PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,966,144
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK
`OFFICE
`In the Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144
`Trial No.: Not Yet Assigned
`Issued:
`February 24, 2015
`Filed:
`August 24, 2006
`Inventor: Michael Tasler
`Assignee: Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG
`Title:
`ANALOG DATA GENERATING AND PROCESSING
`DEVICE HAVING A MULTI-USE AUTOMATIC PROCESSOR
`
`MAIL STOP PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES
`REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.100
`Inter partes review is respectfully requested for claims 1-6, 8, 10, 13-16, 22,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`27-40, 42-49, 52-55, 59-65, 77, 80-87 (the “Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,966,144 (“the ’144 patent”), attached hereto as Exhibit 1201.
`
`The undersigned representative of Petitioner authorizes the Patent Office to
`
`charge the $23,000 Petition Fee, along with any additional fees, to Deposit
`
`Account 19-0036. A total of 55 claims are being reviewed, so $23,000 excess
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,966,144
`
`
`claim fees are due. The undersigned representative further authorizes payment
`
`for any additional fees that may be due in connection with this Petition to be
`
`charged to the above-referenced Deposit Account.
`
`

`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,966,144
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. Grounds for Standing Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ..................................... 3
`III. Background Information for ’144 Patent ............................................................. 3
`A. Overview of the ’144 Patent Family and Prosecution History ......................... 3
`IV. Identification of Challenge Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ............................ 6
`A. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1): Claims for Which Inter Partes Review .................. 6
`Is Requested ............................................................................................................ 6
`B. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2): The Prior Art and Specific Grounds on ................. 6
`Which the Challenge to the Claims Is Based .......................................................... 6
`C. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3): Claim Construction ................................................ 8
`D. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4): How the Construed Claims are ............................11
`Unpatentable .........................................................................................................11
`E. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5): Supporting Evidence ...........................................11
`V. There Is a Reasonable Likelihood That The Challenged Claims Are....... 12
`Unpatentable ............................................................................................................ 12
`A. Prior Art .........................................................................................................12
`1. Kawaguchi ..................................................................................................12
`2. Matsumoto ..................................................................................................13
`3. Kawaguchi and Matsumoto Are Properly Combinable .............................14
`4. Level of Skill of POSA ..............................................................................16
`B. Challenged Claims .........................................................................................17
`1.
`Independent Claim 1 ..................................................................................17
`(a) Preamble – “An analog data generating and processing device
`(ADGPD)” .....................................................................................................17
`(b) First element – “an input/output (i/o) port;” .........................................17
`(c) Second element – “a program memory;” ..............................................17
`(d) Third element – “a data storage memory;” ...........................................18
`(e) Fourth element – a sensor designed to transmit data; ...........................18
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,966,144
`
`(f) Fifth element – a processor operatively interfaced with the i/o
`port, the program memory, the data storage memory and the sensor; ..........19
`(g) Sixth element – “wherein the processor is adapted to be involved in a
`data generation process by which the sensor generates analog data, the
`analog data is processed, and the processed analog data is stored in the data
`storage memory as at least one file of digitized analog data” ............21
`(h) Seventh element .......................................................................................24
`(i) First part – “wherein the processor also is adapted to be
`involved in an automatic recognition process in which, when the i/o port
`is operatively interfaced with a multi-purpose interface of a computer, the
`processor executes at least one instruction set stored in the
`program memory and thereby causes at least one parameter which
`provides identification information regarding the ADGPD to be
`automatically sent through the i/o port and to the multi-purpose
`interface of the computer” ..........................................................................24
`(ii) Second part:........................................................................................26
`“(a) without requiring any end user to load any software onto the
`computer at any time” ................................................................................26
`“(b) without requiring any end user to interact with the computer
`to set up a file system in the ADGPD at any time” ..............................26
`(iii) Third part – “(c) before a time when the computer is able
`to receive the at least one file of digitized analog data from the data
`storage memory” ........................................................................................27
`(iv) Fourth part – “(d) regardless of the identity of a manufacturer of the
`computer” ...................................................................................................28
`(v) Fifth part – “wherein the at least one parameter is consistent with the
`ADGPD being responsive to commands issued from a customary driver”
` ....................................................................................................................28
`(i) Eighth element – “wherein the processor is further adapted to be
`involved in an automatic file transfer process in which, when the i/o port is
`operatively interfaced with the multi-purpose interface of the computer, and
`after the at least one parameter has been received by the multi-purpose
`interface of the computer, the processor executes at least one other
`instruction set stored in the program memory and thereby causes the at least
`one file of digitized analog data to be transferred to the computer regardless
`of the identity of the manufacturer of the computer and without requiring
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,966,144
`
`any user-loaded file transfer enabling software to be loaded on or installed in
`the computer at any time” ..............................................................................29
`2. Claim 2 – The ADGPD of claim 1, wherein the i/o port, the program
`memory, the data storage memory, and the processor form an interface device
`that is designed to have the analog data transferred to it from the sensor. .......33
`3. Claim 3 - The ADGPD of claim 2, wherein the interface device
`comprises a portable interface device. ..............................................................34
`4. Claims 4 and 5 ............................................................................................34
`5. Claim 6 - The ADGPD of claim 2, wherein the interface device
`comprises a stand alone interface device. .........................................................34
`6. Claim 8 - The ADGPD of claim 2, wherein the interface device
`includes a SCSI interface circuit. ......................................................................35
`7. Claims 10, 22 ..............................................................................................35
`8. Claim 13 - The ADGPD of claim 1, wherein the i/o port comprises a
`parallel port. ......................................................................................................36
`9. Claim 14 - The ADGPD of claim 1, wherein the i/o port comprises a
`SCSI connector. .................................................................................................36
`10. Claims 15, 16 ............................................................................................36
`11. Claims 27-28, 30-36, 44-45, 47-48, 85, 87 ..............................................38
`12. Claim 29 – The ADGPD of claim 1, where in the at least one parameter
`is consistent with the ADGPD being responsive to a SCSI inquiry command.
` ...........................................................................................................................41
`13. Claims 37-40 ............................................................................................41
`14. Claim 42 ...................................................................................................42
`(a) First Part: “wherein the processor is adapted to, when the i/o port is
`operatively interfaced with the multi- purpose interface of the computer, and
`after the at least one parameter has been sent to the multi- purpose
`interface of the computer, execute at least one set of computer code
`stored in the program memory and thereby cause ADGPD file system
`information to be automatically sent to the i/o port” .....................................43
`(b) Second Part: “(a) without requiring any end user to load any
`software onto the computer at any time, (b) without requiring any end user
`to interact with the computer to set up a file system in the ADGPD at any
`time, (c) before a time when the computer is able to receive the at least
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,966,144
`
`one file of digitized analog data from the data storage memory and (d)
`regardless of the identity of a manufacturer of the computer.” .....................45
`15. Claims 43 and 46 ....................................................................................48
`16. Claims 49, 52, 53 ......................................................................................52
`17. Claims 54, 55 ............................................................................................53
`18. Claim 59 - The ADGPD of claim 1, wherein the ADGPD comprises
`at least a portion of a data acquisition system. ..................................................54
`19. Claim 60 - wherein the ADGPD is designed for use with an external
`computing device that has an operating system that is designed by a particular
`software company. ............................................................................................54
`20. Claim 61 - The ADGPD of claim 1, wherein the processor is adapted to,
`when it is involved in the automatic recognition process, execute the at least
`one instruction set to thereby directly cause the at least one parameter
`regarding the ADGPD to be automatically sent................................................55
`21. Claims 62 and 63 ......................................................................................55
`22. Claims 64 and 65 ......................................................................................56
`23. Claim 77 - The ADGPD of claim 1, wherein the ADGPD is designed
`to be responsive to a test unit ready command. ................................................56
`24. Claim 80 - A combination comprising the ADGPD of claim 1 and a
`computer. ...........................................................................................................57
`25. Claims 81-83 ............................................................................................57
`26.
`Independent Claim 84 ..............................................................................57
`(a) Eighth element – ...................................................................................58
`(i) First Part: “wherein the processor is adapted to, when the i/o port
`is operatively interfaced with the multi-purpose interface of the computer,
`and after the at least one parameter has been sent to a multi-purpose
`interface of the computer, execute at least one other instruction set stored
`in the program memory and thereby cause ADGPD file system
`information to be automatically sent to the i/o port” ...............................58
`(ii) Second Part: “(a) without requiring any end user to load any
`software onto the computer at any time, (b) without requiring any end user
`to interact with the computer to set up a file system in the ADGPD at
`any time, (c) before a time when the computer is able to receive the at
`least one file of digitized analog data from the data storage memory and
`(d) regardless of the identity of a manufacturer of the computer,” ..........58
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,966,144
`
`(iii) Third Part: “the ADGPD file system information comprises at
`least an indication of the type of a file system that is used to store the at
`least one file of digitized analog data in the data storage memory” ..........59
`(b) Ninth element ........................................................................................59
`(c) Tenth element – “wherein the at least one parameter is consistent
`with the ADGPD being a mass storage device that operates in a manner
`consistent with a hard disk drive” ................................................................59
`(d) Eleventh element ...................................................................................60
`(e) Twelfth and Thirteenth elements: ........................................................60
`“wherein the processor and the program memory are adapted to be
`configured to cause, after .............................................................................60
`the at least one parameter has been sent to the i/o port, file allocation
`table information to be sent to the i/o port, the file allocation table
`information including at least a start location of a file allocation table; and 60
`wherein the processor and the program memory are adapted to be
`configured to cause a .................................................................................60
`virtual boot sequence to be sent to the i/o port which includes at least
`information that is representative of a number of sectors of a storage disk.”
` .......................................................................................................................60
`27.
`Independent Claim 86 ..............................................................................61
`(a) Seventh and eighth elements: ................................................................61
`“wherein the processor also is adapted to be involved in an automatic
`recognition process (1) in which, when the i/o port is operatively interfaced
`with a multi-purpose interface of a first computer, the processor executes at
`least one instruction set stored in the program memory and thereby causes
`at least one parameter to be automatically sent through the i/o port and to
`the multi-purpose interface of the first computer (a) without requiring any
`end user to load any software onto the first computer at any time, (b) without
`requiring any end user to interact with the first computer to set up a file
`system in the ADGPD at any time, and (c) before a time when the
`first computer is able to receive the at least one file of digitized analog data
`from the data storage memory, and (2) in which, when the i/o port is
`operatively interfaced with a multi-purpose interface of a second computer
`that is manufactured by a company other than .................. the company that
`manufactured the first computer, the processor executes the at least
`one instruction set stored in the program memory and thereby causes
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`

`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,966,144
`
`the at least one parameter to be automatically sent through the i/o
`port and to the multi-purpose interface of the second computer (a)
`without requiring any end user to load any software onto the second
`computer at any time, (b) without requiring any end user to interact
`with the second computer to set up a file system in the ADGPD at any
`time, and (c) before a time when the second computer is abl[e] to receive
`the at least one file of digitized analog data from the data storage
`memory; wherein the at least one parameter provides identification
`information regarding the ADGPD ...............................................................61
`(b) Ninth element ........................................................................................63
`(c) Tenth element – “wherein the processor is further adapted to be
`involved in an automatic file transfer process (1) in which, when the i/o port
`is operatively interfaced with the multi-purpose interface of the first
`computer, and after the at least one parameter has been received by the
`multi-purpose interface of the first computer, the processor executes at least
`one other instruction set stored in the program memory and thereby causes
`the at least one file of digitized analog data to be transferred to the first
`computer without requiring any user-loaded file transfer enabling software
`to be loaded on or installed in the computer at any time, and (2) in which,
`when the i/o port is operatively interfaced with the multi-purpose interface
`of the second computer, and after the at least one parameter has been
`received by the multi- purpose interface of the second computer, the
`processor executes the at least one other instruction set stored in the
`program memory and thereby causes the at least one file of digitized analog
`data to be transferred to the second computer without requiring any user-
`loaded file transfer enabling software to be loaded on or installed in the
`computer at any time” ....................................................................................63
`VI. Mandatory Notices Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1) .................................. 64
`A. C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1): Real Party-In-Interest ...................................................64
`B. C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2): Related Matters ............................................................64
`C. C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) and (4): Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service
`Information ...........................................................................................................68
`VII. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 69
`
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,966,144
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`The ’144 patent specification describes an interface device designed to
`
`facilitate the transfer of data between an input/output (“i/o”) device and a host
`
`computer that allegedly obviates the need for installation of driver software on the
`
`computer. Ex. 1201 at 1:35-38; 7:17-26.
`
`The ’144 patent is owned by Papst Licensing GMBH & Co., KG (“Papst” or
`
`“Patent Owner”). The District Court judge in a litigation involving an ancestor
`
`of the ’144 patent described Papst by stating:
`
`Papst is a German company that produces no products; it acquires
`patents on products or methods allegedly invented by others and then
`searches the world for [products] it might challenge for infringement.
`At one of the first status conferences of the MDL, when the Court
`queried whether this was old fashion ‘claim-jumping,’ counsel for
`Papst readily agreed that it had been called worse. Of course, this is
`a perfectly lawful and respectable business. But it underscores that
`the business of Papst is litigation, not invention or production.
`
`
`Ex. 1202 (Memorandum Order of Judge Collyer) at 6 (emphasis in original).
`
`
`
`Papst acquired the patent family including the three earlier applications and
`
`two issued patents related to application no. 11/467,073 (“the ’073 application”)
`
`from which the ’144 patent issued nine years after the filing date of the earliest
`
`application in the chain. See USPTO Assignment Record executed Mar. 8, 2006, at
`
`17314-114. The ’073 application was filed and prosecuted entirely under Papst’s
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,966,144
`
`
`control during the pendency of patent infringement litigation filed by Papst against
`
`the Petitioner and others based on the two earlier issued patents. During prosecution
`
`of the ’073 application, Papst presented fourteen amendments, ultimately achieving
`
`issuance in 2015 after a victory over the Examiner on appeal.
`
`During prosecution of the ’073 application, through a strategy including
`
`aggressive preliminary amendments prior to examination, Papst chose to
`
`bring only certain prior art to the Examiner’s attention, while burying other highly
`
`relevant prior art. Papst focused the Examiner on digital camera prior art, even
`
`though none of the claims is restricted to digital cameras. Papst presumably
`
`did this because it is targeting digital cameras in litigation, and despite the fact
`
`that the ’144 patent specification does not contain a single reference to digital
`
`cameras.
`
`Papst’s focus on camera prior art over the course of eight interviews
`
`and well over 100 pages of arguments resulted in the Examiner citing digital
`
`camera prior art almost exclusively in his examination. Papst’s preoccupation
`
`with camera prior art is evidenced in the Examiner’s Answer on Appeal, where the
`
`Examiner characterized the “invention,” stating:
`
`[B]ased on the eight interviews preceding appellant’s instant appeal
`brief, appellant consistently discloses that the claimed ADGPD is
`functioning as a plug and play camera peripheral device that
`communicate [sic] with a connected host without any user
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,966,144
`
`
`loading of a driver, wherein the communication is to emulate a
`hard disk drive for transferring data with the connected host.
`
`
`Ex. 1203 – Examiner’s Answer of 9/8/2010 at 59 (emphasis in original).
`
`
`
`As a result, the Examiner did not focus on certain highly relevant prior art.1
`
`
`
`Based on the presented grounds, the Board should institute Inter Partes Review of
`
`the ’144 patent and cancel the challenged claims.
`
`II. Grounds for Standing Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`Petitioner certifies that the ’144 patent is available for inter partes review and
`
`that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review on the
`
`grounds identified in the Petition because, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b), this
`
`Petition is being filed, concurrently with a Motion for Joinder with instituted trial in
`
`IPR2016-01212, within one month of the institution date of IPR2016-01212.
`
`III. Background Information for ’144 Patent
`
`
`
`A. Overview of the ’144 Patent Family and Prosecution History
`
`The ’073 application was filed on August 24, 2006, and issued almost nine
`
`years later on February 24, 2015. The ’144 patent stems from the fourth application
`
`filed in a family of seven U.S. non-provisional applications. The ’144 patent’s
`
`written description describes a device designed to facilitate the transfer of data
`
`
`1 Some of this relevant art was buried in the more than 600 references submitted to
`
`the Examiner via IDSs.
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,966,144
`
`
`between a data transmit/receive device from which data is to be acquired and a
`
`host computer. Ex. 1201 at 1:18-22. The written description states that, while
`
`interface devices were known at the time of the invention, existing devices had
`
`limitations, including disadvantageous sacrifices of data-transfer speed or of
`
`flexibility as to which computers and data devices they were compatible. Id. at
`
`1:26-2:19. The ’144 patent purports to describe an interface device to overcome
`
`these limitations.
`
`When a computer detects that a new device has been connected to one of its
`
`input-output (i/o) ports, a normal course of action includes these steps: the
`
`host asks the new device what type of device it is; the connected device responds;
`
`the host determines whether it already possesses drivers for the identified type of
`
`device; and if it does not, an appropriate driver must be installed on the host and
`
`loaded into memory before proceeding. In the ’144 patent family, when the
`
`interface device is connected between a data transmit/receive device and a host,
`
`the interface device responds to the host’s request for identification by stating that
`
`it is a type of device, such as a hard drive, for which the computer already has a
`
`driver. By mis-identifying itself to the host as to the type of device the host is
`
`communicating with, the interface device induces the host to treat it like a device
`
`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,
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,966,144
`
`
`the host uses its customary device driver, and the interface device translates
`
`the communications into a form understandable by the connected data device.
`
`Ex. 1204, ¶¶32-34; Ex. 1201 at 3:29-4:41.
`
`FIG. 1 is a block diagram of the interface device that includes a first
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`connecting device 12 for connecting to the host computer and a second connecting
`
`device 15 for connecting to the data transmit/receive device. A digital signal
`
`processor 13 and a memory 14 manage communications between the computer and
`
`the data transmit/receive device. Ex. 1201 at 4:62-5:10. See also, Ex. 1204, ¶¶21-
`
`38.
`
`The prosecution history of the ’144 patent was lengthy, with Papst cancelling
`
`all of the pending claims seven times, replacing them with new sets of claims. See
`
`Office Action Responses of 7/17/07; 8/8/07; 12/18/07; 5/2/08; 8/18/08; 9/12/08; and
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,966,144
`
`
`8/13/09. Eight interviews were held, and over the course of the 14 responses
`
`submitted by Papst, 131 pages of arguments were piled on the Examiner,
`
`mostly arguing why certain camera-based prior art did not render the claims
`
`obvious.
`
`Based on Papst’s focus on digital camera prior art and burying of relevant
`
`references in a pile of over 600, the Examiner was diverted from focusing on
`
`certain highly relevant prior art to the claims of the ’144 patent. The Board
`
`ultimately issued the patent because the cited references failed to show: “a
`
`peripheral processor which executes an instruction set causing identification
`
`information to be sent to a host processor, as set forth in independent claims 237,
`
`321, and 323.” Ex. 1203 at p 252.
`
`Identification of Challenge Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1): Claims for Which Inter Partes Review
`A.
`Is Requested
`
`Claims 1-6, 8, 10, 13-16, 22, 27-40, 42-49, 52-55, 59-65, 77, 80-87 are
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IV.
`
`challenged in this Petition.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2): The Prior Art and Specific Grounds on
`B.
`Which the Challenge to the Claims Is Based
`
`Inter Partes review is requested in view of the following prior art references:
`
`• JP H4-15853 to Kawaguchi (“Kawaguchi”) (Exhibit 1206/1207).
`
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,966,144
`
`
`Kawaguchi discloses a SCSI device converter for connecting a PC
`
`peripheral device to a SCSI interface on an engineering workstation.
`
`Kawaguchi was filed on May 9, 1990 and published on January 21, 1992,
`
`and is prior art to the ’144 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 5,684,607 to (“Matsumoto”) (Exhibit 1208). Matsumoto
`
`discloses a facsimile apparatus connected to a host computer via SCSI.
`
`Matsumoto was filed on November 4, 1994, and issued on November 4,
`
`1997, and is prior art to the ’144 patent under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and/or
`
`102(e).
`
`• The DASM-AD14 product brochure (DASM-AD14) (Exhibit 1209).
`
`DASM-AD14 discloses an A/D converter that attaches to a host computer
`
`via SCSI and emulates a disk drive. DASM-AD14 is a data sheet for the
`
`DASM-AD14 product dated 1992. The DASM-AD14 product was
`
`available for purchase in 1992, as evidenced by the Digital Equipment
`
`Corporation Shippable Products Catalog, submitted as Exhibit 1214 at page
`
`23. Because the DASM-AD14 Product Brochure was freely available to the
`
`public five years prior to the earliest possible priority data of the patent at
`
`issue, the DASM-AD14 Product Brochure is a publication under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§102(b). DASM-AD14 was published in March 1992 and is prior art to the
`
`’144 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,966,144
`
`
`• AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARDS INSTITUTE, INC., American National
`
`Standard for Information Systems – Small Computer System Interface-2,
`
`ANSI X3.131-1994 (1994) (Exhibit 1204, Appendix A-4, “the SCSI
`
`Specification”). The SCSI Specification was published in 1991 and is prior
`
`art to the ’144 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Citations to the SCSI
`
`Specification refer to the original page numbers.
`
`The specific statutory grounds on which the challenge to the claims is
`
`based and the prior art relied upon for each ground are as follows:
`
`a) Claims 1-6, 8, 10, 13-16, 22, 27-40, 42-49, 52-55, 59-65, 77, and 80-
`
`87 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kawaguchi, Matsumoto, the
`
`SCSI Specification, and the Admitted Prior Art (AAPA);
`
`
`
`b) Claims 49, 52-53 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`
`Kawaguchi, Matsumoto, DASM-AD14, the SCSI Specification and the AAPA.
`
`
`
`C.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3): Claim Construction
`
`Claims are to be given their “broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`specification.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). The constructions proposed below are
`
`intended to aid in this proceeding, and should not be understood as waiving any
`
`arguments that may be raised in any litigation. Further, because the standard
`
`for claim construction at the Patent Office is different from that used during a U.S.
`
`District Court litigation, see In re Am. Acad. Of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359,
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,966,144
`
`
`1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004); MPEP § 2111, Petitioner expressly reserves the right
`
`to argue a different claim construction in litigation for any term of the ’144 patent.
`
`For purposes of this proceeding only, and without conceding that these are the
`
`correct constructions under the standard that controls in the litigation, Petitioner
`
`proposes adopting the claim constructions presented by Papst in related litigation in
`
`the District of Columbia: Misc. Action No. 07-493 (RMC); MDL No. 1880 (Ex.
`
`1205), as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim Term
`
`“automatic recognition process”
`
`
`
`Adopted
`BRI
`“process by which the
`
`computer recognizes the ADGPD
`
`upon connection with the computer
`
`without requiring any user
`
`intervention other than to start the
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,966,144
`
`
`“without requiring any end user to load
`
`“without requiring the end user to
`
`any software onto the [first/second]
`
`install or load specific drivers or
`
`computer at any time”
`
`software for the [ADGPD/analog
`
`“without requiring any user-loaded file
`
`data acquisition device/analog data
`
`transfer enabling software to be loaded
`
`acquisition and interface device]
`
`on or installed in the c