UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung
`Electronics America, Inc.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG.,
`Patent Owner
`
`IPR2017-00714
`U.S. Patent No. 6,470,399
`
`Patent Owner Papst’s Demonstratives
`Hearing Date: February 13, 2018
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG, Ex. 2007, 1/22
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung
`Electronics America, Inc.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG.,
`Patent Owner
`
`IPR2017-00714
`U.S. Patent No. 6,470,399
`
`Patent Owner Papst’s Demonstratives
`Hearing Date: February 13, 2018
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG, Ex. 2007, 1/22
`
`
`
`Overview
`
`• Petitioners Fail To Meet Their Burden To Establish Unpatentability
`•
`Independent Claims 1, 11, 14
`•
`“whereupon the host device communicates with the interface
`device by means of [the specified, customary driver]
`• Proper construction in view of specification requires that
`the host communicates by means of the specified driver
`without resort to specialized, user-loaded software.
`(Response at 2.)
`• Aytac in view of SCSI Specification, Lin, and alleged Admitted
`Prior Art fail to teach an interface device that communicates by
`means of the specified driver without resorting to specialized,
`user-loaded software. (Response at 35.)
`• Each of Aytac’s specialized, user-loaded programs are used
`to facilitate communication between the host and the
`CATBOX. (Response at 39.)
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG, Ex. 2007, 2/22
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`•
`
`“whereupon the host device communicates with the interface device by
`means of [the specified driver]
`• Claim 1: the driver for the input/output device customary in a host
`device
`• Claim 11: the specific driver for the multi-purpose interface
`• Claim 14: the usual driver for the input/output device
`• Specification teaches that the inventive interface device communicates
`by means of the specified driver, without resort to specialized, user-
`loaded software. (Response at 2.)
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG, Ex. 2007, 3/22
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`• Consistent description in the specification of an embodiment or a
`limitation as being part of “the present invention” serves to limit the
`scope of the claims. David Netzer Consulting Engineer LLC v. Shell Oil
`Co., 824 F.3d 989, 994 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Verizon Servs. Corp. v.
`Vonage Holdings Corp., 503 F.3d 1295, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2007);
`Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. ITT Indus., Inc., 452 F.3d 1312, 1318 (Fed. Cir.
`2006) (Response at 20.)
`• SciMed Life Systems v. Advanced Cardiovascular, 242 F.3d 1337, 1341
`(Fed. Cir. 2001) (“Where the specification makes clear that the invention
`does not include a particular feature, that feature is deemed to be outside
`the reach of the claims of the patent, even though the language of the
`claims, read without reference to the specification, might be considered
`broad enough to encompass the feature in question.”). (Response at 20-
`21)
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG, Ex. 2007, 4/22
`
`
`
`The ‘399 Patent Teaches a Device That Does
`Not Rely on Specialized Software To Allow Host
`Device Independence
`
`“It is an object of the present invention to provide an interface device for communication
`between a host device and a data transmit/receive device whose use is host device-
`independent and which delivers a high data transfer rate.” (‘399 Patent at 3:24–28; Response
`at 22)
`
`“The interface device according to the present invention therefore no longer communicates
`with the host device or computer by means of a specially designed driver but by means of a
`program which is present in the BIOS system . . . or by means of a specific program for the
`multi-purpose interface. . .present in all host systems so that the interface device according
`to the present invention is host device-independent.” (‘399 patent at 5:13-32; Response at
`22-23)
`
`“Using a standard interface of a host device, the interface device according to the present
`invention permits communication with any host device. By simulating an input/output
`device to the host device and, in a preferred embodiment, by simulating a virtual mass storage
`device, the interface device is automatically supported by all known host systems without
`any additional sophisticated driver software . . . and, through the implementation of any
`programs, independence from special software implemented on the host device.” (‘399
`patent at 12:23-40; Response at 23)
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG, Ex. 2007, 5/22
`
`
`
`Petitioners: The ‘399 Patent describes an
`“‘Interface Device’ [that] eliminates the need for
`specialized device drivers.”
`
`• Petition:
`•
`“[t]he ’399 Patent describes that an
`‘interface device’ eliminates the
`need for specialized device drivers.”
`(Pet. at 9.)
`• The ‘399 patent states that prior
`interface devices “typically ‘require
`very sophisticated drivers’ to be
`downloaded onto the host computer,
`but such drivers ‘are prone to
`malfunction and . . . limit data
`transfer rates.’” (Pet. at 10.)
`“The interface device of the ‘399
`Patent does not require a ‘specially
`designed driver’ for the interface
`device [sic] be loaded into a host
`computer.” (Pet. at 10.)
`
`•
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG, Ex. 2007, 6/22
`
`
`
`The ‘399 Patent Teaches a Device That Does
`Not Rely on Specialized Software To Allow
`Host Device Independence
`
`• Federal Circuit’s interpretation of the ‘399 disclosure is consistent with
`the specification’s disclosure that the interface device communicates
`without using a specially designed driver:
`• “The interface device of the invention thus does not require that a
`‘specially designed driver’ for the interface device be loaded into a
`host computer . . . The result, says the written description, is to
`allow data transfer at high speed without needing a new set of
`instructions for every host—to provide an interface device for
`communication between a host device and a data transmit/receive
`device whose use is host device independent and which delivers a
`high data transfer rate.” In Re Papst Licensing Digital Camera
`Patent Litigation, 778 F.3d 1255, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (internal
`citations omitted) (Ex. 1008 at 4–5.)(Response at 24.)
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG, Ex. 2007, 7/22
`
`
`
`Aytac Does Not Disclose An Interface Device With
`Which A Host Device Communicates Without
`Using Specialized Software On The Host Device
`
`• Aytac’s CATBOX relies on a number of specialized drivers installed on the host
`computer for communications. (Response at 36-42.)
`• Aytac discloses that communications are accomplished with a combination of
`specialized software developed by Aytac for the host computer, including
`CATSYNC.VXD, CATCAS.EXE, CATSER.VXD, along with the
`ASPI2DOS.SYS and ASPIDISK.SYS drivers. (Ex. 1005 at 10:52–11:64; 16:62–
`17:6; Ex. 2005 at ¶¶ 35–48; 53-61.)
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG, Ex. 2007, 8/22
`
`
`
`The ‘081 Aytac Patent
`
`Aytac discloses a multitasking communications device
`
`single site for
`CaTbox is “the open, programmable,
`processing for the answering machine, fax machine, copier,
`and telephone. This invention takes out the processing core
`from each one of these gadgets and gives the tasks to a single
`central processing unit
`that
`is the CaTbox. It builds a
`multitasking operating system . . .”
`
`(‘081 at 5:9–14; Response at 37-38)
`
`As a standalone unit, CaTbox implements the following
`functions:
`a. print files found in a spool directory and pointed to in a
`queue
`b. receive faxes and print them or store them on CaTdisc
`c. send faxes driven by keypad
`d. receive voice mail and store them on CaTdisc
`e. play voice mail back driven by keypad
`f. copy from scanner to printer
`g. other functions that may be programmed such as email
`retrieval, faxback and data modem based TCP/IP/PPP node,
`dial a phone number.
`
`(‘081 at 8:7-19; Response at 38)
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG, Ex. 2007, 9/22
`
`
`
`Aytac’s Specialized Software Enables
`Communication
`
`“[i]n tandem with [ASPIDISK.SYS], a virtual device driver called CATSYNC.VXD 523 implements the
`synchronization between the operating system of PC 101 and that of CaTbox 102 that access the same CaTdisc 301.”
`
`“CATCAS.EXE 524 implements the remote CAS modem function.”
`
`(‘081 at 10:58–63; Response at 39)
`
`(‘081 at 11:6–37; Ex. 2005 at ¶ 41; Response at 39)
`
`CATSER.VXD is a virtual device driver program that “implements the remote modem (CaTmodem) function.”
`
`(‘081 at 11:38-40; Ex. 2005 at ¶ 41; Response at 39)
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG, Ex. 2007, 10/22
`
`
`
`CATSYNC, CATSER, and CATCAS are
`Specialized, User-Loaded Software
`
`and
`of CATSYNC.VXD, CATCAS.EXE,
`40. Each
`CATSER.VXD are
`specialized
`software
`and
`drivers
`specifically created for operation of the CaTbox. (Id. at
`10:52–11:64.) These drivers would have to be loaded by an
`end user because they are specific to the CaTbox, were
`developed by the inventor Aytac, and were not customary
`drivers that were typically present on most computers at the
`time of the invention of the ’399 patent. For example,
`CATSYNC.VXD is a program written by the inventor of the
`Aytac patent and is included in the source code submitted
`with the Aytac patent application. (See, e.g., Ex. 1020 at 77,
`502.)
`
`(Response at 36, 39-40, 42; Ex. 2005 at ¶ 40)
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG, Ex. 2007, 11/22
`
`
`
`Aytac’s Specialized Software Facilitates
`Communications
`
`and
`of CATSYNC.VXD, CATSER.VXD,
`48. Each
`to
`CATCAS.EXE are
`used
`by the host
`computer
`communicate with Aytac’s CaTbox, in combination with
`ASPI2DOS.SYS
`and ASPIDISK.SYS.
`In
`particular,
`CATSYNC.VXD is involved in every file I/O to and from
`the CaTdisc (see ¶¶ 40–42 above), CATSER.VXD is
`involved in all I/O calls to the CaTmodem (Ex. 1005 at
`11:38–64), and CATCAS is involved in CAS modem calls,
`as well as in reading fax files from the CaTdisc. (Id. at 11:5–
`37.)
`
`(Response at 37, 39-44, 46-49 ; Ex. 2005 at ¶ 48)
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG, Ex. 2007, 12/22
`
`
`
`Dr. Almeroth Admitted That CATSYNC Is Used
`For Communications
`
`59. Aytac also describes the use of ASPI drivers and other
`drivers of host PC, e.g., ASPIDISK.SYS, ASPI2DOS.SYS,
`and CATSYNC.VXD, for use in conjunction with the
`SCSI interface on the host and communications with
`CaTbox. Ex. 1005, at 10:52-11:5, Fig. 5. Using these
`drivers, the host PC may connect with the CaTbox (via
`the SCSI bus) to access data captured by one or more of
`the peripheral data transmit/receive devices.
`
`(Response at 43-44; IPR2017-00713, Ex. 1003 ¶ 59) (emphasis added).)
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG, Ex. 2007, 13/22
`
`
`
`CATSYNC.VXD Used In Every File Transfer
`
`CATSYNC.VXD 523 hooks the File I/O calls
`from the PC operating system (in this case
`Windows 95 520) and replaces the original call
`with the following:
`if File I/O for CaTdisc
`notify CaTdisc of beginning of File
`I/O receive acknowledgment
`flush File I/O caches for CaTdisc
`make the intended File I/O call
`
`(LUN=0)
`
`notify CaTdisc of end of File I/O
`
`(Ex. 1005 at 10:67-11:5; Response at 41; Ex. 2005 at ¶43)
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG, Ex. 2007, 14/22
`
`
`
`CATSER.VXD Facilitates Communications
`
`60. As mentioned above, Aytac teaches that CATSER.VXD
`“implements the remote modem (CaTmodem) function.”
`(Ex. 1005 at 11:38–39.) In particular, Aytac notes that
`CATSER.VXD acts as a port driver for the host operating
`system for certain communications ports, such that whenever
`a program makes I/O calls to those communications ports,
`the host operating system calls the CATSER.VXD program.
`(Id. at 11:40–48.) Aytac further explains that CATSER.VXD
`is involved in writing data to and reading data from the
`CaTbox modems 208–311. (Id. at 11:49–64.) Accordingly, a
`POSITAwould recognize that CATSER.VXD is part of the
`means by which the host communicates with the CaTbox. In
`view of
`its described function, a POSITA would also
`recognize that CATSER.VXD is not “driver for [a] storage
`device customary in a host device”, nor a “specific driver for
`the multipurpose interface.” In particular, CATSER.VXD is
`neither a hard disk driver nor a driver for the SCSI interface.
`
`(Response at 37, 39-44, and 46-49; Ex. 2005 at ¶ 60)
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG, Ex. 2007, 15/22
`
`
`
`CATSER.VXD allows host to access files via
`CATBOX’s modem
`
`20 Q. Does Aytac disclose that the modems on
`21 the CaTbox have file systems?
`22 MR. QUIST: Objection. Form.
`23 THE WITNESS: That the modems have a
`24 file system?
`25 I would have to go back and check. I
`1 believe what CATSER is providing as an interface is
`2 the ability to access files that would be available
`3 via the modem, which would typically mean that they
`4 were remote to the CaTbox.
`
`(Response at 44; Ex. 2006 at 74:20–75:4)
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG, Ex. 2007, 16/22
`
`
`
`CATCAS.EXE Facilitates Communications
`
`61. As mentioned above, Aytac teaches that CATCAS.EXE is
`involved in CAS modem calls, as well as in reading fax files
`from the CaTdisc. (Id. at 11:5–37.) Accordingly, a POSITA
`would recognize that CATCAS.EXE is part of the means by
`which the host communicates with the CaTbox. In view of
`its described function, a POSITA would also recognize that
`CATCAS.EXE is not “driver
`for
`[a]
`storage device
`customary in a host device”, nor a “specific driver for the
`multipurpose interface.” In particular, CATCAS.EXE is
`neither a hard disk driver nor a driver for the SCSI interface.
`
`(Response at 37-40, 42-44, and 46; Ex. 2005 at ¶ 61)
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG, Ex. 2007, 17/22
`
`
`
`CATCAS Used to Send Faxes From Host
`
`3 Q. So would you agree that the CATCAS.EXE
`4 software is involved in sending faxes?
`5 MR. QUIST: Objection. Form.
`6 THE WITNESS: My read is that at least
`7 in some embodiments it could be.
`
`(Response at 44; Ex. 2006 at 42:3-7)
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG, Ex. 2007, 18/22
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Predecessor and Dr. Almeroth
`Alleged CATSER or CATSYNC Simulate A
`Virtual File System
`
`•
`
`“A POSA would recognize that the virtual
`device driver [CATSER or CATSYNC] of
`Aytac is used to simulate a virtual file
`system to the host.” (2017-00713 Pet. at 52;
`Response at 44.)
`
`• Exchange of file system information
`alleged by Petitioners to be “common initial
`sequence of exchanges between an initiator
`and target.” (Pet. at 24-26; Response at 44-
`45.)
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG, Ex. 2007, 19/22
`
`
`
`Not Obvious To Remove Aytac’s Specialized
`Software From Host
`
`• Petitioners make no such argument and confirms in Reply they do not
`assert that Aytac need to be modified. (Response at 46; Reply at 24)
`
`• Aytac does not disclose a device that does not rely on specialized
`software for communications. (Response at 47; Ex. 2005 at ¶¶ 57–58.)
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG, Ex. 2007, 20/22
`
`
`
`Claim Construction: Other Terms
`
`•
`
`•
`
`“Data transmit/receive device”
`• Agreed construction: “a device capable of transmitting data or transmitting
`and receiving data” (Pet. at 12, Response at 25-26.)
`“The driver for the input/output device customary in a host device”
`• Construction: “the driver for the input/output device normally part of
`commercially available computer systems” (Pet. at 13, Response at 27)
`“The usual driver for the input/output device”
`• Construction: “the set of software routines used to direct a data input/output
`device normally part of commercially available computer systems.” (Pet. at
`13, Response at 29.)
`“An input/output device customary in a host device”
`• Construction: “a data input/output device normally part of commercially
`available computer systems” (Pet. at 13, Response at 30)
`• Parties agree regarding construction of “customary” and “usual” that whether to
`include “at the time of the invention” is not material for purposes of this
`proceeding. (Response at 27-30; Reply at 12)
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG, Ex. 2007, 21/22
`
`
`
`Petitioners Fail to Provide a Proper Obviousness
`Analysis
`
`• Petition never specifies which limitations not disclosed by Aytac and instead are
`disclosed by other asserted prior art. (Response at 33)
`• Rationale provided for combination (“application of known techniques”) is
`conclusory and grounded in hindsight. (Pet. at 27-28, Response at 33.)
`• Numerous unsupported arguments regarding prior art, common knowledge, and
`understanding of a POSITA (Response at 34)
`• For example, alleged understanding of POSITA regarding modem, scanner,
`Aytac, Aytac source code. (Pet. at 35, 37, 50-53, 55, 66-68, Response at 33.)
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG, Ex. 2007, 22/22
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
