`VIII. Conclusion ................................................................................................... .. 65
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,895, 449 B2
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
`504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ........................................................................ .. 11
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ........................................................................ .. 12
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ................................................................................................... .. 8
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ................................................................................................... .. 8
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ................................................................................................... .. 8
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ................................................................................... ..3, 7, 18, 60
`
`35 U.S.C. § 120 ....................................................................................................... .. 8
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 ..................................................................................................... .. 67
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ................................................................................................. .. 17
`
`..Vi_
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,895,449 B2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Desktop and laptop computers that are “PCs” are direct descendants of the
`
`original IBM PC, first released in 1981. The PC owes its longevity, in part, to its
`
`open architecture. A PC manufactured by Dell may have a CPU manufactured by
`
`Intel, a graphics card manufactured by Nvidia, a monitor manufactured by Sony, a
`
`keyboard and mouse manufactured by Logitech, and a printer manufactured by HP.
`
`The down—side to the open architecture is the PC must be able to work with a
`
`broad array of different peripherals. A PC manufacturer cannot know, in advance,
`
`which make and model of printer, scanner, camera, speaker, or microphone the
`
`customer may choose to purchase and install.
`
`Traditionally, peripheral
`
`manufacturers provided specialized software—called “device
`
`drivers”——that
`
`enabled the PC to communicate with the peripheral. One drawback to this
`
`approach is that each peripheral required its own device driver, and different
`
`device drivers were often incompatible with each other or with different PC
`
`models.
`
`To address this problem, computer companies have proposed “p1ug—and—
`
`play” systems that allow a peripheral to communicate with a PC without the need
`
`to install specialized device drivers. See U.S. Patent Nos. 4,589,063 (Ex. 1018),
`
`5,038,320 (Ex. 1019), and 5,787,246 (EX. 1020); see also Exs. 1008, 1009. The
`
`’449 Patent describes and claims one such system.
`
`-1-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,895,449 B2
`
`The ’449 Patent describes an “interface device”—Which might be built into
`
`the peripheral
`
`itself»-that handles all of
`
`the communications between the
`
`peripheral and the computer. The interface device pretends to be a standard
`
`periphera1—one for which the computer already has a device driver. By the late
`
`1990s, when the application leading the ’449 Patent was filed, desktop and laptop
`
`computers had a hard disk. Ex. 1001, at 4:13-17. There were well—established
`
`protocols for identifying, configuring, and controlling hard disks, and computers
`
`had a pre—installed device driver for communicating with a hard disk.
`
`The
`
`interface device of the ’449 Patent exploits these protocols and pretends to be a
`
`hard disk.
`
`Id. at 4:10-13, 4:66—5:2.
`
`In so doing,
`
`the peripheral
`
`is able to
`
`communicate with the computer using the pre-existing hard disk device driver,
`
`eliminating the need for a specialized device driver.
`
`This idea was well—known before the ’449 Patent, and the interface device
`
`described and claimed in the ’449 Patent was no leap forward in the art. U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,508,821 Murata (“Murata”) (Ex. 1005) describes a scanner having an
`
`“interface means
`
`for communicating with a computer and a “file system
`
`9’
`
`emulation means” for simulating a hard disk. Murata, at 1:64-67. Murata’s
`
`scanner “looks like” a hard disk to the computer.
`
`Id. at 4:20-23. The scanner
`
`communicates with the computer “using the device driver for existing hard discs,”
`
`so the scanner does not need its own device driver. Id. at 2:8—12.
`
`-2-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of US. Patent No. 6,895,449 B2
`
`It also was known to configure an interface device to send a signal to the
`
`host device indicating that it is a storage device customary in a host device, so the
`
`host device communicates with the interface device by using the driver for the
`
`storage device customary in a host device. Murata, at 6:33-39, 7:54-55; see also
`
`1:9—12, 4:11-15; Schmidt (EX. 1006), at 122, 133 (Table 12.1), 137 (Table 12.8),
`
`138 (Table 12.10, showing the INQUIRY command 12h as Type “M”), 139-40.
`
`Additionally, arranging an interface device for simulating a virtual file system to
`
`the host was also known. Murata, at 6:17-19, 7:31-35.
`
`This Petition demonstrates that claims 1-10, 12-13, and 15-18 of the ’449
`
`Patent are unpatentable under pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. §103(a), and that there is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner (collectively Huawei Device Co., Ltd., LG
`
`Electronics, Inc., and ZTE (USA) Inc.) will prevail based on prior art the U.S.
`
`Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) did not consider during prosecution.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1))
`
`A.
`
`Real Parties-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b) (1))
`
`The real—parties-in interest are: Huawei Device USA Inc., Huawei Device
`
`Co., Ltd., Huawei Device (Dongguan) Co., Ltd., Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.,
`
`Huawei Technologies USA, Inc., LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A.,
`
`Inc., LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A.,
`
`Inc., ZTE (USA)
`
`Inc, and ZTE
`
`Corporation.
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,895,449 B2
`
`B.
`
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`
`1.
`
`Related Litigation
`
`Petitioner is aware of the following litigations involving the ’449 Patent in
`
`the Eastern District of Texas: 6-15—cv—01099, 6—15—cv-01100, 6-15-cv-01102, 6-
`
`15-cv—O1111, and 6—15—cv-01115.
`
`Petitioner is aware of the following litigations involving the ’449 Patent in
`
`the United States District Court for the District of Columbia: 1-09-cv—00530, 1—08-
`
`cv-01433, 1-08-cv—01-404, 1—O8~cv—01405, 1-08—cv-01406, 1-O8—cv~O1407, 1-08—
`
`cv-00985, 1—08-cv-00865, 1—07—cv—O2086, 1-07~cv—02087, 1—O7—cv-02088, MDL
`
`1880, 1—O7—mc-00493, 1—O7—cv—O1222, 1—O7—cv-01118, and 1-06-cv-01751.
`
`Petitioner is aware of the following litigations involving the ’449 Patent in
`
`the Northern District of Illinois: 1—O8—cv-03627, 1-08—cv-03606, 1—O8—cv—03609, 1-
`
`08—cv—03608, 1-08—cv-02510, 1—08—cv-01218.
`
`Petitioner is aware of the following litigation involving the ’449 Patent in
`
`the Northern District of California: 5—O8—cv-01732.
`
`Petitioner is aware of the following litigation involving the ’449 Patent in
`
`the District of Delaware: 1—O7~cv-00415.
`
`2.
`
`Related Inter Partes Review Petitions
`
`Petitioner is aware of the following inter partes review Petitions filed for
`
`related U.S. Patent No. 6,470,399: IPR2016—01839, IPR20l6-01843, and IPR2016-
`
`01864.
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of US. Patent No. 6,895,449 B2
`
`Petitioner is aware of the following inter partes review Petitions filed for
`
`related U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746:
`
`IPR2016—01200, IPR2016—01206, IPR2016-
`
`01211,
`
`IPR2016—01213,
`
`IPR2016—01223,
`
`IPR2016—01224,
`
`IPR2016—01862,
`
`lPR2016~01863, and IPR2017-00158.
`
`Petitioner is aware of the following inter partes review Petitions filed for
`
`related U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144: IPR2016—01199, IPR2016~01202, IPR2016-
`
`01212,
`
`IPR2016—01214,
`
`IPR2016—01216,
`
`IPR2016—01222,
`
`IPR2016—01225,
`
`IPR2016-01849, IPR2016—01860, and lPR2017—00154.
`
`Petitioner is aware of the following inter partes review Petition filed for
`
`related U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437: IPR2016-01733, IPR2016-01840, IPR2016-
`
`01841, IPR2016—01842, IPR2016-01844, and IPR2017-00156.
`
`C.
`
`Counsel and Service Information (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(3) and
`(b)(4))
`
`Counsel
`
`Service Information
`
`Lead Counsel:
`
`Postal and hand delivery:
`
`David A. Garr (Reg. No. 74,932)
`
`Covington & Burling LLP
`
`dgarr@cov.com
`
`One CityCenter
`
`Backup Counsel:
`
`850 Tenth Street, NW
`
`Gregory S. Discher (Reg. No. 42,488)
`
`Washington, DC 20001
`
`gdischer@cov.com
`
`T: 202-662-6000
`
`F: 202~662—6291
`
`-5-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,895,449 B2
`
`Counsel
`
`Service Information
`
`Backup Counsel:
`
`Postal and hand delivery:
`
`Herbert H. Finn (Reg. No. 38,139)
`
`Greenberg Traurig LLP
`
`finnh@gtlaw.com
`
`77 W. Wacker Dr.
`
`Jonathan E. Giroux (Reg. No. 66,639)
`
`Suite 3100
`
`girouxj@gtlaw.com
`
`Chicago, IL 60601
`
`Backup Counsel:
`
`T: 312-456-8400
`
`F: 312-456-8435
`
`Postal and hand delivery:
`
`Scott R. Miller (Reg. No. 32,276)
`
`Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
`LLP
`
`smiller@sheppardmullin.com
`
`Darren Franklin (Reg. No. 51,701)
`
`dfranklin@sheppardmullin.com
`
`333 South Hope Street
`
`43“ Floor
`
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`
`T: 213-620-1780
`
`F: 213-620-1398
`
`III.
`
`FEES (37 C.F.R. § 42.103)
`
`The PTO is authorized to charge $23,400 ($9,000 request fee and $14,400
`
`post-institution fees) to Deposit Account No. 50-0740. The PTO is also authorized
`
`to charge all fees due at any time during this proceeding to Deposit Account No.
`
`50-0740.
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,895,449 B2
`
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104
`
`A.
`
`Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a))
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’449 Patent is available for inter partes review
`
`and Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review
`
`challenging the ’449 Patent on the grounds identified in the present Petition.
`
`B.
`
`Claims for Which Review is Requested (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) (1))
`
`Petitioner requests review of claims 1-10, 12-13, and 15-18 of the ’449
`
`Patent (“challenged claims”).
`
`C.
`
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge and Prior Art Relied Upon for
`Each Ground (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) (2))
`
`The challenged claims should be cancelled as unpatentable based on the
`
`following grounds:
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-3, 6-10, 12-13, and 15-18 are unpatentable under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a) in View of U.S. Patent No. 5,508,821 to Murata, The SCSI Bus
`
`and IDE Interface (“Schmidt”) (Ex. 1006), and The MS-DOS Encyclopedia (“MS-
`
`DOS Encyclopedia”) (Ex. 1010).
`
`Ground 2: Claims 4 and 5 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in
`
`View of Murata, Schmidt, The MS-DOS Encyclopedia, and U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,850,484 to Beretta et al. (“Beretta”) (EX. 1007).
`
`The ’449 Patent claims priority to U.S. Patent Application No. 09/331,002
`
`(now U.S. Patent No. 6470,399) which,
`
`in turn, claims priority to PCT No.
`
`.. 7 _
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,895,449 B2
`
`PCT/EP98/01187, filed March 3, 1998. The ’449 Patent further claims priority to
`
`German Patent Application DE 197 08 755, filed March 4, 1997. For purposes of
`
`this proceeding, and without conceding the claims are in fact entitled to claim
`
`priority back to the German patent application, Petitioner has assumed the claims
`
`of the ’449 Patent are entitled to a priority date of no earlier than March 4, 1997.
`
`Murata issued on April 16, 1996, and is therefore prior art under at least 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 102(e).
`
`Schmidt was published in 1995, and MS-DOS Encyclopedia was published
`
`in 1988. Therefore,
`
`these references are prior art under at
`
`least 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 102(a) and 102(b).
`
`Beretta is a U.S. Patent that claims priority, under 35 U.S.C. §120,
`
`to
`
`Application No. 08/411,369 (Ex. 1016) filed on March 27, 1995.
`
`In Sections
`
`VII.B.2 and VII.B.3 below, Petitioner relies on Beretta, at 1:40-2:60; 4:44-46;
`
`4:56--61; 4:65-67; 5:5-7; 5:20-22; 5:39-63; 10:1-6; Title. As shown in Ex. 1017,
`
`these disclosures are also disclosed in the ’369 application. Accordingly, Beretta is
`
`prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`The Examiner neither cited nor considered Murata, Schmidt, MS-DOS
`
`Encyclopedia, or Beretta during prosecution of the ’449 Patent.
`
`D.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’449 Patent at the time of the
`
`-3-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of US. Patent No. 6,895,449 B2
`
`alleged invention (“POSITA”) would have a four—year degree in electrical
`
`engineering, computer science, or related field of study. A POSITA would also
`
`have either a Master’s degree, or at least two years of experience in the relevant
`
`field, e.g., computer science, computer systems, or peripheral devices. Ex. 1003,
`
`111145-49.
`
`E.
`
`Unpatentability
`§ 42.104(b)(4))
`
`of
`
`the Construed Claims
`
`(37
`
`C.F.R.
`
`Claims 1-10, 12-13, and 15-18 of the ’449 Patent are unpatentable under
`
`the statutory ground(s) identified above, as explained in Section VII, below.
`
`F.
`
`Supporting Evidence (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5))
`
`The exhibit numbers of the supporting evidence relied upon to support the
`
`challenge and the relevance of the evidence to the challenge raised, including
`
`identifying specific portions of the evidence that support
`
`the challenge, are
`
`provided in Section VI, below. An Exhibit List with the exhibit numbers and a
`
`brief description of each exhibit is set forth above.
`
`V.
`
`THE ’449 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`Overview of the ’449 Patent
`
`The ’449 Patent generally describes an interface designed to facilitate the
`
`transfer of data between a host computer and a peripheral device. Ex. 1001, at
`
`Title and Abstract. While the ‘449 Patent admits such interfaces were known at
`
`the time of the invention, it states that they typically “require very sophisticated
`
`-9-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,895,449 B2
`
`drivers which are prone to malfunction and which limit data transfer rates”
`
`between the computer and the peripheral. Id. at 1227-31.
`
`The ’-449 Patent describes an “interface device” intended to eliminate the
`
`need for specialized device drivers. When the interface device of the alleged
`
`invention is connected to a host, it responds to the host’s request for identification
`
`by “simulat[ing] both in terms of hardware and software,
`
`the way in which a
`
`conventional input/output device functions, preferably that of a hard disk drive,”
`
`for which the host system already has a working driver.
`
`Id. at 4:11-13 (emphasis
`
`added). By responding in that manner, the interface device induces the host to
`
`falsely treat it—and, indirectly, data devices on the other side of the interface
`
`device, no matter what type of devices they are—like a device that is already
`
`familiar to the host. Thereafter, when the host communicates with the interface
`
`device to request data from or control the operation of the data device, the host
`
`uses its own familiar native device driver, and the interface device translates the
`
`communications into a form understandable by the connected data device.
`
`Id. at
`
`3:25-4:36. The interface device of the ’449 Patent
`
`thus does not require a
`
`“specially designed driver” for the interface device in a host computer. Id. at 4:19.
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History of the ’449 Patent
`
`The Examiner allowed the application that gave rise to the ’449 Patent
`
`without making any rejections over the prior art. According to the Examiner, the
`
`-10-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`.._.—.WvwwwwiNWMM-INw¢4‘¢¢NxMVNW0¢W\|MA‘|k\l>#/\HlY““A'1Al1ma«msmwumvxmwmxmmwmmamwmmmmmwamwswrar
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of US. Patent No. 6,895,449 B2
`
`prior art did not disclose an interface device which both (1) “sends a signal to the
`
`host device that the attached device is a storage device customary in a host device,
`
`regardless of the type of the attached device,” and (2) “sirnulat[es] a virtual file
`
`system” including a “directory structure.”
`
`Ex. 1002, at 50. However,
`
`the
`
`Examiner was not aware of, and did not consider, relevant prior art, such as Murata
`
`and Schmidt.
`
`C.
`
`Claim Construction (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3))
`
`In an inter partes review, the Board construes claim terms in an unexpired
`
`patent according to their broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the
`
`specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under the broadest reasonable construction,
`
`claim terms are given their ordinary and accustomed meaning as would be
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure.
`
`In re Translogic Tec/2., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`For purposes of this proceeding, Petitioner believes the challenged claims
`
`should be interpreted consistent with their ordinary and customary meaning within
`
`the context of the ’449 Patent. Further context regarding the meaning of certain
`
`-11-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of US. Patent No. 6,895,449 B2
`
`terms is set forth below.1
`
`1.
`
`“data transmit/receive device”
`
`The term “data transmit/receive device” is recited in claims 1, 2, 5, 16 and
`
`17. The broadest reasonable construction of this term encompasses “a device
`
`capable of transmitting or
`
`receiving data.”
`
`This
`
`is consistent with the
`
`specification, which discloses “a data transmit/receive device which is to receive
`
`data from the host device _o_r from which data is to be read, i.e. acquired, and
`
`transferred to the host device.” Ex. 1001, at 4:55-59 (emphasis added); Ex. 1003,
`
`151.
`
`2.
`
`“simulating a virtual file system to the host”
`
`This term is recited in claims 1, 17 and 18. For purposes of this proceeding,
`
`under
`
`the broadest
`
`reasonable construction standard,
`
`this
`
`term should be
`
`interpreted to encompass (at a minimum) “emulating a file system,
`
`including a
`
`directory structure, such that the host device use its native driver to access data
`
`1Petitioner reserves the right to propose different constructions in other
`
`proceedings and in particular district court litigation, for which the narrower claim
`
`construction standard of Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`
`would apply.
`
`-12-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,895,449 B2
`
`even if the data is not actually on a device for which the native driver was
`
`designed,” as Patent Owner has proposed in litigation concerning the ’449 patent.
`
`EX. 1012, at 37-38 (Patent Owner’s brief); EX. 1003, 1152.
`
`3.
`
`“interface device”
`
`This term, recited in claims 1 and 18, was considered by the Federal Circuit,
`
`which stated that an interface device “is not
`
`limited to .
`
`.
`
`. a device that
`
`is
`
`physically separate and apart from, and not permanently attached to, a data device
`
`(or a host computer).” Ex. 1011, at 7; Ex. 1003,
`
`‘H53. Under the broadest
`
`reasonable construction standard, this term should be interpreted to encompass (at
`
`a minimum) that construction.
`
`VI.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE REFERENCES APPLIED IN THIS PETITION
`
`A.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,508,821 to Murata (Ex. 1005)
`
`Murata describes several types of computer peripherals-«including an image
`
`scanner—that are able to communicate with a computer without the need for “any
`
`new device driver.” Murata, at 1:58—61. The image scanner connects to the
`
`computer through a small computer system interface (SCSI) bus.
`
`Id. at 1:17——37.
`
`SCSI is a multi-purpose interface that can be used to connect a Variety of different
`
`types of peripherals to a computer. As Murata explains, SCSI “is standardized as
`
`an interface means
`
`for
`
`carrying out
`
`high—speed data
`
`transfer. Through
`
`standardization, the SCSI is in wide practical use today as an interface for various
`
`computers.” Id. at 1:18-21.
`
`_ 13 _
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,895,449 B2
`
`Peripherals connected through a SCSI interface generally require a device
`
`driver to be installed on the host computer.
`
`Id. at 1:32-37. At the time of the
`
`invention, most computers did not include a device driver for a scanner.
`
`Id. at
`
`1:38-41 (“Because image scanners .
`
`.
`
`. are not standardized .
`
`.
`
`. the device driver
`
`therefor is not generally contained in an operating system (OS) of the computer.
`
`Accordingly, it is necessary to prepare the device driver for the image scanner .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`connected to the host computer.”). The scanner in Murata, however, does not
`
`require a specialized device driver, and includes a “file system emulation means
`
`for emulating a file system contained in the external host computer.” Id. at 1:65-
`
`67. The scanner acts “as if it were a hard disc.”
`
`Id. at 4:21.
`
`“[T]he image
`
`scanner .
`
`.
`
`. looks like the hard disc from the [computer] and can be handled as the
`
`hard disc.” Id. at 4:21-23. The scanner is able to communicate with the computer
`
`using the computer’s customary hard disk device driver. Id. at 2:8—12.
`
`B.
`
`Schmidt (EX. 1006)
`
`Schmidt describes details of the SCSI bus and standard. As of 1995,
`
`“[a]lmost all modern computers including PCs, workstations and mainframes are
`
`equipped with a SCSI interface.” Schmidt, at v. Figure 9.1 of Schmidt (below),
`
`illustrates “[a] simple SCSI configuration” where a host adapter sends SCSI
`
`commands over a SCSI bus to a disk drive. Id. at 80.
`
`-14-
`
`

`
`...w..sWmIN...am,tMt_sWw.mmmmm.tmaww.mmmss~wwwsm»zmmu
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,895,449 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 9.1 A simple SCSI configuration.
`
`SCSI defines a number of device classes, such as disk drives, as shown in
`
`Table 12.1. Id. at 132-33. One of the mandatory commands supported by a SCSI
`
`device is an INQUIRY command that “requests that
`
`information regarding
`
`parameters of the target and its attached peripheral device(s) be sent
`
`to the
`
`initiator.” Id. at 88.
`
`In response to an INQUIRY command, a device provides,
`
`among other parameters, its device class (e.g. disk drive class) “that are returned
`
`from an INQUIRY command.” Id. at 132; see also id. at 133 (Table 12.1).
`
`-15..
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,895,449 B2
`
`C. MS-DOS Encyclopedia (Ex. 1010)
`
`MS-DOS Encyclopedia
`
`discloses
`
`the
`
`structure, format, and contents of the file system
`
`used by the MS-DOS operating system. Figure
`
`3-5 (right) shows the “general layout for the file
`
`system.” Ex. 1010, at 93.
`
`The file allocation table (“FAT”)
`
`is a
`
`record of which clusters on the disk are free,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEM identification BIOS pammctcr block, Loader mutinc
`Reserved area
`
`Possible additional copies of FAI
`
`Rootdiskdireclory
`
`
`
`
`
`
`which clusters are currently being used, and
`
`F“°”*°“
`
`how the used clusters are organized into files.
`
`"8""*3'5 7"'~’”"‘”°‘/”“75'*”"
`
`Id. at 97-101.
`
`06}!
`033
`
`MS-DOS files can be
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`stored
`
`,
`in
`
`a
`
`Di!!!
`,
`hlerarchy of W,
`DE}!
`101!
`NH
`13!!
`
`directories and subdirectories.
`
`Information about
`
`the
`
`top
`
`level
`
`.
`directory
`
`_
`In
`
`_
`this
`
`hierarchy (called the “root
`
`directory”) is stored in a table
`
`*5“368
`
`l8H
`mm
`{C}!
`IR?!
`
`that immediately follows the
`
`BP3
`
`
`
`E9XXXXt)rEBXX90
`
`GEM name and version (8 bytes)
`
`Bytes per seams (2 bytes)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ftgursj-6. Map gfms boot sector qfem MS-DOS disk. Bytes 0131! thfoxgtgft I2'?!are the mmmramexar Mock
`file allocation table. Id. at 95, W"
`
`-15-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of US. Patent No. 6,895,449 B2
`
`101-03.
`
`The boot sector contains a number of parameters that identify, among other
`
`things, the type of disk on which the file system resides, the physical layout of the
`
`disk, and the structure of the file system.
`
`Figure 3-6 (above) illustrates the
`
`structure and contents of the boot sector. Id. at 95.
`
`D.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,850,484 to Beretta et al. (EX. 1007)
`
`Beretta teaches the use of a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) and Discrete
`
`Fourier Transform (DFT), as known ways to compress image data (such as the
`
`output of a scanner) and transform such data into the frequency domain. Beretta,
`
`at 4:56-61.
`
`VII. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS
`
`As set forth in herein and in the Declaration of Dr. Kevin C. Almeroth (EX.
`
`1003), the concepts claimed in the ’449 Patent were neither new nor non-obvious.
`
`Each element of the challenged claims is disclosed in the prior art, and the
`
`references cited in Grounds I——II render each of the challenged claims obvious.
`
`None of the prior art in Grounds 1-11 were considered by the Examiner. The
`
`Declaration of Dr. Almeroth was also not before the Examiner. Accordingly, none
`
`of Grounds I—II present the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments
`
`previously presented to the Office. 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).
`
`-17..
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,895,449 B2
`
`A.
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-3, 6-10, 1