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,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`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 IPR of US 6,895,449
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`Ex. 1101
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,895,449 (the “’449 Patent”)
`
`Ex. 1102
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 6,895,449
`
`Ex. 1103
`
`Declaration of Kevin C. Almeroth
`
`Ex. 1104
`
`Curriculum vitae of Kevin C. Almeroth
`
`Ex. 1105
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,508,821 to Murata
`
`Ex. 1106
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,915,106 to Ard
`
`Ex. 1107
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,850,484 to Beretta et al.
`
`Ex. 1108
`
`European Patent Office Publication Number 0 685 799 A1
`
`Ex. 1109
`
`Ex. 1110
`
`Ex. 1111
`
`Ex. 1112
`
`Ex. 1113
`
`Ex. 1114
`
`Ex. 1115
`
`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, No. 1:07-mc-00493 (D.D.C. June 3, 2016)
`Am. Nat’l Standard Inst., Inc., Am. Nat’l Standard for Info. Sys’s,
`Small Computer System Interface-2, ANSI X3.131-1994 (1994)
`(“SCSI Specification”)
`US Patent No. 6,470,399
`
`- i -
`
`

`
`Petition for IPR of US 6,895,449
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`Ex. 1116
`
`Ex. 1117
`
`Ex. 1118
`
`Patent Cooperation Treaty Patent Application PCT/EP98/01187
`(published as PCT Pub. No. WO98/39710)
`As-Filed Filed German priority document Patent Application 197
`08 755.8
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 6,470,399
`
`Ex. 1119
`
`’399 German Application Publication (DE 197 08 755)
`
`Ex. 1120
`
`Ex. 1121
`
`Ex. 1122
`
`Ex. 1123
`
`Ex. 1124
`Ex. 1125
`
`Ex. 1126
`
`Ex. 1127
`
`Ex. 1128
`
`Ex. 1129
`
`Ex. 1130
`
`Ex. 1131
`
`Certified Translation of Published ’399 German Application (DE
`197 08 755)
`English Translation of PCT Application PCT/EP98/01187
`(published as PCT Pub. No. WO98/39710)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,589,063
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,038,320
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,787,246
`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. 1107)
`File History for U.S. Patent Application No. 08/411,369
`
`Vetterli & Nussbaumer, Simple FFT and DCT Algorithms, 6
`Signal Processing 267-78 (1984)
`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)
`Friedhelm Schmidt, The SCSI Bus and IDE Interface (1995)
`
`Dave Williams, The Programmer’s Technical Reference: MS-
`DOS, IBM PC & Compatibles (1990)
`
`- ii -
`
`

`
`Petition for IPR of US 6,895,449
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`II. Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)) .................................................... 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Real Parties-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) .................................. 2
`
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) .............................................. 2
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Related Litigation ........................................................................ 2
`
`Related Inter Partes Review Petitions ......................................... 3
`
`Counsel and Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) and
`(b)(4)) .................................................................................................... 4
`
`III. Fees (37 C.F.R. § 42.103) ................................................................................ 5
`
`IV. Requirements for Inter Partes Review Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 .................. 6
`
`A. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)) ..................................... 6
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`is Requested (37 C.F.R. §
`Claims for Which Review
`42.104(b)(1)) ......................................................................................... 6
`
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge and Prior Art Relied Upon for
`Each Ground (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2)) .............................................. 6
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................................... 7
`
`the Construed Claims (37 C.F.R. §
`Unpatentability of
`42.104(b)(4)) ......................................................................................... 8
`
`Supporting Evidence (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5)) ................................. 8
`
`V.
`
`The ’449 Patent ................................................................................................ 8
`
`A. Overview of the ’449 Patent .................................................................. 8
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Prosecution History of the ’449 Patent ................................................. 9
`
`Priority Date of the Claims of the ’449 Patent ....................................10
`
`Claim Construction (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)) ..................................15
`
`- iii -
`
`

`
`Petition for IPR of US 6,895,449
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`“data transmit/receive device” ..................................................16
`
`“simulating a virtual file system” .............................................17
`
`“interface device” ......................................................................17
`
`VI. Summary of the References Applied in this Petition ....................................17
`
`A. U.S. Patent No. 5,508,821 to Murata (Ex. 1105) ................................17
`
`B.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,915,106 to Ard (Ex. 1106) .....................................19
`
`C. MS-DOS Encyclopedia (Ex. 1110) .....................................................20
`
`D. U.S. Patent No. 5,850,484 to Beretta et al. (Ex. 1107) .......................21
`
`VII. Detailed Explanation of Grounds ..................................................................21
`
`A. Ground I: Claims 1-3, 6-10, 12-13, and 15-18 are Unpatentable
`Under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over the Combination of Murata, Ard,
`and MS-DOS Encyclopedia ................................................................22
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`for Combining Murata, Ard, and MS-DOS
`Rationale
`Encyclopedia .............................................................................22
`
`Claim 1 ......................................................................................24
`
`Claim 2 ......................................................................................36
`
`Claim 3 ......................................................................................36
`
`Claim 6 ......................................................................................37
`
`Claim 7 ......................................................................................39
`
`Claim 8 ......................................................................................40
`
`Claim 9 ......................................................................................42
`
`Claim 10 ....................................................................................44
`
`10. Claim 12 ....................................................................................46
`
`11. Claim 13 ....................................................................................48
`
`- iv -
`
`

`
`Petition for IPR of US 6,895,449
`
`12. Claim 15 ....................................................................................49
`
`13. Claim 16 ....................................................................................49
`
`14. Claim 17 ....................................................................................51
`
`15. Claim 18 ....................................................................................55
`
`B.
`
`Ground II: Claims 4 and 5 are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. §
`103(a) over the Combination of Murata, Ard, MS-DOS
`Encyclopedia and Beretta ....................................................................61
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Rationale for Combining Murata, Ard, MS-DOS Encyclopedia
`and Beretta ................................................................................61
`
`Claim 4 ......................................................................................62
`
`Claim 5 ......................................................................................64
`
`VIII. Conclusion .....................................................................................................66
`
`- v -
`
`

`
`Petition for IPR of US 6,895,449
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`In re Gosteli,
`872 F.2d 1008 (Fed. Cir. 1989) .......................................................................... 11
`
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
`504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 16
`
`Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,
`107 F.3d 1565,1571 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ................................................................. 10
`
`Martin v. Mayer,
`823 F.2d 500 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ............................................................................ 11
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 16
`
`PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`522 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 11
`
`Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar,
`935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991) .......................................................................... 11
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ..................................................................................................... 7
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ..................................................................................................... 7
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ......................................................................................... 6, 22, 61
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ................................................................................................... 21
`
`- vi -
`
`

`
`Petition for IPR of US 6,895,449
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The IBM PC, first released in 1981, owes its longevity, in part, to its open
`
`architecture. The down-side to the open architecture is the PC must be able to
`
`work with different peripherals. Traditionally, each peripheral required its own
`
`device driver, and different device drivers were often incompatible with each other
`
`or with different PC’s.
`
`To address this problem, computer companies have proposed “plug-and-
`
`play” systems that allow a peripheral to communicate with a PC without the need
`
`for specialized device drivers for each peripheral. See Exs. 1122, 1123, and 1124.
`
`The ’449 Patent describes and claims one such system.
`
`The ’449 Patent describes an “interface device”—which can be built into the
`
`peripheral itself—that handles the communications between the peripheral and the
`
`computer. There were well-established protocols for identifying and controlling
`
`hard disks, and every computer 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. Ex. 1101, 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, rather than a specialized device driver.
`
`This idea was known before the ’449 Patent. U.S. Patent No. 5,508,821
`
`Murata (“Murata”) (Ex. 1105) describes a scanner having an “interface means” for
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`
`Petition for IPR of US 6,895,449
`
`communicating with a computer and a “file system emulation means” for
`
`simulating a hard disk. Murata, at 1:64-67; see also Exs. 1108, 1109. Murata’s
`
`scanner “looks like” a hard disk to the computer, and communicates with the
`
`computer “using the device driver for existing hard discs,” so the scanner does not
`
`need its own device driver. Murata, at 2:8-12, 4:20-23.
`
`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. Id. at 6:33-39, 7:54-55. Arranging an
`
`interface device for simulating a virtual file system to the host was also known. Id.
`
`at 6:17-19, 7:31-35.
`
`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.
`
`B. Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`Related Litigation
`1.
`Petitioner is aware of the following litigations involving the ’449 Patent in
`- 2 -
`
`

`
`Petition for IPR of US 6,895,449
`
`the Eastern District of Texas: 6-15-cv-01099, 6-15-cv-01100, 6-15-cv-01102, 6-
`
`15-cv-01111, 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-01404, 1-08-cv-01405, 1-08-cv-01406, 1-08-cv-01407, 1-08-
`
`cv-00985, 1-08-cv-00865, 1-07-cv-02086, 1-07-cv-02087, 1-07-cv-02088, MDL
`
`1880, 1-07-mc-00493, 1-07-cv-01222, 1-07-cv-01118, and 1-06-cv-01751.
`
`Petitioner is aware of the following litigations involving the ’449 Patent in
`
`the Northern District of Illinois: 1-08-cv-03627, 1-08-cv-03606, 1-08-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: 5-08-cv-01732.
`
`Petitioner is aware of the following litigation involving the ’449 Patent in
`
`the District of Delaware: 1-07-cv-00415.
`
`Related Inter Partes Review Petitions
`2.
`Petitioner is aware of the following inter partes review Petition for U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,895,449: IPR2017-00415.
`
`Petitioner is aware of the following inter partes review Petitions filed for
`
`related U.S. Patent No. 6,470,399: IPR2016-01839, IPR2016-01843, IPR2016-
`
`01864, and IPR2017-00443.
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`
`Petition for IPR of US 6,895,449
`
`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,
`
`IPR2016-01863, 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 IPR2017-00154.
`
`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:
`
`David A. Garr (Reg. No. 74,932)
`
`dgarr@cov.com
`
`Backup Counsel:
`
`Gregory S. Discher (Reg. No. 42,488)
`
`gdischer@cov.com
`
`Postal and hand delivery:
`
`Covington & Burling LLP
`
`One CityCenter
`
`850 Tenth Street, NW
`
`Washington, DC 20001
`
`T: 202-662-6000
`
`F: 202-662-6291
`- 4 -
`
`

`
`Petition for IPR of US 6,895,449
`
`Counsel
`
`Service Information
`
`Backup Counsel:
`
`Herbert H. Finn (Reg. No. 38,139)
`
`finnh@gtlaw.com
`
`Jonathan E. Giroux (Reg. No. 66,639)
`
`girouxj@gtlaw.com
`
`Backup Counsel:
`
`Scott R. Miller (Reg. No. 32,276)
`
`smiller@sheppardmullin.com
`
`Darren Franklin (Reg. No. 51,701)
`
`dfranklin@sheppardmullin.com
`
`
`
`Postal and hand delivery:
`
`Greenberg Traurig LLP
`
`77 W. Wacker Dr.
`
`Suite 3100
`
`Chicago, IL 60601
`
`T: 312-456-8400
`
`F: 312-456-8435
`Postal and hand delivery:
`
`Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
`LLP
`
`333 South Hope Street
`
`43rd 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 $24,200 ($9,000 request fee and $15,200
`
`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.
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`
`Petition for IPR of US 6,895,449
`
`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 (“Murata”), U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,915,106 to Ard (“Ard”) (Ex. 1106), and MS-DOS Encyclopedia,
`
`Microsoft Press (1988) (Ex. 1110).
`
`Ground 2: Claims 4 and 5 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in
`
`view of Murata, Ard, MS-DOS Encyclopedia, and U.S. Patent No. 5,850,484 to
`
`Beretta et al. (“Beretta”) (Ex. 1107).
`
`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.
`- 6 -
`
`

`
`Petition for IPR of US 6,895,449
`
`PCT/EP98/01187, filed March 3, 1998. As discussed in Section V.C below, the
`
`challenged claims of the ’449 Patent are entitled to a priority date of no earlier than
`
`March 3, 1998.
`
`Murata issued on April 16, 1996, and is therefore prior art under at least 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 102(a), 102(b) and 102(e).
`
`Ard was filed on March 20, 1997, and is therefore prior art under at least 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`MS-DOS Encyclopedia was published in 1988 and is therefore 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. 1116) filed on March 27, 1995. In Section VII.B,
`
`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, and Title. As shown in Ex. 1125, these disclosures are also
`
`disclosed in the ’369 application. Accordingly, Beretta is prior art under 36 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(e).
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`D.
`A person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’449 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. A POSITA would also
`
`have either a masters degree, or at least two years of experience in the relevant
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`
`field, e.g., computer science, computer systems, or peripheral devices. Ex. 1103,
`
`Petition for IPR of US 6,895,449
`
`¶54.
`
`E. Unpatentability of
`42.104(b)(4))
`
`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.
`
`Supporting Evidence (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5))
`
`F.
`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 VII, below, and the Exhibit List 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. 1101, at
`
`Title and Abstract. While such interfaces were known at the time of the invention,
`
`they typically “require very sophisticated drivers which are prone to malfunction
`
`and which limit data transfer rates” between the computer and the peripheral. Id.
`
`at 1:27-31.
`
`The ’449 Patent describes an “interface device” intended to eliminate the
`
`need for specialized device drivers. When the interface device is connected to a
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`
`Petition for IPR of US 6,895,449
`
`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 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. See id. at 3:25-4:36. The interface device thus does
`
`not require a “specially designed driver” for the interface device in a host
`
`computer. Id. at 4:19.
`
`Prosecution History of the ’449 Patent
`
`B.
`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
`
`prior art did not disclose an interface device which (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) “simulat[es] a virtual file
`
`system” including a “directory structure.” Ex. 1102, at 50. However, the
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`
`Petition for IPR of US 6,895,449
`
`Examiner was not aware of, and did not consider, highly relevant prior art, such as
`
`Murata and Ard, that should have precluded allowance of the claims.
`
`Priority Date of the Claims of the ’449 Patent
`
`C.
`The ’449 Patent claims priority Application No 09/331,002 (now US
`
`6,470,399; Ex. 1115), which claims priority to PCT application PCT/EP98/01187
`
`filed on March 3, 1998 (Ex. 1116), which claims priority to the German priority
`
`application filed on March 4, 1997 (Ex. 1117), which is included in the file history
`
`of US. Patent 6,470,399 (Ex. 1118, at 144-70). The German priority application
`
`was published as German publication 19708755 A1 (Ex. 1119, “German priority
`
`application”). A certified translation of the German priority application is
`
`provided as Ex. 1120.
`
`Claims 1-18 of the ’449 Patent are not entitled to claim priority to the
`
`German priority application. As explained below, Patent Owner added new matter
`
`to its PCT application (Exs. 1116, 1121), subject matter that was included in
`
`claims 1-18 but not supported in the German priority application. Consequently,
`
`the ’449 Patent claims are not entitled to a benefit date earlier than the actual filing
`
`date of the PCT application, March 3, 1998. Ex. 1103, ¶48.
`
`To benefit from the filing date of an earlier application, “each application in
`
`the chain leading back to the earlier application must comply with the written
`
`description requirement.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565,1571
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`
`Petition for IPR of US 6,895,449
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1997). The earlier application must clearly convey to skilled artisans the
`
`subject matter later claimed. Martin v. Mayer, 823 F.2d 500, 505 (Fed. Cir. 1987);
`
`see also In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
`
`In order to satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112,
`
`first paragraph, the German priority application 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). 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).
`
`Independent claims 1 and 17 recite “a first connecting device for interfacing
`
`the host device with the interface device via the multi-purpose interface of the host
`
`device,” and that “the interface device, when receiving an inquiry from the host
`
`device as to the type of a device attached to the multi-purpose interface of the host
`
`device, sends a signal . . . .” Independent claim 18 similarly recites “interfacing of
`
`the host device with a first connecting device of the interface device via the multi-
`
`purpose interface of the host device,” and “inquiring by the host device at the
`
`interface device as to the type of device to which the multi-purpose interface of the
`
`host device is attached.” Yet the German priority application did not disclose
`
`using driver programs in connection with a “multi-purpose interface,” which would
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`
`Petition for IPR of US 6,895,449
`
`be necessary for such an interface to be used with a host computer.
`
`The table below is a comparison of the disclosure of the certified translation
`
`(Ex. 1120) of the German priority application (Ex. 1119) to the disclosure of the
`
`As-Filed ’449 Patent Application
`“When the host device system with which
`the interface device according to the present
`invention is connected is booted and a data
`transmit/receive device is also attached to
`the interface device 10,
`
`
`
`usual BIOS routines or multi-purpose
`interface programs issue an instruction,
`known by those skilled in the art as the
`INQUIRY instruction,
`to the input/output interfaces in the host
`device.” Ex. 1102, at 16.
`“For persons skilled in the art it is however
`obvious that the interface device 10 is not
`necessarily signed on when the computer
`system is powered up
`
`
`
`but that a special BIOS routine or a driver
`
`- 12 -
`
`as-filed ’449 Patent application.
`
`German Priority Application
`“When the host device system, to
`which
`the
`interface
`device,
`according to the present invention,
`is connected, is booted, and a
`transmit/receive device
`is also
`connected to the interface device
`10,
`issue an
`typical BIOS routines
`instruction, which is known by
`those skilled in the art as the
`‘INQUIRY’
`instruction,
`to each
`input/output interface that is present
`in the host device.” Ex. 1120, at 4.
`“However, it is obvious to those
`skilled in the art that the interface
`device 10 is not necessarily signed
`on when the computer system is
`turned on,
`
`but that a special BIOS routine can
`
`

`
`Petition for IPR of US 6,895,449
`
`As-Filed ’449 Patent Application
`for a multi-purpose interface can also be
`started on the host device during current
`operation of the computer system in order to
`sign on or mount the interface device 10 as
`an additional hard disk.” Ex. 1102, at 19.
`“An important advantage of the interface
`device 10 of the present invention is that it
`also permits extremely high data transfer
`rates by using,
`for data interchange,
`
`
`
`the host device-own BIOS routines which
`are optimized for each host device by the
`host device manufacturer or BIOS system
`manufacturer, or by using driver programs
`which are normally optimized and
`included by the manufacturers of multi-
`purpose interfaces.” Ex. 1102, at 20.
`
`German Priority Application
`also be started on the host device
`when the computer is running, in
`order to sign on or ‘mount’ the
`interface device 10 as an additional
`hard disk.” Ex. 1120, at 5-6.
`“Furthermore,
`one
`important
`advantage of the interface device 10
`of the present invention consists of
`it also enabling extremely high data
`transfer rates and, in particular, just
`by the fact that
`
`the host device's own BIOS
`routines, which are optimized for
`each
`host
`device
`by
`the
`manufacturer of the host device or
`BIOS system, are used to exchange
`data.” Ex. 1120, at 6.
`
`
`
`Such driver programs—as recited in the new disclosures in the ’449 Patent
`
`shown in red above—would be necessary for a multi-purpose interface to be used
`
`with a host computer. A POSITA would have understood that BIOS routines are
`
`not sufficient to enable a multi-purpose interface such as SCSI—i.e., to allow it to
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`
`Petition for IPR of US 6,895,449
`
`send inquiries to and receive responses from a peripheral device. Rather, SCSI-
`
`specific drivers would be necessary. Therefore, without any disclosure of such
`
`drivers in the German priority application, a POSITA would not understand that
`
`the inventor was in possession of technology that would allow for the claimed
`
`“inquiry from the host device as to the type of a device attached at the multi-
`
`purpose interface of the host device” (claims 1 and 17) and the claimed “inquiring
`
`by the host device at the interface device as to the type of device to which the
`
`multi-purpose interface of the host device is attached” (claim 18) would have been
`
`a particular signal that is sent via the multi-purpose interface. Ex. 1103, ¶44.
`
`A POSITA would have understood that the “inquiry from the host
`
`device . . .” recited in claims 1 and 17 and the “inquiring by the host device . . .”
`
`recited in claim 18 would have been a particular signal that is provided by the
`
`driver or program of the multi-purpose interface. Ex. 1103, ¶45. For example, if
`
`the multi-purpose interface is SCSI, such as disclosed in the ‘449 Patent, the SCSI
`
`Standard discloses the SCSI INQUIRY command. Ex. 1114, at 85, Table 31; id. at
`
`96. The peripheral target device can, for example, a magnetic disk, a printer
`
`device, or a CD-ROM device. Id. at 98, Table 47; Ex. 1101, at 4:63-5:18; Ex.
`
`1102, at 16; Ex. 1103, ¶46.
`
`A POSITA would understand that the “‘INQUIRY’ instruction” is not an
`
`instruction that could be issued by a “BIOS routine,” as disclosed in the ’399
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`
`Petition for IPR of US 6,895,449
`
`German Priority Application. Ex. 1102, at 7. Instead, a POSITA would
`
`understand that the INQUIRY instruction is the INQUIRY command that is issued
`
`by a driver or program that operates in accordance with the SCSI Standard, since
`
`SCSI is the only multi-purpose interface disclosed in the ’399 German Priority
`
`Application. Ex. 1120, at 2 (Figure 2); id. at 10 (Figure 1); id. at 7; id. at 8 (claim
`
`4); see also Ex. 1114, at 96 (Table 44); id. at 97 (Table 45); Ex. 1103, ¶47.
`
`Accordingly, the claims of the ’449 Patent are not entitled to a priority date
`
`earlier than the March 3, 1998 filing date of the international application
`
`PCT/EP98/01187 (Exs. 1116, 1121) because German priority document does not
`
`convey with reasonable clarity to a POSITA that, as of the filing date sought, the
`
`inventor was in possession of the invention of at least the “inquiry from the host
`
`device as to the type of a device attached at the multi-purpose interface of the host
`
`device” recited in claims 1 and 17 and the “inquiring by the host device at the
`
`interface device as to the type of device to which the multi-purpose interface of the
`
`host device is attached” recited in claim 18. Ex. 1103, ¶48.
`
`D. 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
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`
`Petition for IPR of US 6,895,449
`
`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,