IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`ZTE (USA) Inc.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`Papst Licensing Gmbh & Co. KG,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case No. To Be Assigned
`Patent No. 9,189,437 B2
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,189,437
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq.
`
`
`
`

`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`Ex. 1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437 B2 to Tasler
`
`Ex. 1002
`
`Intentionally omitted
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`File History for Application Serial No. 11/078,778
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`Certified English Translation of PCT No. WO 98/39710
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`Patent Owner’s Petition for Delayed Claim of Priority, November
`10, 2016
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0160199 A1 to
`Tasler
`U.S. Patent No. 6,470,399 to Tasler
`
`Ex. 1008
`
`PCT No. WO 98/39710
`
`Ex. 1009
`
`Ex. 1010
`
`to Revive Unintentionally Abandoned Application
`Petition
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.137(b) and (c), and
`Renewed Petition
`to Revive Unintentionally Abandoned
`Application Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.137(b) and (c)
`Declaration of Kevin C. Almeroth, Ph.D.
`
`Ex. 1011
`
`Curriculum vitae of Kevin C. Almeroth
`
`Ex. 1012
`
`Waiver of Service of Summon
`
`- i -
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 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 ......................................... 2
`
`Counsel and Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) and
`(b)(4)) .................................................................................................... 3
`
`II.
`
`Fees (37 C.F.R. § 42.103) ................................................................................ 3
`
`III. Requirements for Inter Partes Review Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 .................. 4
`
`A. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)) ..................................... 4
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Claims and Statutory Grounds (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(1) &
`(b)(2)) .................................................................................................... 4
`
`Supporting Evidence (37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(5)) .................................. 5
`
`IV. Summary of the ’437 Patent ............................................................................ 5
`
`V.
`
`Claim Construction (37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(3)) ............................................... 6
`
`VI. The PCT Publication is Prior Art to the ’437 Patent ....................................... 7
`
`VII. The PCT Publication Anticipates the ’437 Patent Claims Either
`expressly or Inherently ..................................................................................15
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Claim 1 ......................................................................................17
`
`Claim 12 ....................................................................................33
`
`Claim 15 ....................................................................................35
`
`Claim 16 ....................................................................................36
`
`Claim 18 ....................................................................................38
`
`- ii -
`
`

`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`Claim 30 ....................................................................................38
`
`Claim 43 ....................................................................................39
`
`Claim 45 ....................................................................................48
`
`VIII. Conclusion .....................................................................................................50
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee
`136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016) .......................................................................................... 6
`
`Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. Alpine Elecs. of America, Inc
`609 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................ 8
`
`Hovlid v. Asari
`305 F.2d 747, 134 USPQ 162 (9th Cir. 1962) .................................................... 14
`
`Medtronic Corevalue, LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp.
`741 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........................................................................ 8, 9
`
`Motorola Mobility LLC v. Arnouse
`No. IPR2013-00010, 2013 WL 2023657 (Jan. 30, 2013) .................................... 4
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v. ZTE Corp. et al.
`No. 6:15-cv-1100 (E.D. Tex.) ............................................................................... 4
`
`Sticker Indus. Supply Corp. v. Blaw-Knox Co.
`405 F.2d 90, 160 USPQ 177 (7th Cir. 1968) ...................................................... 14
`
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc.
`504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................................ 6
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C.
`§ 102 ...................................................................................................................... 4
`§ 102(b) ....................................................................................................... 1, 5, 15
`§ 120 ........................................................................................................ 1, 8, 9, 13
`
`- iv -
`
`

`
`37 C.F.R.
`
`37 C.F.R.
`§ 1.55 ................................................................................................................... 11
`§ 1.55 ................................................................................................................. ..11
`§ 176 .................................................................................................................. 7, 8
`§ 176 ................................................................................................................ ..7, 8
`§ 1.78 ................................................................................................................... 11
`§ 1.78 ................................................................................................................. ..11
`§ 1.78(a)(2)(i) ............................................................................................ 8, 12, 13
`§ 1.78(a)(2)(i) .......................................................................................... ..s, 12, 13
`§ 1.78(a)(2)(iii) ............................................................................................... 8, 12
`§ 1.78(a)(2)(iii) ............................................................................................. ..s, 12
`§ 42.8(A)(1) .......................................................................................................... 2
`§ 42.8(A)(1) ........................................................................................................ ..2
`§ 42.8(b)(1) ........................................................................................................... 2
`§ 42.8(b)(1) ......................................................................................................... ..2
`§ 42.8(b)(2) ........................................................................................................... 2
`§ 42.8(b)(2) ......................................................................................................... ..2
`§ 42.8(b)(3) ........................................................................................................... 3
`§ 42.8(b)(3) ......................................................................................................... ..3
`§ 42.8(b)(4) ........................................................................................................... 3
`§ 42.8(b)(4) ......................................................................................................... ..3
`§ 42.100(b) ............................................................................................................ 6
`§42.100(b) .......................................................................................................... ..6
`§ 42.103 ................................................................................................................. 3
`§ 42.103 ............................................................................................................... ..3
`§ 42.104 ................................................................................................................. 4
`§ 42.104 ............................................................................................................... ..4
`§ 42.104(a) ............................................................................................................ 4
`§42.104(a) .......................................................................................................... ..4
`§ 42.104(b)(1) ....................................................................................................... 4
`§ 42.104(b)(1) ..................................................................................................... ..4
`§ 42.104(b)(2) ....................................................................................................... 4
`§ 42.104(b)(2) ..................................................................................................... ..4
`§ 42.104(B)(3)....................................................................................................... 6
`§ 42.104(B)(3) ..................................................................................................... ..6
`§ 42.104(b)(5) ....................................................................................................... 5
`§ 42.104(b)(5) ..................................................................................................... ..5
`
`- v -
`
`

`
`ZTE (USA) Inc. petitions for inter partes review seeking cancellation of
`
`claims 1, 12, 15, 16, 18, 30, 43 and 45 (the “challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,189,437 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’437 Patent”), assigned to Patent Owner Papst
`
`Licensing Gmbh & Co. KG.
`
`The ’437 Patent seeks to claim priority, through a long string of continuing
`
`applications, to a 1998 PCT application. But there is a critical break in the priority
`
`chain. An intervening U.S. patent application (on which the ’437 Patent seeks to
`
`rely, as a bridge to the PCT) failed to identify each of the earlier applications in the
`
`chain, as is required to perfect such a priority claim. Indeed, the Patent Owner has
`
`recently acknowledged this failure, in a recent petition “for a delayed claim of
`
`priority.” (Ex. 1005.) But the Patent Owner’s petition cannot remedy the issue, as
`
`the intervening application was expressly abandoned nearly a decade ago, (Ex.
`
`1003, at 444-50), and cannot now be revived to retroactively fix this
`
`“administrative error.”
`
`Thus, under 35 U.S.C. § 120, the ’437 Patent cannot claim priority back to
`
`the PCT. To the contrary, the PCT Publication (Exs. 1004, 1008) is prior art to the
`
`’437 Patent, under the statutory bar of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), and it plainly
`
`anticipates the challenged claims. Accordingly, Petitioner respectfully requests
`
`that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) institute trial for inter partes
`
`review and cancel these claims.
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`
`I. 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 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 litigation involving the ’437 Patent in
`
`the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas: 6-15-cv-01095,
`
`6-15-cv-01099, 6-15-cv-01100, 6-15-cv-01102 and 6-15-cv-01111.
`
`Related Inter Partes Review Petitions
`2.
`Petitioner is aware of the following inter partes review petitions filed for
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437: IPR2016-01733, IPR2016-01840, IPR2016-01841,
`
`IPR2016-01842, IPR2016-01844, and IPR2017-00156.
`
`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.
`
`Petitioner is aware of the following inter partes review petitions filed for
`
`related U.S. Patent No. 6,895,449: IPR2017-00415 and IPR2017-0448.
`
`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, IPR2017-00158 and IPR2017-00449.
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`
`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.
`
`C. Counsel and Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) and
`(b)(4))
`
`Counsel
`
`Service Information
`
`Lead Counsel:
`
`Scott R. Miller (Reg. No. 32,278)
`
`smiller@sheppardmullin.com
`
`Backup Counsel:
`
`Darren M. Franklin (Reg. No. 51,701)
`
`dfranklin@sheppardmullin.com
`
`
`II.
`
`FEES (37 C.F.R. § 42.103)
`
`Postal and hand delivery:
`
`Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton
`
`333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor
`
`Los Angeles, California 90071-1422
`
`Telephone: 213.620.1780
`
`Facsimile: 213.620.1398
`
`The PTO is authorized to charge $23,000 ($9,000 request fee and $14,000
`
`post-institution fee) to Deposit Account No. 19-1853. The PTO is also authorized
`
`to charge all fees due at any time during this proceeding to Deposit Account No.
`
`19-1853.
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104
`A. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a))
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), Petitioner certifies that the ’437 Patent is
`
`available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from
`
`requesting an inter partes review challenging the ’437 Patent on the grounds
`
`identified in the present petition.1
`
`B. Claims and Statutory Grounds (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(1) &
`(b)(2))
`Ground 1: Petitioner requests review of claims 1, 12, 15, 16, 18, 30, 43 and
`
`45 of the ’437 Patent (the “challenged claims”), and cancellation of these claims,
`
`as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by PCT No. WO 98/39710 (“the PCT
`
`Publication”), attached hereto as Exhibits 1004 (Certified English translation) and
`
`1008 (German original).
`
`
`1 The Patent Owner filed a Waiver of Service of Summon in Papst Licensing
`
`GmbH & Co. KG v. ZTE Corp. et al., No. 6:15-cv-1100 (E.D. Tex.) on January 14,
`
`2016. Ex. 1012. “[I]n the situation where the petitioner waives service of a
`
`summons, the one-year time period begins on the date on which such a waiver is
`
`filed.” Motorola Mobility LLC v. Arnouse, No. IPR2013-00010, 2013 WL
`
`2023657, at *4 (Jan. 30, 2013).
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`
`As discussed below, the ’437 Patent is entitled to a priority date no earlier
`
`than August 15, 2002. Therefore, the PCT Publication, which was published on
`
`September 11, 1998, is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Supporting Evidence (37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(5))
`
`C.
`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 below in the form of explanatory text. Set forth above is an Exhibit List
`
`with the exhibit numbers and a brief description of each exhibit.
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF THE ’437 PATENT
`The ’437 Patent describes an “interface device” intended to eliminate the
`
`need for specialized device drivers. When the interface device of the alleged
`
`invention is connected to a host, it responds to the host’s request for identification
`
`by “simulat[ing], both in terms of hardware and software, the way in which a
`
`conventional input/output device functions, preferably that of a hard disk drive,”
`
`for which the host system already has a working driver. Ex. 1001, at 4:17-20
`
`(emphasis added). When the host communicates with the interface device to
`
`request data from or control the operation of the data device, the host uses its own
`
`familiar native device driver, and
`
`the
`
`interface device
`
`translates
`
`the
`
`communications into a form understandable by the connected data device. Id. at
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`
`3:29-4:41. The interface device of the ’437 Patent thus does not require a
`
`“specially designed driver” for a connected peripheral device in a host computer.
`
`Id. at 4:25-26. “Communication between the host device and the devices attached
`
`to the multi-purpose interface … essentially takes place by means of the specific
`
`driver software for the multipurpose interface ….” Id. at 3:59-62.
`
`V. 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 of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo
`
`Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144-46 (2016). Consistent with the
`
`broadest reasonable construction, claim terms are presumed to have their ordinary
`
`and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in the
`
`context of the entire patent disclosure. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d
`
`1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`For purposes of this proceeding, Petitioner does not believe that it is
`
`necessary to construe any terms in the ’437 Patent. The only ground asserted in
`
`this petition is that the challenged claims are anticipated by the PCT Publication.
`
`The specification of the PCT Publication is substantially identical to the ’437
`
`Patent—which of course serves as the patentee’s written description for the
`
`challenged claims. Accordingly, the PCT Publication renders the challenged
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`
`claims unpatentable under any reasonable interpretation of the claims.
`
`VI. THE PCT PUBLICATION IS PRIOR ART TO THE ’437 PATENT
`The ’437 Patent is part of a long chain of continuing applications, which
`
`purport to claim priority back to PCT/EP98/01187 (filed on March 3, 1998) and
`
`German application DE 197 08 755 (filed on March 4, 1997). But the patentee
`
`failed to perfect its claim of priority though all of the intervening applications. In
`
`particular, while U.S. application 11/078,778 was filed as a continuation of U.S.
`
`application 10/219,105, it failed to claim priority to the earlier-filed U.S.
`
`application 09/331,002.
`
`For example, in the Patent Application Utility Transmittal (“Transmittal”)
`
`filed on March 11, 2005, Applicant claimed priority to only application
`
`10/219,105. The Transmittal states: “If a CONTINUING APPLICATION, check
`
`appropriate box, and supply the requisite information below and in the first
`
`sentence of the specification following the title, or in an Application Data Sheet
`
`under 37 CFR 1.76.” See Ex. 1003, at 1 (File History for the ’778 Application)
`
`(emphasis added). Applicant, however, did not supply the requisite information in
`
`the first sentence of the specification following the title during the course of
`
`prosecution of application 11/078,778 to claim priority to application 09/331,002.
`
`See Ex. 1003, at 7, 45-66, 150-68, 171-87, 190-213, 232-62, 282-304, 318-40, 345-
`
`64, and 378-95. Nor did Applicant file an Application Data Sheet during the
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`
`course of prosecution of application 11/078,778 to claim priority to application
`
`09/331,002. See id. As explained further below, Applicant’s failure to comply
`
`with at least 35 U.S.C. § 120, and 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.78(a)(2)(i), 1.78(a)(2)(iii) and
`
`1.76, severed the chain of priority for the ’778 Application and all the later
`
`applications in the chain.
`
`As a consequence, the earliest effective filing date of the ’437 Patent, and
`
`the claims thereof, is August 15, 2002 (the filing date of the ’105 Application). In
`
`particular, the ’437 Patent does not and cannot claim priority back to either (i) U.S.
`
`application 09/331,002 (filed on June 14, 1999); (ii) the corresponding PCT
`
`Application EP98/01187; or (iii) the earlier German application DE 197 08 755.
`
`A claim to benefit of priority under 35 U.S.C. § 120 to the earliest of a chain
`
`of patent applications must make specific reference to “each application in the
`
`chain of priority to refer to the prior applications.” Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.
`
`v. Alpine Elecs. of America, Inc, 609 F.3d 1345, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (emphasis
`
`added). Such a “specific reference” to an application in a priority claim requires
`
`precise details, including those details recited in the implementing regulation for
`
`section 120, that is, 37 C.F.R. § 1.78(a)(2)(i). Medtronic Corevalue, LLC v.
`
`Edwards Lifesciences Corp., 741 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “The patentee
`
`is the person best suited to understand the genealogy and relationship of her
`
`applications; a requirement for her to clearly disclose this information should
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`
`present no hardship. Id. at 1366.
`
`Pre-AIA section 120 states, in relevant part:
`
`An application for patent for an invention disclosed in the manner
`provided by section 112(a) (other than the requirement to disclose the
`best mode) in an application previously filed in the United States, or
`as provided by section 363, which is filed by an inventor or inventors
`named in the previously filed application shall have the same effect,
`as to such invention, as though filed on the date of the prior
`application, if filed before the patenting or abandonment of or
`termination of proceedings on the first application or on an application
`similarly entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the first
`application and if it contains or is amended to contain a specific
`reference to the earlier filed application. No application shall be
`entitled to the benefit of an earlier filed application under this
`section unless an amendment containing the specific reference to
`the earlier filed application is submitted at such time during the
`pendency of the application as required by the Director.
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`Because the ’778 Application failed to claim priority to “each application in
`
`the chain of priority” that the patentee now seeks to exploit, it broke the chain of
`
`priority for all the subsequent applications. Moreover, because the ’778
`
`Application was then expressly abandoned more than ten years ago, Patent Owner
`
`cannot now seek to retrospectively cure this omission.
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`
`The ’437 Patent describes its lineage as follows:
`
`This application is a continuation of application Ser. No. 11/078,778,
`filed Mar. 11, 2005, now expressly abandoned, which
`is a
`continuation of application Ser. No. 10/219,105, filed Aug. 15, 2002,
`now U.S. Pat. No. 6,895,449, which is a divisional of application Ser.
`No. 09/331,002, filed Jun. 14, 1999, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,470,399.
`
`’437 Patent, at 1:8-14 and face page. The ’002 Application—the earliest U.S.
`
`application in this string, which issued as the ’399 Patent—was filed as the U.S.
`
`national stage application of PCT Application EP98/01187. See Ex. 1007 (’399
`
`Patent), cover page.
`
`However, as Patent Owner has now confirmed in a recent petition “for a
`
`delayed claim of priority,” the ’778 Application claimed domestic priority only to
`
`application no. 10/219,105, and not to the ’002 Application. See Ex. 1005, at
`
`24/54 (Bibliographic Data Sheet, stating: “This application is a CON of 10/219,105
`
`08/15/2002 PAT 6,895,449.”). Importantly, the Bibliographic Data Sheet does not
`
`indicate that the ’778 Application also claimed domestic priority to application
`
`serial no. 09/331,002.
`
`The ’778 Application’s failure to claim priority to the ’002 Application is
`
`confirmed by US 2005/0160199 (Ex. 1006), the published version of the ’778
`
`Application. The “Related U.S. Application Data” section on the face page
`
`confirms that the ’778 Application is a “[c]ontinuation of application No.
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`
`10/219,105, filed on Aug. 15, 2002, now Pat. No. 6,895,449.” The patentee was
`
`thus on notice since at least July 21, 2005 (when the application was published)
`
`that the ’778 Application claimed priority only to application no. 10/219,105, and
`
`not to application no. 09/331,002.
`
`In a “Petition Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.55 and § 1.78 for Delayed Claim of
`
`Priority,” filed on November 10, 2016 (Ex. 1005), the Patent Owner stated that
`
`“[i]t has recently come to Applicant’s attention that the filing documents
`
`accompanying the ’778 Application mistakenly omit a specific reference to U.S.
`
`Application No. 09/331,002, the National Stage of PCT Application No.
`
`PCT/EP98/01187 ….” Ex. 1005, at 1 (5/54). The petition claims that “Applicant
`
`intended to claim priority … and take advantage of the earliest effective filing
`
`date,” id. at 7 (9/54), and asserts that its failure to do so was “simply an
`
`administrative error that has gone unnoticed for over eleven years,” id. at 6 (8/54).
`
`While the petition portrays the issue as an unintentional error that Patent Owner is
`
`attempting to fix with “swift action,” id. at 8 (10/54), this overlooks that the Patent
`
`Owner expressly abandoned the ’778 Application back in August 2007, nearly a
`
`decade before its belated attempt to remedy the “administrative error.”
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.78(a)(2)(i), 2 the rule in effect as of the filing of the ’778
`
`Application, provides:
`
`Except for a continued prosecution application filed under § 1.53(d),
`any nonprovisional
`application or
`international
`application
`designating the United States of America claiming the benefit of one
`or more prior-filed copending nonprovisional applications or
`international applications designating the United States of America
`must contain or be amended to contain a reference to each such prior-
`filed application, identifying it by application number (consisting of
`the series code and serial number) or international application number
`and international filing date and indicating the relationship of the
`applications. Cross references to other related applications may be
`made when appropriate (see § 1.14).
`
`(emphasis added). Further, “the reference required by this paragraph must be
`
`included in an application data sheet (§ 1.76), or the specification must contain or
`
`be amended to contain such reference in the first sentence(s) following the title.”
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.78(a)(2)(iii).
`
`
`2 MPEP Eighth Edition Rev. 2 was in effect from May 2004 to July 2005.
`
`See https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/old/index.htm; see also
`
`https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/old/E8R2_R.pdf.
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`
`As acknowledged by Patent Owner’s recent petition (Ex. 1005), an
`
`application data sheet was not filed during prosecution of the ’778 Application.
`
`See also Ex. 1003 (File History for the ’778 Application). And as also
`
`acknowledged by Patent Owner’s petition, the specification of the ’778
`
`Application was never amended to refer to application no. 09/331,002. See Ex.
`
`1005, at 43/54 (Patent Owner’s present attempt to amend retroactively the
`
`specification of the now-abandoned ’778 Application); see also Ex. 1003.
`
`Thus, the ’778 Application does not satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 120 (or 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.78(a)(2)(i) or 1.78(a)(2)(iii)) because Applicant did not
`
`file “an amendment containing the specific reference to the earlier filed
`
`application … during the pendency of the application.” 35 U.S.C. § 120. Because
`
`the ’778 Application does not comply with 35 U.S.C. § 120, and claims priority
`
`only to application serial no. 10/219,005, the effective filing date of the ’778
`
`Application is August 15, 2002 (the filing date of application serial no.
`
`10/219,005), as confirmed on the face page of the published application (Ex.
`
`1006).
`
`The Patent Owner’s petition
`
`to correct
`
`the priority claim
`
`in
`
`the
`
`’778 Application should not be able to retroactively plug the gap in the priority
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`
`chain. In order for the Office of Petitions to take action regarding an abandoned
`
`application, it would first need to be revived.3 The Patent Owner’s petition does
`
`not seek to do this. Moreover, because the ’778 Application was expressly (i.e.,
`
`
`
`3 “Sometimes a pending application is one of a series of applications
`
`wherein the pending application is not copending with the first filed application
`
`but is copending with an intermediate application entitled to the benefit of the
`
`filing date of the first application. If applicant wishes that the pending application
`
`have the benefit of the filing date of the first filed application, applicant must,
`
`besides making reference to the intermediate application, also make reference to
`
`the first application. See Sticker Indus. Supply Corp. v. Blaw-Knox Co., 405 F.2d
`
`90, 160 USPQ 177 (7th Cir. 1968) and Hovlid v. Asari, 305 F.2d 747, 134 USPQ
`
`162 (9th Cir. 1962). The reference to the prior applications must identify all of the
`
`prior applications and indicate the relationship (i.e., continuation, divisional, or
`
`continuation-in-part) between each nonprovisional application in order to establish
`
`copendency throughout the entire chain of prior applications. Appropriate
`
`references must be made in each intermediate application in the chain of prior
`
`applications.” MPEP 211.01 (b)II.
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`
`intentionally) abandoned,4 any petition to revive under the unintentional standard
`
`should be rejected. See, e.g., Ex. 1009 (decisions by the Office of Petitions
`
`dismissing a Petition to Revive “Unintentionally Abandoned Application” and then
`
`denying a Renewed Petition to Revive “Unintentionally Abandoned Application”
`
`where the application, in fact, had been expressly abandoned).
`
`Accordingly, the PCT Publication (Exs. 1004, 1008), published on
`
`September 11, 1998, is prior art to the ’437 Patent under at least 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(b).
`
`VII. THE PCT PUBLICATION ANTICIPATES THE ’437 PATENT
`CLAIMS EITHER EXPRESSLY OR INHERENTLY
`
`The ’437 Patent and the PCT Publication have substantially identical
`
`specifications, as is confirmed by the attached certified translation (Ex. 1004) of
`
`the original German PCT Publication (Ex. 1008). So it is not surprising that each
`
`claim term is expressly or (at a minimum) inherently disclosed in the PCT
`
`Publication. Indeed, this is essentially the same disclosure that the Patentee
`
`
`4 The Patent Owner expressly abandoned the ’778 Application by filing a
`
`letter of Express Abandonment on August 14, 2007. Ex. 1003, at 444-46. The
`
`Office issued Notices of Abandonment on August 31, 2007 and September 7,
`
`2007. Id. at 447-50.
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`
`submitted as its written-description support for the challenged claims. Moreover,
`
`the Patent Owner is now seeking (in its petition for “delayed claim of priority,” Ex.
`
`1005) to claim priority to the PCT itself.
`
`Thus, as a matter of substance, there should be no dispute that the PCT
`
`Publication would anticipate the claims, provided that it is available as prior art.
`
`The following discussion identifies exemplary excerpts from the PCT Publication
`
`(Ex. 1008), as translated in English (Ex. 1004), that disclose each limitation of the
`
`challenged claims of the ’437 Patent.
`
`The claims of the PCT Publication identify the following claim elements as
`
`they correspond to the numbered items in the specification.
`
`PCT Publication Disclosure (Ex.
`1004)
`processor device
`memory
`a first connection device
`second connection device
`storage device
`buffer
`SCSI-interface
`second
`connection
`comprises an analog input
`A/D-converter
`digital signal processor
`
`
`device
`
`Corresponding Number in PCT Publication
`Disclosure (Ex. 1004)
`13, 1300, 1320
`14, 1400, 1420, 1440
`12, 1220, 1240, 1260, 1280
`15,1505-1535
`14, 1400, 1420, 1440
`1420
`1220
`1505
`
`1530
`1300
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`
`Claim 1
`
`1.
`An analog data generating and processing device (ADGPD),
`(1-pre)
`comprising:
`
`The PCT Publication discloses that