UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC. AND ZTE (USA) INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO., KG,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2017-00443
`United States Patent No. 6,470,399
`_______________
`___________________________________
`PATENT OWNER PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO., KG’S RESPONSE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.120
`___________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC. AND ZTE (USA) INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO., KG,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2017-00443
`United States Patent No. 6,470,399
`_______________
`___________________________________
`PATENT OWNER PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO., KG’S RESPONSE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.120
`___________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
` I. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN DISPUTE .................................. 1
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED ......................................... 1
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE ‘399 PATENT ................................................. 2
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .................................. 5
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .................................................................. 7
`
`SUMMARY OF PATENT OWNER’S ARGUMENTS ..................... 9
`
`III. PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO PETITIONERS’ GROUNDS OF
`REJECTION ........................................................................................................... 11
`A. MURATA, SCHMIDT, LIN, BERETTA AND THE MICROSOFT
`PRESS COMPUTER DICTIONARY DO NOT RENDER CLAIMS
`1-8, 10-11 AND 13-15 OBVIOUS ........................................................ 11
`1. OVERVIEW OF MURATA .......................................................... 11
`2. OVERVIEW OF SCHMIDT ......................................................... 13
`3. OVERVIEW OF LIN ...................................................................... 13
`
`4. MURATA, SCHMIDT, LIN, BERETTA AND THE
` MICROSOFT PRESS COMPUTER DICTIONARY DO NOT
` DISCLOSE THE “WHEREIN THE FIRST COMMAND
` INTERPRETER IS CONFIGURED IN SUCH A WAY THAT
` THE COMMAND INTERPRETER, WHEN RECEIVING AN
` INQUIRY FROM THE HOST DEVICE AS TO A TYPE OF A
` DEVICE ATTACHED TO THE MULTI-PURPOSE
` INTERFACE OF THE HOST DEVICE, SENDS A SIGNAL,
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
` REGARDLESS OF THE TYPE OF THE DATA
` TRANSMIT/RECEIVE DEVICE ATTACHED TO THE
` SECOND CONNECTING DEVICE OF THE INTERFACE
` DEVICE, TO THE HOST DEVICE WHICH SIGNALS TO
` THE HOST DEVICE THAT IT IS AN INPUT/OUTPUT
` DEVICE CUSTOMARY IN A HOST DEVICE” LIMITATION
` OF INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1 OR THE CORRESPONDING
` LIMITATIONS OF INDEPENDENT CLAIMS 11 AND 14 OF
` THE ‘399 PATENT......................................................................... 14
`
`5. MURATA, SCHMIDT, LIN, BERETTA AND THE
` MICROSOFT PRESS COMPUTER DICTIONARY DO NOT
` DISCLOSE THE “WHEREIN THE DRIVERS FOR
` INPUT/OUTPUT [DEVICES] CUSTOMARY IN A HOST
` DEVICE COMPRISE A HARD DISK DRIVER, AND THE
` SIGNAL INDICATES TO THE HOST DEVICE THAT THE
` HOST DEVICE IS COMMUNICATING WITH A HARD
` DISK” LIMITATION OF DEPENDENT CLAIM 2 OF THE
` ‘399 PATENT .................................................................................. 22
`
`6. MURATA, SCHMIDT, LIN, BERETTA AND THE
` MICROSOFT PRESS COMPUTER DICTIONARY DO NOT
` RENDER OBVIOUS DEPENDENT CLAIMS 2-8, 10, 13 AND
` 15 OF THE ‘399 PATENT ............................................................. 23
`B. MURATA AND SCHMIDT WOULD NOT BE COMBINED BY
`ONE SKILLED IN THE ART ............................................................... 24
`INTER PARTES REVIEW IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL .................... 28
`C.
`IV. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Currently and Previously Filed – Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Description
`
`Ex.
`No.
`2001 Defendants’ Responsive Claim Construction Brief in Papst Licensing
`GmbH & Co., KG v. Apple, Inc. (6:15-CV-01095-RWS)
`In re Papst Licensing Digital Camera Patent Litigation, 778 F.3d 1255
`(Fed. Cir. 2015)
`2003 Definition of charge-coupled device, Dictionary of Engineering (2015)
`2004 Markman Order in Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. Apple Inc. (6:15-
`CV-01095-RWS)
`2005 Confidential Settlement Agreement Between Huawei Device Co., Ltd. and
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG
`2006 Declaration of Thomas A. Gafford in Support of Patent Owner Response
`(“Gafford Declaration”)
`2007 mkdev Command Definition from IBM Knowledge Center
`(https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/ssw_aix_61/com.ibm.a
`ix.cmds3/mkdev.htm)
`2008 August 24, 2006 Preliminary Amendment for U.S. Application No.
`11/467,092 resulting in ‘437 Patent
`July 17, 2007 Preliminary Amendment for U.S. Application No.
`11/467,092 resulting in ‘437 Patent
`January 2, 2008 Preliminary Amendment for U.S. Application No.
`11/467,092 resulting in ‘437 Patent
`
`
`2002
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`Previously Filed – Petitioners
`
`Ex. No.
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 6,470,399 to Tasler
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 6,470,399
`Declaration of Kevin C. Almeroth
`Curriculum Vitae of Kevin C. Almeroth
`U.S. Patent No. 5,508,821 to Murata
`iv
`
`
`
`1006
`1007
`1008
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`1014
`1015
`1016
`1017
`
`1018
`1019
`1020
`1021
`1022
`
`1023
`
`
`
`
`
`Friedhelm Schmidt, The SCSI Bus and IDE Interface (1995)
`The Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary (2nd ed. 1994)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,522,432 to Lin
`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)
`Am. Nat’l Standards Inst., Inc., Am. Nat’l Standard for Info. Sys’s
`Small Computer System Interface-2, ANSI X3.131-1994 (1994)
`(“SCSI Specification”)
`In re Papst Licensing Dig. Camera Pat. Litig., 778 F.3d 1255, 1265
`(Fed. Cir. 2015)
`The Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary (2nd ed. 1994)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,850,484 to Berretta et al.
`Intentionally Left Blank
`File History for U.S. Patent Application No. 08/411,369
`Comparison of excerpts of File History for U.S. Patent Application
`No. 08/411,369 (Exhibit 1016) and U.S. Patent No. 5,850,484 to
`Beretta et al. (Ex. 1014)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,589,063 to Shah et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,038,320 to Heath et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,787,246 to Lichtman et al.
`Intentionally Left Blank
`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 of Electronics
`(1991)
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN DISPUTE
`Petitioners Huawei Device Co., Ltd., LG Electronics, Inc., and ZTE (USA)
`
`Inc. (“Petitioners”) did not submit a statement of material facts in their Petition for
`
`inter partes review. Paper 2 (Petition). Accordingly, no response to a statement
`
`of material facts is due pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(a), and no facts are admitted.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Patent Owner Papst Licensing GMBH & Co., KG (“Patent Owner”)
`
`respectfully submits this Patent Owner Response under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.120. It is being timely filed on or before August 28, 2017 pursuant
`
`to the Scheduling Order issued in this proceeding and the Stipulation Regarding
`
`Due Dates 2 and 3. Paper 8 (Scheduling Order) at 8; Paper 9 (Stipulation Regarding
`
`Due Dates 2 and 3) at 1.
`
`“In an inter partes review instituted under this chapter, the petitioner shall
`
`have the burden of proving a proposition of unpatentability by a preponderance of
`
`the evidence.” 35 U.S.C. §316(e). Petitioners’ propositions of unpatentability fail
`
`to meet that burden with respect to claims 1-8, 10-11 and 13-15 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,470,399 (“’399 Patent”).
`
`
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED
`A.
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 316, Patent Owner respectfully requests that the
`
`1
`
`
`
`Patent Trial And Appeal Board (“Board” or “PTAB”) find that originally issued
`
`claims 1-8, 10-11 and 13-15 of the ‘399 Patent are valid in view of the proposed
`
`grounds of unpatentability under consideration.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘399 PATENT
`The ’399 Patent involves a unique method for achieving high data transfer
`
`rates for data acquisition systems (e.g., still pictures, videos, voice recordings) to a
`
`general-purpose computer, without requiring a user to purchase, install, and/or run
`
`specialized software for each system. Exhibit 1001 (’399 Patent) at 4:23-27. At the
`
`time of the invention, there were an increasing number and variety of data
`
`acquisition systems with the ability to capture high volumes of information. Id. at
`
`1:34-52. As such, there was an increasing demand to transfer that information to
`
`commercially-available, general purpose computers. Id. at 1:20-32. But at that
`
`time—and today—performing that data transfer operation required either loading
`
`specialized, sophisticated software onto a general purpose computer, which
`
`increases the risk of error and the level of complexity for the operator, or specifically
`
`matching interface devices for a data acquisition system to a host system that may
`
`maximize data transfer rates but lacks the flexibility to operate with different
`
`devices. Id. at 1:17-3:21.
`
`The ‘399 Patent recognizes that the existing options were wasteful and
`
`inefficient and presents a solution that would achieve high data transfer rates,
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`without specialized software, while being sufficiently flexible
`
`to operate
`
`independent of device or host manufacturers. Id. at 2:17-36 and 3:24-27. The
`
`resulting invention would allow a data acquisition system to identify itself as a type
`
`of common device so as to leverage the inherent capabilities of general-purpose,
`
`commercially-available computers. Id. at 5:6-20. Accordingly, users could avoid
`
`loading specific software; improve data transfer efficiency; save time, processing
`
`power, and memory space; and avoid the waste associated with purchasing
`
`specialized computers or loading specific software for each device. Id. at 3:24-27,
`
`8:23-9:58, 9:23-34, 10:6-12 and 12:23-41. The ’399 Patent claims variations of this
`
`concept and provides a crucial, yet seemingly simple, method and apparatus for a
`
`high data rate, device-independent information transfer. Id. at 3:24-27.
`
`The interface device disclosed in the ‘399 Patent can leverage “drivers for
`
`input/output device[s] customary in a host device which reside in the BIOS system
`
`of the host device . . . .” Id. at 11:9-15; see also id. at 5:13-17 (“The interface device
`
`according to the present invention therefore no longer communicates with the host
`
`device or computer by means of a specially designed driver but the means of a
`
`program which is present in the BIOS system . . .”), 6:2-9 (describing the use of
`
`“usual BIOS routines” to issue INQUIRY instructions to the interface), and 8:43-50
`
`(describing use of BIOS routines). Similarly, the written description describes also
`
`using drivers included in the operating system. Id. at 5:64-6:3 (“Communication
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`between the host system or host device and the interface device is based on known
`
`standard access commands as supported by all known operating systems (e.g.,
`
`DOS®, Windows®, Unix®).”). Alternatively, if the required specific driver or
`
`drivers for a multi-purpose interface (such as a SCSI interface) is already present in
`
`a host device, such drivers could be used with the ‘399 Patent’s interface device
`
`instead of, or in addition to, customary drivers which reside in the BIOS. Id. at 11:9-
`
`12. Accordingly, the ’399 Patent contemplated a universal interface device that
`
`could operate independent of the manufacturer of the computer. Id. at 12:23-40.
`
`Indeed, the preferred embodiment discloses that the interface device includes three
`
`different connectors, a 50 pin SCSI connector 1240, a 25 pin D-shell connector 1280,
`
`and a 25 pin connector 1282, to allow the ‘399 Patent’s interface device to connect
`
`to a variety of different standard interfaces that could be present in a host computer.
`
`Id. at 9:30-47 and FIG. 2.
`
`As is apparent from the title of the ’399 Patent, the interface device disclosed
`
`is capable of acquiring and processing analog data. As shown in FIG. 2 reproduced
`
`below, the ’399 Patent discloses that the interface device 10 has an analog input at
`
`connection 16 for receiving analog data from a data transmit/receive device on a
`
`plurality of analog input channels 1505 and simultaneously digitizing the received
`
`analog data using, inter alia, a sample and hold amplifier 1515 and an analog to
`
`digital converter 1530 that converts analog data received from the plurality of
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`channels 1505 into digital data that may then be processed by the processor 1300.
`
`Id. at 9:49-64 and 10:27-41. “Each sample/hold circuit is connected to a
`
`corresponding input of an 8-channel multiplexer 1520 which feeds its output signals
`
`via a programmable amplifier 1525 into an analog/digital converter (ADC).” Id. at
`
`9:55-58. This arrangement of sample/hold circuits permits a single ADC to be used
`
`even when multiple analog data channels are being utilized. Id. at 9:49-64.
`
`C.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person who is
`
`presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of the invention.” Manual of
`
`Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) 2141.II.C. Factors that may be considered
`
`in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art may include: (1) type of problems
`
`encountered in the art; (2) prior art solutions to those problems; (3) rapidity with
`
`which innovations are made; (4) sophistication of the technology; and (5)
`
`educational level of active workers in the field. In re GPAC, 57 F.3d 1573, 1579
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1995).
`
`Petitioners’ proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art is
`
`partially consistent with Patent Owner’s view. Petitioners assert that “[a] person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art of the ‘399 Patent at the time of the alleged invention
`
`(‘POSITA’) would have a four-year degree in electrical engineering, computer
`
`science, or related field of study.” Paper 2 (Petition) at 9. According to Petitioners,
`
`“[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.” Id.
`
`Patent Owner contends that the field of the invention relates to “the transfer of
`
`data and in particular to interface devices for communication between a computer or
`
`host device and a data transmit/receive device from which data is to be acquired or
`
`with which two-way communication is to take place.” Exhibit 1001 (‘399 Patent) at
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`1:9-13. A POSITA would have at least a bachelor’s degree in a related field such as
`
`computer engineering or electrical engineering and at least three years of experience
`
`in the design, development, and/or testing of hardware and software components
`
`involved with data transfer or in embedded devices and their interfaces with host
`
`systems. Alternatively, a POSITA may have five or more years of experience in these
`
`technologies, without a bachelor’s degree.
`
`The Board previously determined that there were not meaningful differences
`
`between the parties’ definitions of a POSITA and adopted Petitioners’ assessment
`
`of a POSITA in the Institution Decision. Paper 7 (Institution Decision) at 10. While
`
`Patent Owner believes its proposed definition is more appropriate, it agrees with the
`
`Board that there are not meaningful differences between the parties’ definitions of a
`
`POSITA for purposes of this proceeding.
`
`
`
`D. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`In an inter partes review (“IPR”), the Board ordinarily construes claim terms
`
`in an unexpired patent using their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). The claim
`
`language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art. Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, No. 15-446, 136
`
`S. Ct. 2131, 2146 (June 20, 2016). The broadest reasonable meaning given to claim
`
`language must take into account any definitions presented in the specification. In re
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing In re Bass,
`
`314 F.3d 575, 577 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Under this standard, claim terms are given their
`
`ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d
`
`1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2005) (en banc)).
`
`However, because the ‘399 Patent will probably expire prior to the Final
`
`Written Decision in the present proceeding, the Board will likely construe the ‘399
`
`Patent claims based on their ordinary and customary meaning in accordance with
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corporation, 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Paper 7
`
`(Institution Decision) at 6.
`
`In the Institution Decision, the Board adopted several claim limitation
`
`constructions from a previous litigation involving the ‘399 Patent that were also
`
`appealed to the Federal Circuit. “Interface Device” was construed such that it 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).” Id. at 7. It was further determined
`
`that a “second connecting device” does not require “a physical plug, socket, or other
`
`structure that permits a user to readily attach and detach something else.” Id. at 8.
`
`A “data transmit/receive device” was determined “need not be capable of
`
`communicating ‘when connected to the host device by the interface device.’” Id.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`“Virtual files” were determined to be “not limited to a file ‘whose content is stored
`
`off the interface device, though it includes such files.’” Id. Finally, an “input/output
`
`device customary in a host device” was construed not to be limited to a device
`
`“normally present within the chassis of a computer.” Id.
`
`In the underlying district court litigation related to this IPR, a claim
`
`construction order issued on March 7, 2017 that further construed certain terms of
`
`the ‘399 Patent. A copy of this claim construction order is already in the record as
`
`Exhibit 2004 for the Board’s consideration.
`
`
`
`E. SUMMARY OF PATENT OWNER’S ARGUMENTS
`The Board instituted inter partes review on claims 1-4, 6-8, 11 and 13-15 of
`
`the ‘399 Patent based on Murata, Schmidt and Lin. Paper 7 (Institution Decision) at
`
`22. The Board further instituted inter partes review on claim 5 of the ‘399 Patent
`
`based on Murata, Schmidt, Lin and The Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary. Id.
`
`The Board also instituted inter partes review on claim 10 of the ‘399 Patent over
`
`Murata, Schmidt, Lin and Beretta. However, these proposed grounds of
`
`unpatentability fail with respect to all of these claims because the proposed
`
`references and combination of references fail to disclose or suggest each and every
`
`limitation as recited by the ‘399 Patent, and Murata and Schmidt would not be
`
`combined in the manner Petitioners suggest.
`
`United States Patent No. 5,508,821 (“Murata”), alone or in combination with
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`the other applied prior art, does not disclose the “wherein the first command
`
`interpreter is configured in such a way that the command interpreter, when
`
`receiving an inquiry from the host device as to a type of a device attached to the
`
`multi-purpose interface of the host device, sends a signal, regardless of the type of
`
`the data transmit/receive device attached to the second connecting device of the
`
`interface device, to the host device which signals to the host device that it is an
`
`input/output device customary in a host device, whereupon the host device
`
`communicates with the interface device by means of the driver for the input/output
`
`device customary in a host device” limitation of challenged independent claim 1 of
`
`the ‘399 Patent or the corresponding limitations of independent claims 11 and 14
`
`of the ‘399 Patent. In addition, Murata, alone or in combination with the other
`
`applied prior art, does not disclose the “wherein the drivers for input/output
`
`[devices] customary in a host device comprise a hard disk driver, and the signal
`
`indicates to the host device that the host device is communicating with a hard disk”
`
`limitation of dependent claim 2 of the ‘399 Patent.
`
`Further, Petitioners’ assertions of obviousness based on combining the
`
`primary reference, Murata, with teachings of the secondary reference, The SCSI Bus
`
`and IDE Interface Protocols, Applications and Programming, by Schmidt, First
`
`Edition, Addison-Wesley, 1995 (“Schmidt”), are mere conclusory statements that
`
`do not account for the manner in which the references teach away from the proposed
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`combination. The proposed combination of Murata’s scanner with signaling for a
`
`standard hard disk drive as discussed in Schmidt would change the principle of
`
`operation of Murata, produce a seemingly inoperative device, and/or create a device
`
`that no longer achieved the intended purpose of Murata. Moreover, there would be
`
`no reason or motivation for one skilled in the art to combine Schmidt with Murata
`
`to provide the signaling related to identification and recognition of Murata’s
`
`scanner as a hard disk. Because Petitioners fail to provide a persuasive fact-based
`
`analysis with some rational underpinning to support their combination theories of
`
`obviousness, Petitioners cannot fulfill their burden of showing by a preponderance
`
`of the evidence that claims 1-8, 10-11 and 13-15 of the ‘399 Patent are obvious.
`
`Finally, the IPR process violates the Constitution by extinguishing private
`
`property rights through a non-Article III forum without a jury. To the extent any
`
`claims of the ‘399 Patent are found invalid in this IPR, Patent Owner hereby
`
`challenges the constitutionality of the process of invalidation and reserves all rights
`
`related thereto.
`
`III. PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO PETITIONERS’ GROUNDS
`OF REJECTION
`
`
`SCHMIDT, LIN, BERETTA AND THE
`A. MURATA,
`MICROSOFT PRESS COMPUTER DICTIONARY DO NOT
`RENDER CLAIMS 1-8, 10-11 AND 13-15 OBVIOUS
`
`1.
`
`OVERVIEW OF MURATA
`
`
`
`
`Murata generally relates to an image scanner or image forming apparatus (i.e.,
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`a printer) that may be connected via a small computer system interface (SCSI) to
`
`transfer data to and from an external host computer. Exhibit 1005 (Murata) at
`
`Abstract, 1:9-12. Murata describes that scanners are not standardized, and as such,
`
`for a host computer to set parameters for the scanner, the computer must have a
`
`software device driver for the scanner, which is not installed in the operating system.
`
`Id. at 1:32-44. To avoid preparing a scanner device driver for each type of host
`
`computer, Murata proposes a scanner that comprises a file system emulation means
`
`for emulating a hard disc such that the existing device driver for such hard discs may
`
`be used to control the scanner. Id. at 1:62-2:12. Because the host computer’s
`
`operating system has commands that are utilized to access the file system,
`
`“development of application software for use in a host computer operatively
`
`connected to the image scanner . . . is facilitated.” Id. at 2:13- 17.
`
`The host computer contemplated by Murata is a workstation having a UNIX
`
`operating system. Id. at 2:64-65. Murata discloses that for the scanner to be operated
`
`by the workstation, a file system must be prepared by the workstation. Id. at 4:26-
`
`29. “In practice” this is done by “execut[ing]” an “‘mkfs’ or ‘newfs’ command of
`
`the UNIX” operating system. Id. at 4:29-30. This user-command causes the UNIX
`
`operating system to provide a device file and device driver required for operating
`
`the hard disc (here, the scanner emulating a hard disc). Id. at 4:31-32. This file set-
`
`up “enables basic information of the file system to be written to . . . the hard disc
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`(image scanner).” Id. at 4:33-35; see also, e.g., id. at 4:46-55 (“if the preparation of
`
`the file system is carried out,” the workstation can mount the scanner, access files,
`
`etc.) (emphasis added), FIG. 5 (flow chart demonstrating that if the file system is not
`
`prepared, the “mkfs” command must first be executed before other steps can be
`
`taken).
`
`2.
`
`OVERVIEW OF SCHMIDT
`
`
`
`As the Board stated, “Schmidt describes the SCSI bus and IDE (Integrated
`
`Drive Electronics) interface, which both are ANSI (American Nation[al] Standards
`
`Institute) standards.” Paper 7 (Institution Decision) at 12; Exhibit 1006 (Schmidt)
`
`at Preface. “According to Schmidt, these interfaces are two of the most important
`
`interfaces for computer peripherals in use at that time, and almost all computers at
`
`that time, from PCs to workstations to mainframes, were equipped with a SCSI
`
`interface.” Id. “The SCSI bus is designed for hard drives, as well as tape drives,
`
`CD-ROM, scanners, and printers.” Id.
`
`3.
`
`OVERVIEW OF LIN
`
`
`As delineated in the Institution Decision, “Lin describes an image scanner
`
`with automatic signal compensation.” Paper 7 (Institution Decision) at 13; Exhibit
`
`1008 (Lin) at Abstract. “Figure 2 of Lin illustrates a block diagram of signal
`
`compensation circuit 24 attached to a CCD image sensor 22.” Paper 7 (Institution
`
`Decision) at 13; Exhibit 1008 (Lin) at 2:56-58. “Signal compensation circuit 24
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`comprises signal amplifier 30 for amplifying the image signal and brightness signal
`
`from image sensor 22 to an appropriate voltage level, analog-to-digital (“A/D”)
`
`converter 32, sampling circuit 34 for sampling the brightness signal and generating
`
`a sample voltage Vs, and brightness compensation circuit 36. Paper 7 (Institution
`
`Decision) at 13; Exhibit 1008 (Lin) at 3:14-24.
`
`4. MURATA, SCHMIDT, LIN, BERETTA AND THE
`MICROSOFT PRESS COMPUTER DICTIONARY DO
`NOT DISCLOSE THE “WHEREIN THE FIRST
`COMMAND INTERPRETER IS CONFIGURED IN
`SUCH A WAY THAT THE COMMAND INTERPRETER,
`WHEN RECEIVING AN INQUIRY FROM THE HOST
`DEVICE AS TO A TYPE OF A DEVICE ATTACHED TO
`THE MULTI-PURPOSE INTERFACE OF THE HOST
`DEVICE, SENDS A SIGNAL, REGARDLESS OF THE
`TYPE OF THE DATA TRANSMIT/RECEIVE DEVICE
`ATTACHED TO THE SECOND CONNECTING DEVICE
`OF THE INTERFACE DEVICE, TO THE HOST DEVICE
`WHICH SIGNALS TO THE HOST DEVICE THAT IT IS
`AN INPUT/OUTPUT DEVICE CUSTOMARY IN A HOST
`DEVICE” LIMITATION OF INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1
`OR THE CORRESPONDING LIMITATIONS OF
`INDEPENDENT CLAIMS 11 AND 14 OF THE ‘399
`PATENT
`
`
`Murata and Schmidt do not disclose the “wherein the first command
`
`interpreter is configured in such a way that the command interpreter, when
`
`receiving an inquiry from the host device as to a type of a device attached to the
`
`multi-purpose interface of the host device, sends a signal, regardless of the type of
`
`the data transmit/receive device attached to the second connecting device of the
`
`interface device, to the host device which signals to the host device that it is an
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`input/output device customary in a host device” limitation of independent claim 1
`
`of the ‘399 Patent. Exhibit 2006 (Gafford Declaration) at ¶ 44. In addition, Murata
`
`and Schmidt do not disclose the corresponding limitations of independent claims
`
`11 and 14 of the ‘399 Patent that require “wherein the first command interpreter is
`
`configured in such a way that the interface device, when receiving an inquiry from
`
`the host device as to the type of a device attached at the multi-purpose interface of
`
`the host device, sends a signal, regardless of the type of the data transmit/receive
`
`device attached to the second connecting device of the interface device, to the host
`
`device which signals to the host device that it is an input/output device customary
`
`in a host device” and “regardless of the type of the data transmit/receive device
`
`attached to the second connecting device of the interface device, responding to the
`
`inquiry from the host device by the interface device in such a way that it is an
`
`input/output device customary in a host device,” respectively.1 Exhibit 2006
`
`(Gafford Declaration) at ¶¶ 60-63.
`
`Murata or the combination of Murata and Schmidt fails to disclose the “when
`
`receiving an inquiry from the host device as to a type of a device attached to the
`
`multi-purpose interface of the host device, sends a signal, regardless of the type of
`
`the data transmit/receive device attached to the second connecting device of the
`
`
`1 Neither the Petitioners in the Petition nor the Board in the Institution Decision
`applied Lin, Beretta or The Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary to these claim
`limitations. Consequently, no analysis of these references is necessary herein.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`interface device, to the host device which signals to the host device that it is an
`
`input/output device customary in a host device” portion of claim 1 and the
`
`corresponding portions of claims 11 and 14 because Murata does not disclose
`
`responding to an inquiry from the workstation by sending a signal that the scanner
`
`is an input/output device customary in a host device, and there is no teaching in
`
`Schmidt of a device sending a signal identifying itself as something other than what
`
`it actually is. Exhibit 2006 (Gafford Declaration) at ¶ 45.
`
`The host computer contemplated by Murata is a workstation having a UNIX
`
`operating system. Exhibit 1005 (Murata) at 2:64-65. Murata discloses that for the
`
`scanner to be operated by the workstation, a file system must be prepared by the
`
`workstation. Id. at 4:26-29. “In practice” this is done by “execut[ing]” an “‘mkfs’
`
`or ‘newfs’ command of the UNIX” operating system. Id. at 4:29-30. This user-
`
`command causes the UNIX operating system to provide a device file and device
`
`driver required for operating the hard disc (here, the scanner emulating a hard disc).
`
`Id. at 4:31-32. This file set-up “enables basic information of the file system to be
`
`written to a predetermined region, i.e. a super block of the hard disc (image
`
`scanner).” Id. at 4:33-35; see also, e.g., id. at 4:46-55 (“if the preparation of the file
`
`system is carried out,” the workstation can mount the scanner, access files, etc.)
`
`(emphasis added), FIG. 5 (flow chart demonstrating that if the file system is not
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`prepared, the “mkfs” command must first be executed before other steps can be
`
`taken). Exhibit 2006 (Gafford Declaration) at ¶ 46.
`
`As described above, Murata requires a user to first set up a file system,
`
`including a device file and device driver, using UNIX commands “mkfs” or “newfs”
`
`in the workstation before the workstation can mount the scanner and access files.
`
`These commands are operating system commands, and have to be entered by the
`
`user or be embedded in an application program running on a workstation to which
`
`the Murata scanner is connected. The commands require parameters to be given,
`
`including at least mkfs i-node device_name. This means that, for example, the user
`
`has to enter the node at which the file system is to be made and the device name
`
`(associated with the device file and driver in the system). Exhibit 2006 (Gafford
`
`Declaration) at ¶ 47.
`
`Before the “mkfs” and “newfs” commands can be issued, however, a POSITA
`
`would have known that a user would be required to issue the “mkdev” command in
`
`the workstation. The “mkdev” command identifies a device to the workstation and
`
`tells the workstation what the device is and what driver to use. Exhibit 2007 (mkdev
`
`Command Definition). As a result, nothing in the process disclosed by Murata
`
`suggests that the Murata device sends a signal that it is an input/output device
`
`customary in a host device when receiving an inquiry from a host device. Instead,
`
`this identification of a device and driver is typically done manually at the
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`workstation. Exhibit 2006 (Gaf
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
