UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`FUJIFILM Corporation et al.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG,
`Patent Owner
`
`CASE: Unassigned
`Patent No. 8,966,144
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,966,144
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG - Exhibit 2002, p. 1
`
`

`

`PETITIONERS’ EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Ex. 1001 Declaration of Dr. Paul F. Reynolds, Ph.D.
`
`Ex. 1002 Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Paul F. Reynolds, Ph.D.
`
`Ex. 1003 U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144 to Michael Tasler (“the ’144 Patent”).
`
`Ex. 1004 U.S. Patent No. 5,758,081 to Haluk M. Aytac (“Aytac” or “the ’081
`Patent”).
`
`Ex. 1005 American National Standard for Information Systems, Small
`Computer System Interface-2, ANSI X3.131-1994 (1994)
`(“SCSI Specification”).
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`Prosecution History of the ’081 Patent.
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`Excerpts from the Prosecution History of the ’144 Patent.
`
`Ex. 1008 MPEP 6th ed., Rev. 1, Sept. 1, 1995, § 608.05.
`
`Ex. 1009
`
`Patent Owner (“Papst”)’s Opening Claim Construction Brief and
`Declaration of Robert Zeidman, filed in related litigation in the
`District of Columbia. In re: Papst Licensing Digital Camera Patent
`Litigation, MDL No. 1880, Case No. 1:07-mc-00493, Dkt. Nos. 630,
`630-12 (June 3, 2016).
`
`Ex. 1010 Ray Duncan, ed., “The MS-DOS Encyclopedia,” Microsoft Press
`(1988).
`
`Ex. 1011
`
`Federal Circuit decision, In re: Papst Licensing Digital Camera
`Patent Litigation, No. 2014-1110 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 2, 2015).
`
`Ex. 1012 American National Standards Institute, Procedures for the
`Development and Coordination of American National Standards,
`Approved by the ANSI Board of Directors (Sept. 9, 1993).
`
`ii
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG - Exhibit 2002, p. 2
`
`

`

`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8: MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................. 3
`A.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1): Real Parties-in-Interest ................................... 3
`B.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2): Related Matters ............................................... 4
`C.
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3), 42.8(b)(4): Lead and Back-up Counsel
`and Service Information ....................................................................... 7
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(A): GROUNDS FOR STANDING ............................ 12
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B): IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE ............ 13
`A.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1): Claims for Which IPR is Requested ......... 13
`B.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2): Identification of Prior Art and
`Asserted Grounds for Which IPR is Requested ................................. 13
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ...................................................... 16
`C.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3): Claim Construction .................................. 16
`D.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4): How the Claims Are Unpatentable ........... 20
`E.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5): Evidence Supporting Challenge ............... 20
`F.
`THERE EXISTS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE ............................. 21
`A.
`Description of the Alleged Invention of the ’144 Patent ................... 21
`B.
`Prosecution History of the ’144 Patent .............................................. 22
`C.
`Summary of Unpatentability Arguments ........................................... 23
`D.
`Ground #1: Claims 1-8, 10, 14-20, 22, 26, 28-29, 38, 52, 56-57,
`59-65, 67, 71-74, 77-80, 84, and 86-87 Would Have Been
`Obvious Over Aytac in View of the SCSI Specification ................... 25
`1.
`Common Claim Elements of the Challenged Claims .............. 26
`2.
`The Aytac Patent ...................................................................... 26
`3.
`SCSI Specification and Overview ........................................... 31
`
`iii
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG - Exhibit 2002, p. 3
`
`

`

`4.
`
`5.
`
`f.
`g.
`
`h.
`
`i.
`
`Independent Claims 1, 84, and 86 [common elements]........... 37
`a.
`Claims 1, 84, and 86 [preamble] ................................... 37
`b.
`Claims 1, 84, and 86 [input/output (i/o) port] ............... 38
`c.
`Claims 1, 84, and 86 [program memory] ...................... 39
`d.
`Claims 1, 84, and 86 [data storage memory] ................. 40
`e.
`Claims 1, 84, and 86 [sensor designed to transmit
`data] ............................................................................... 42
`Claims 1, 84, and 86 [processor] ................................... 44
`Claims 1, 84, and 86 [processor adapted to be
`involved in a data generation process] .......................... 47
`Claims 1, 84, and 86 [processor adapted to be
`involved in an automatic recognition process] .............. 49
`Claims 1, 84, and 86 [processor that is further
`adapted to be involved in an automatic file transfer
`process] .......................................................................... 63
`Claim 84 (non-overlapping elements with claim 1) ................ 67
`a.
`A processor adapted to cause ADGPD file system
`information to be automatically sent to the i/o port ...... 68
`“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” ...................... 70
`“Wherein at least one parameter is consistent with
`the ADGPD being a mass storage device that
`operates in a manner consistent with a hard disc
`drive” ............................................................................. 70
`“Wherein the processor and the program memory
`after 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” .............................................................................. 71
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`iv
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG - Exhibit 2002, p. 4
`
`

`

`6.
`7.
`
`e.
`
`“Wherein the processor and the program memory
`are adapted to be configured to cause a 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” ............................. 72
`Claim 86 ................................................................................... 72
`Dependent Claims .................................................................... 73
`a.
`Claim 2 ........................................................................... 73
`b.
`Claim 3 ........................................................................... 74
`c.
`Claims 4 and 5 ............................................................... 74
`d.
`Claim 6 ........................................................................... 76
`e.
`Claim 7 ........................................................................... 77
`f.
`Claim 8 ........................................................................... 77
`g.
`Claims 10 and 22 ........................................................... 78
`h.
`Claim 14 ......................................................................... 80
`i.
`Claims 15 and 16 ........................................................... 80
`j.
`Claims 17-20 .................................................................. 80
`k.
`Claim 26 ......................................................................... 82
`l.
`Claims 28 and 87 ........................................................... 83
`m.
`Claim 29 ......................................................................... 83
`n.
`Claim 38 ......................................................................... 83
`o.
`Claim 52 ......................................................................... 84
`p.
`Claim 56 ......................................................................... 84
`q.
`Claim 57 ......................................................................... 85
`r.
`Claim 59 ......................................................................... 85
`s.
`Claim 60 ......................................................................... 86
`t.
`Claim 61 ......................................................................... 86
`u.
`Claims 62 and 63 ........................................................... 86
`v.
`Claims 64 and 65 ........................................................... 87
`w.
`Claim 67 ......................................................................... 87
`v
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG - Exhibit 2002, p. 5
`
`

`

`Claims 71-74 .................................................................. 88
`x.
`Claim 77 ......................................................................... 89
`y.
`Claims 78 and 79 ........................................................... 89
`z.
`Claim 80 ......................................................................... 90
`aa.
`VI. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 91
`
`vi
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG - Exhibit 2002, p. 6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,966,144
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Inter partes review is respectfully requested of claims 1-8, 10, 14-20, 22, 26,
`
`28-29, 38, 52, 56-57, 59-65, 67, 71-74, 77-80, 84, and 86-87 (the “Challenged
`
`Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144 (“the ’144 Patent”) (Ex. 1003).
`
`The ’144 Patent is part of a chain of applications dating back to 1997, which
`
`were acquired by Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG (“Papst” or the “Patent
`
`Owner”) in 2006. Papst has filed multiple patent infringement suits against Peti-
`
`tioners. During the past decade in which those patent infringement suits have been
`
`pending, Papst has continued to serially file continuation applications in an attempt
`
`to broaden the claims of its patents and capture Petitioners’ accused products.
`
`But the patent family to which the ’144 Patent belongs does not cover the
`
`technology that Papst has accused of infringement. Thus, Papst presented claims
`
`to the Patent Office through Application No. 11/467,073 (“the ’073 application”),
`
`from which the ’144 Patent issued, that are broad in scope, go beyond what is dis-
`
`closed in its specification and read directly on the prior art. Papst spent nine years
`
`prosecuting the ’073 application, presented 326 different claims for consideration,
`
`and submitted fourteen different amendments, until it ultimately achieved issuance
`
`in 2015.
`
`Papst primarily cited and focused solely on distinguishing digital camera
`
`prior art over the course of eight interviews and well over 100 pages of arguments.
`
`-1-
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG - Exhibit 2002, p. 7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,966,144
`
`This 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 described Papst’s characteri-
`
`zation of the “invention”:
`
`[B]ased on the eight interviews preceding appellant’s instant appeal
`brief, appellant consistently discloses that the claimed ADGPD is func-
`tioning as a plug and play camera peripheral device that communicate
`[sic] with a connected host without any user loading of a driver, wherein
`the communication is to emulate a hard disk drive for transferring data
`with the connected host …
`
`Ex. 1007, at 183 (emphasis in original).
`
`Because of the focus on digital cameras (which the ’144 Patent does not
`
`even mention in its specification), highly relevant prior art was not considered.
`
`Among such references was U.S. Patent No. 5,758,081 to Aytac (“the ’081 Patent”
`
`or “Aytac”). The ’081 Patent discloses exactly what the ’144 Patent describes as
`
`key to its invention: a device which interfaces a host computer and a peripheral
`
`device without requiring the loading or installing of additional drivers and soft-
`
`ware. Aytac’s ’081 Patent achieves this interfacing ability through a SCSI connec-
`
`tion, which is the very same connection described and relied upon in Tasler’s ’144
`
`Patent.
`
`-2-
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG - Exhibit 2002, p. 8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,966,144
`
`Aytac’s ’081 Patent describes the ’144 Patent’s claimed invention better
`
`than the specification of the ’144 Patent. Indeed, Aytac submitted 450 pages of
`
`source code with his application in 1995, demonstrating a working embodiment of
`
`the invention that Papst now tries to claim 20 years later as its own. For these rea-
`
`sons, and as described in detail below, the Board should institute inter partes re-
`
`view of the ’144 Patent and cancel the Challenged Claims.
`
`II.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8: MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`A.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1): Real Parties-in-Interest
`
`The following are the Petitioners and real parties-in-interest: Canon Inc.;
`
`Canon U.S.A., Inc.; Canon Financial Services, Inc.; FUJIFILM Corporation;
`
`FUJIFILM Holdings America Corporation; FUJIFILM North America
`
`Corporation; JVC KENWOOD Corporation; JVCKENWOOD USA Corporation;
`
`Nikon Corporation; Nikon Inc.; Olympus Corporation; Olympus America Inc.;
`
`Panasonic Corporation; Panasonic Corporation of North America; Samsung
`
`Electronics Co., Ltd.; and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`In addition, out of an abundance of caution, Petitioners bring to the Board’s
`
`attention Hanwha Techwin Co., Ltd. (f/k/a Samsung Techwin Co., Ltd.); Samsung
`
`Opto-Electronics America, Inc.; Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd.; Sanyo North America
`
`Corp.; and HP Inc. (f/k/a/ Hewlett-Packard Company), who are co-defendants with
`
`some of the Petitioners in the pending multi-district litigation identified below but
`
`-3-
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG - Exhibit 2002, p. 9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,966,144
`
`are not real parties-in-interest to this proceeding. None of these parties financed or
`
`controlled this petition (or had the opportunity to exercise control over this
`
`petition) or otherwise meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2).
`
`B.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2): Related Matters
`
`To the best knowledge of Petitioners, the ’144 Patent is involved in the
`
`following litigations and matters:
`
`Case Name
`
`Case No.
`
`Court
`
`Filed
`
`In re: Papst Licensing Digital
`
`1:07-mc-00493 D.D.C.
`
`Nov. 16, 2007
`
`Camera Patent Litigation – MDL
`
`No. 1880
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`3:16-cv-00575 N.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2016
`
`HP Inc.
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`6:15-cv-01095 E.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2015
`
`Apple Inc.
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`6:15-cv-01099 E.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2015
`
`LG Electronics, Inc. et al
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`6:15-cv-01100 E.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2015
`
`ZTE Corporation et al
`
`-4-
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG - Exhibit 2002, p. 10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,966,144
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`6:15-cv-01102 E.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2015
`
`Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`6:15-cv-01111 E.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2015
`
`Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`6:15-cv-01115 E.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2015
`
`Huawei Technologies, et al
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`1:15-cv-01692 D.D.C.
`
`Oct. 15, 2015
`
`Canon Inc. et al
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`1:15-cv-01693 D.D.C.
`
`Oct. 15, 2015
`
`FUJIFILM Corporation et al
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`1:15-cv-01747 D.D.C.
`
`Oct. 15, 2015
`
`JVCKENWOOD Corporation et al
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`1:15-cv-01748 D.D.C.
`
`Oct. 15, 2015
`
`Nikon Corporation et al
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`1:15-cv-01749 D.D.C.
`
`Oct. 15, 2015
`
`Olympus Corporation et al
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`1:15-cv-01750 D.D.C.
`
`Oct. 15, 2015
`
`Panasonic Corporation et al
`
`-5-
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG - Exhibit 2002, p. 11
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,966,144
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`1:15-cv-00495 D. Del.
`
`June 15, 2015
`
`Canon Inc. et al
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`1:15-cv-00496 D. Del.
`
`June 15, 2015
`
`FUJIFILM Corporation et al
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`1:15-cv-00497 D. Del.
`
`June 15, 2015
`
`HP Inc.
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`1:15-cv-00498 D. Del.
`
`June 15, 2015
`
`JVCKENWOOD Corporation et al
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`1:15-cv-00499 D. Del.
`
`June 15, 2015
`
`Nikon Corporation et al
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`1:15-cv-00500 D. Del.
`
`June 15, 2015
`
`Olympus Corporation et al
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`1:15-cv-00501 D. Del.
`
`June 15, 2015
`
`Panasonic Corporation et al
`
`Hewlett-Packard Company v. Papst
`
`3:15-cv-02101 N.D. Cal. May 8, 2015
`
`Licensing GmbH & Co. KG
`
`Further, Petitioners are filing additional petitions for inter partes review of
`
`the ’144 patent, and for the following patent, which is related to the ’144 patent:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746.
`
`-6-
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG - Exhibit 2002, p. 12
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,966,144
`
`C.
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3), 42.8(b)(4): Lead and Back-up Counsel and
`Service Information
`
`Petitioners provide the following designation of counsel:
`
`Lead Counsel
`T. Vann Pearce, Jr.
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Christopher J. Higgins
`
`Reg. No. 58,945
`
`Reg. No. 66,422
`
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`
`1152 15th Street, N.W.
`
`1152 15th Street, N.W.
`
`Washington, DC 20005-1706
`
`Washington, DC 20005-1706
`
`Telephone: (202) 339-8400
`
`Telephone: (202) 339-8400
`
`Facsimile: (202) 339-8500
`
`Facsimile: (202) 339-8500
`
`vpearce@orrick.com
`
`chiggins@orrick.com
`
`Gregory S. Cordrey (Reg. No. 44,089)
`
`Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell, LLP
`
`3 Park Plaza, Suite 1100
`
`Irvine, CA 92614
`
`Telephone: 949-623-7200
`
`Facsimile: 949-623-7201
`
`gcordrey@jmbm.com
`
`-7-
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG - Exhibit 2002, p. 13
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,966,144
`
`Rachel Capoccia (pro hac vice
`
`application to be submitted)
`
`Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell, LLP
`
`1900 Avenue of the Stars, 7th floor
`
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`
`Telephone: 310-203-8080
`
`Facsimile: 310-203-0567
`
`rcapoccia@jmbm.com
`
`David L. Witcoff (Reg. No. 31,443)
`
`JONES DAY
`
`77 West Wacker
`
`Chicago, Illinois 60601-1692
`
`Telephone: 312- 269-4259
`
`Facsimile: 312- 782-8585
`
`dlwitcoff@jonesday.com
`
`Marc S. Blackman (Reg. No. 43,501)
`
`JONES DAY
`
`-8-
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG - Exhibit 2002, p. 14
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,966,144
`
`77 West Wacker
`
`Chicago, Illinois 60601-1692
`
`Telephone: 312- 269-4369
`
`Facsimile: 312-782-8585
`
`msblackman@jonesday.com
`
`Dion Bregman (Reg. No. 45,645)
`
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`
`1400 Page Mill Rd.
`
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`
`Telephone: 650-843-4000
`
`Facsimile: 650-843-4001
`
`dion.bregman@morganlewis.com
`
`Andrew V. Devkar (pro hac vice
`
`application to be submitted)
`
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`
`1601 Cloverfield Blvd., Suite 2050N
`
`Santa Monica, CA 90404-4082
`
`Telephone: 310-255-9070
`
`-9-
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG - Exhibit 2002, p. 15
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,966,144
`
`Facsimile: 310-907-2000
`
`andrew.devkar@morganlewis.com
`
`David M. Maiorana (Reg. No. 41,449)
`
`JONES DAY
`
`901 Lakeside Avenue
`
`Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1190
`
`Telephone: (216) 586-7499
`
`Fax: (216) 579-0212
`
`dmaiorana@jonesday.com
`
`F. Drexel Feeling (Reg. No. 40,602)
`
`JONES DAY
`
`901 Lakeside Avenue
`
`Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1190
`
`Telephone: (216) 586-7199
`
`Fax: (216) 579-0212
`
`f.dfeeling@jonesday.com
`
`Matthew W. Johnson (Reg. No. 59,108)
`
`-10-
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG - Exhibit 2002, p. 16
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,966,144
`
`JONES DAY
`
`500 Grant Street, Suite 4500
`
`Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2514
`
`Telephone: (412) 394-9524
`
`Fax: (412) 394-7959
`
`mwjohnson@jonesday.com
`
`Brian C. Rupp (Reg. No. 35,665)
`
`DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
`
`191 N. Wacker Dr., Suite 3700
`
`Chicago, IL 60606
`
`Telephone: 312-569-1000
`
`Facsimile: 312-569-3000
`
`Brian.Rupp@dbr.com
`
`Carrie A. Beyer (Reg. No. 59,195)
`
`DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
`
`191 N. Wacker Dr., Suite 3700
`
`Chicago, IL 60606
`
`Telephone: 312-569-1000
`
`-11-
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG - Exhibit 2002, p. 17
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,966,144
`
`Facsimile: 312-569-3000
`
`Carrie.Beyer@dbr.com
`
`Nikola Colic (Reg. No. 62,412)
`
`DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
`
`1500 K Street, N.W. , Suite 1100
`
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`Telephone: 202-230-5115
`
`Facsimile: 202-842-8465
`
`Nick.Colic@dbr.com
`
`Petitioners submit Powers of Attorney with this Petition. Please address all
`
`correspondence to lead and back-up counsel. Petitioners consent to service by
`
`email at: PapstPTABPetitioners@Jonesday.com.
`
`III.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a): GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Petitioners certify that the ’144 Patent is available for inter partes review
`
`and that Petitioners are not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review
`
`challenging the patent claims on the grounds identified in this petition. Petitioners
`
`also certify that this Petition for Inter Partes Review is timely filed under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 315(b).
`
`-12-
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG - Exhibit 2002, p. 18
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,966,144
`
`IV.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b): IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE
`
`A.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1): Claims for Which IPR is Requested
`
`Claims 1, 2, 3-8, 10, 14-20, 28, 29, 38, 52, 57, 59-65, 67, 71-74, 77-80, 84,
`
`86, and 87 are challenged in this Petition.
`
`B.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2): Identification of Prior Art and Asserted
`Grounds for Which IPR is Requested
`
`The prior art relied upon in this Petition is the Aytac Patent (Ex. 1004) and
`
`the SCSI Specification (Ex. 1005).
`
`The one-year time bar under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(b) is measured from
`
`the effective U.S. filing date of the ’144 Patent, which is no earlier than March 3,
`
`1998, the date of the PCT application to which the ’144 Patent claims priority
`
`(PCT/EP98/01187).
`
`Inter partes review is requested in view of the following prior art references:
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 5,758,081 to Aytac (“Aytac” or “Aytac Patent”) Ex.
`
`1004. Aytac was filed on December 8, 1995 and issued on May 26,
`
`1998, and is prior art to the ’144 Patent at least under pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`• American National Standard for Information Systems, Small
`
`Computer System Interface-2, ANSI X3.131-1994 (1994) (“SCSI
`
`Specification”). The SCSI Specification was published by the
`
`American National Standards Institute in 1994, more than one year
`
`-13-
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG - Exhibit 2002, p. 19
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,966,144
`
`before the earliest claimed priority date of the ’144 Patent. Ex. 1005,
`
`at 3; Ex. 1001, ¶ 46; Ex. 1012, at 17-18 (detailing ANSI publication
`
`requirements met by the SCSI Specification).
`
`As further evidence that the SCSI Specification was reasonably accessible to
`
`those of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest claimed priority of the ’144
`
`Patent, the SCSI Specification is explicitly referenced in Aytac. See Ex. 1004 at
`
`4:50-53. Accordingly, the SCSI Specification qualifies as prior art under 35
`
`U.S.C. §102(b).
`
`The Aytac Patent discloses a device termed by the inventor as “CaTbox”
`
`(described in the following sections) and includes source code utilized in an actual
`
`implementation of CaTbox and which supplements the other disclosures of the
`
`Aytac Patent. The source code was filed with the Office as part of underlying
`
`Application No. 08/569,846. Ex. 1006 (Aytac Patent file wrapper, pages 77-527).
`
`Although the Office did not print the source code as part of the issued patent
`
`-14-
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG - Exhibit 2002, p. 20
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,966,144
`
`because the total number of pages (450) exceeded the ten-page limit in effect at the
`
`relevant time, both Aytac’s application transmittal letter and the title page indicate
`
`that the source code was filed as an integral part of the application. Ex. 1006, at 4,
`
`77. In prior proceedings, the Office has held that such appendices are part of the
`
`written description. See Intel Corp. v. MicroUnity Systems, Appeal No. 2010-
`
`008981 at 7-8 (BPAI, Dec. 9, 2010). Thus, the code appendix is included in the
`
`disclosure of Aytac, which qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`The source code listing includes a development log containing entries under
`
`various dates in 1994 and 1995 indicating when specific portions of the source
`
`code were tested and revised, thereby showing that the source code was compiled
`
`and actually reduced to practice by Aytac’s filing date. Ex. 1006, at 93-95.
`
`Moreover, Aytac’s mode of filing the source code followed the requirements for
`
`computer listing filings in effect as of the application date: “When the computer
`
`program listing is 11 pages or more in length, it may be submitted either on paper
`
`or microfiche…” Ex. 1008, MPEP 6th ed., Rev. 1, Sept. 1, 1995, § 608.05.
`
`The Aytac source code supplements the other disclosures of the Aytac Patent
`
`and further evidences the functionality of CaTbox at the time the Aytac application
`
`was filed. Accordingly, relevant excerpts from the source code are used below in
`
`the discussion of the Aytac Patent.
`
`-15-
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG - Exhibit 2002, p. 21
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,966,144
`
`Neither of Petitioners’ references were considered during the prosecution of
`
`the ’144 Patent, nor are they cumulative of the prior art considered by the
`
`Examiner.
`
`Ground 1: The Challenged Claims are rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) by Aytac in view of the SCSI Specification.
`
`C.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the field, at the time the ’144 patent was effec-
`
`tively filed, possessed a working knowledge of devices such as microprocessors,
`
`hard disks, and computer interfaces such as SCSI. Ex. 1001, ¶ 39. He or she
`
`would also be familiar with associated software, including MS-DOS, MS Windows
`
`95, UNIX and SCSI software modules and drivers, associated file systems (e.g.,
`
`FAT), and device drivers. Ex. 1001, ¶ 39. A person of ordinary skill at the rele-
`
`vant time (1996-1998) would have had at least a four-year degree in electrical en-
`
`gineering, computer science, or related field of study, or equivalent experience, and
`
`at least two years’ experience in studying or developing computer interfaces or pe-
`
`ripherals. Ex. 1001, ¶ 39; see also ¶ 40.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3): Claim Construction
`D.
`A claim subject to inter partes review shall be given by the Patent Office
`
`“its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in
`
`which it appears” to one of ordinary skill in the art. 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.100(b) and
`
`-16-
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG - Exhibit 2002, p. 22
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,966,144
`
`42.103(b)(3); In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 778 F.3d 1271, 1281 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2015). Petitioners expressly reserve their right to advance different constructions
`
`in district court litigation, which employs a different claim construction standard.
`
`For purposes of this proceeding only, Petitioners propose adopting, as the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim terms, the following claim
`
`constructions proposed by Papst in related litigation in the District of Columbia
`
`(Misc. Action No. 07-493 (RMC), MDL No. 1880) (Ex. 1009):
`
`Claim Term
`“automatic recognition process”
`
`Adopted BRI
`“process by which the computer recog-
`
`nizes the ADGPD upon connection with
`
`the computer without requiring any user
`
`intervention other than to start the pro-
`
`cess”
`
`“without requiring any end user to load
`
`“without requiring the end user to install
`
`any software onto the [first/second]
`
`or load specific drivers or software for
`
`computer at any time”
`
`the [ADGPD/analog data acquisition de-
`
`vice/analog data acquisition and inter-
`
`“without requiring any user-loaded file
`
`face device] beyond that included in the
`
`transfer enabling software to be loaded
`
`operating system or BIOS”
`
`-17-
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG - Exhibit 2002, p. 23
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,966,144
`
`on or installed in the computer at any
`
`time”
`
`“processor”
`
`“any kind of microprocessor, including a
`
`digital signal processor”
`
`In addition to the above terms, Petitioners propose the following
`
`construction as the broadest reasonable interpretation:
`
`“customary driver”
`
`“driver normally part of commercially
`
`available computer systems at the time
`
`of the invention”
`
`In the related district court litigation, Petitioners and Papst disagree as to
`
`whether the phrase “at the time of the invention” should be included as part of the
`
`construction. It is a fundamental notion of patent law, however, that “[a] claim
`
`cannot have different meanings at different times; its meaning must be interpreted
`
`as of its effective filing date.” PC Connector Solutions. LLC v. SmartDisk Corp.,
`
`406 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Circ. 2005); see also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
`
`1303, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“the ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term
`
`is the meaning….at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of
`
`the patent application.”). Papst’s Claim Construction brief makes clear that it
`
`seeks to have an interpretation that evolves with time to include more potential
`
`-18-
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG - Exhibit 2002, p. 24
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,966,144
`
`accused products. See Ex. 1009, at 40. Such a construction is legally improper.
`
`Catch Curve, Inc. v. Venali, Inc., 2010 WL 270889, *3 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“Because
`
`the specification was first filed in 1988, the reference to ‘existing fax terminal
`
`machines,’ like the references to other features of fax technology, pertains to the
`
`technology as it existed at that time.”).
`
`The ’144 Patent refers to drivers that were “customary” in devices as of
`
`the ’144 Patent’s effective date:
`
`The present invention is based on the finding that both a high data
`transfer rate and host device-independent use can be achieved if a driver
`for an input/output device customary in a host device, normally
`present in most commercially available host devices, is utilized.
`
`Ex. 1003, 3:33-40 (emphasis added). The ’144 Patent could only be referring to
`
`drivers and devices which were “commercially available” as of its effective date.
`
`Catch Curve, Inc., 2010 WL 270889, *3. Petitioners’ proposed construction is
`
`necessary to avoid Papst’s shifting sands approach.
`
`Papst’s construction, which provides an evolving meaning to claims filed in
`
`a long chain of continuation applications, has been confronted and rejected by the
`
`Federal Circuit. In Catch Curve, the patent at issue was the fifth in a chain of
`
`continuation applications. Id. The patentee argued that reference to “conventional
`
`fax machines” meant conventional at the time of infringement, not at the time of
`
`-19-
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG - Exhibit 2002, p. 25
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,966,144
`
`filing. Id. The Federal Circuit squarely rejected this argument. Papst’s
`
`construction should be rejected for the same reasons here.
`
`Even though Papst’s construction is incorrect for a number of reasons, the
`
`construction of the term “customary driver” does not affect the result that Aytac in
`
`view of the SCSI Specification renders each claim obvious. That is because Aytac
`
`and SCSI disclosed drivers that were customary prior to the time of the invention,
`
`at the time of the invention, and after the time of the invention, and therefore meet
`
`this term under any construction.
`
`E.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4): How the Claims Are Unpatentable
`
`The requested review of patentability of the challenged claims is governed
`
`by statutory provisions of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 that were in effect before
`
`March 16, 2013. The specific grounds for review and an explanation of why the
`
`challenged claims are unpatentable, including identification of where each element
`
`of each claim is found in the prior art, are provided in Section V.
`
`F.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5): Evidence Supporting Challenge
`
`The Declaration of Dr. Paul F. Reynolds, Ph.D. (Ex. 1001) and other sup-
`
`porting evidence in the Exhibit List are filed herewith. Dr. Reynolds’ background
`
`