UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ZTE (USA) INC., ZTE CORPORATION,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO. KG,
`Patent Owner.
`______________
`
`Case IPR2017-00714
`Patent 6,470,399
`_____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: February 13, 2018
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before JONI Y. CHANG, JENNIFER S. BISK, and JAMES B. ARPIN,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ZTE (USA) INC., ZTE CORPORATION,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO. KG,
`Patent Owner.
`______________
`
`Case IPR2017-00714
`Patent 6,470,399
`_____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: February 13, 2018
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before JONI Y. CHANG, JENNIFER S. BISK, and JAMES B. ARPIN,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00714
`Patent 6,470,399
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`Carrie A. Beyer, Esq.
`Brian C. Rupp, Esq.
`Nick Colic, Esq.
`Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
`191 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 3700
`Chicago, Illinois 60606
`312-569-1000
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`Nicholas T. Peters, Esq.
`Paul B. Henkelmann, Esq.
`Fitch Even Tabin & Flannery
`120 South LaSalle Street
`Chicago, Illinois 60603
`312-577-7000
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday, February
`
`13, 2018, commencing at 1:02 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark
`Office, Madison Building, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00714
`Patent 6,470,399
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
` JUDGE CHANG: So that the court reporter can
`capture all the names.
` MS. BEYER: This is Carrie Beyer on behalf of the
`petitioner. Also with me are my co-counsel, Brian Rupp, and
`Nick Colic.
` JUDGE CHANG: Let me double check to see if the
`court reporter has all the names and the spellings of those
`names.
` (Short pause.)
` JUDGE CHANG: Maybe patent owner's counsel, can
`you introduce yourself now and also spell your names, so that
`way the court reporter will clearly capture your names.
` MR. PETERS: Yes. Nicholas Peters on behalf of
`the patent owner. N-i-c-h-o-l-a-s, last name Peters,
`P-e-t-e-r-s.
` JUDGE CHANG: Thank you.
` MR. PETERS: And there's also counsel, my
`co-counsel, Paul Henkelmann.
` JUDGE CHANG: Petitioner's counsel, can you
`increase your volume, and patent owner's counsel, can you
`lower your volume, so that way we'll be more comfortable.
` MS. BEYER: Sure. Thank you.
` JUDGE CHANG: Okay. Before we begin, let me
`double check with the court reporter, does she have all the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00714
`Patent 6,470,399
`
`names down.
` (Short pause.)
` JUDGE CHANG: Great. This is a telephonic oral
`hearing, and this is a hearing for IPR2017-00714, involving
`patent 6,470,399. It is open to the public, and the
`transcript of this oral hearing will be entered into the
`file and available to the public.
` Before we begin, I have a few procedural matters
`to go over. This is a telephonic oral hearing so each
`counsel will have the opportunity to present their case, but
`be clear that when you refer to a specific demonstrative or
`a paper number, speak that carefully and also slowly, so that
`way we can capture all that in the file.
` And one thing to note is the demonstrative
`exhibits are not evidence, and, also, they are not
`substantive briefs, but merely a visual aid for use during
`the oral hearing. We note that the parties did not object
`to each other’s demonstratives, but the panel reviewed the
`demonstratives for compliance, and petitioner's
`demonstrative included 86 pages. That's excessive in view
`of the oral hearing, it's only 20 minutes per party. So
`petitioner may use the demonstrative during the oral
`hearing, but after the oral hearing, we'll enter an order
`expunging the petitioner's demonstratives.
` And the second thing is, we noticed that patent
`owner's demonstrative exhibits was filed as Exhibit 2007,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00714
`Patent 6,470,399
`
`which was previously used for the settlement agreement
`earlier. Each exhibit should be numbered uniquely and
`sequentially. So patent owner's demonstrative will be also
`expunged, but patent owner is authorized to re-file the
`demonstratives as Exhibit 2009.
` Are there any questions? Okay.
` Then, consistent with our prior order, each party
`has 20 minutes to present its arguments. Petitioner will
`proceed first to present its case as to the challenged
`claims. Thereafter, patent owner will respond to
`petitioner's case. Petitioner may reserve a small amount of
`the time for rebuttal, okay.
` Are there any questions before we begin? Okay.
` Counsel for petitioner, you may start whenever you
`are ready, and please let me know how many minutes you would
`like to reserve for rebuttal time.
` MS. BEYER: Thank you, Your Honor. I would like
`to reserve five minutes for rebuttal time, please.
` JUDGE CHANG: Okay.
` MS. BEYER: The board instituted trial under a
`single section, 103(a), obviousness grounds, as shown on
`slide 3 of Exhibit 1025. This proceeding relates to Claims
`1 through 3, 5, 6, 11, 14, and 15 of the '399 patent. Of
`these, Claims 1, 11, and 14 are independent claims. The
`issues here are largely uncontested, and the primary dispute
`relates to the "whereupon" clause in independent claims.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00714
`Patent 6,470,399
`
` The board is familiar with the specification of
`the Tasler patent and with Aytac from the related IPR, so I
`will primarily focus on the core disputed issues in this
`proceeding.
` Before turning to the core disputed issues,
`however, I would like to briefly touch on the uncontested
`issues. There is no dispute that Aytac is prior art, as
`shown on slide 24. Likewise, there's no dispute that
`(inaudible) specification on slide 25, or the Lin patent on
`slide 26 is prior art. Moreover, the bulk of the claim
`limitations are uncontested, as shown on slides 27 to 31.
`Indeed, the "whereupon" clause is the only contested
`limitation in all eight challenged claims, and Papst did not
`make any separate arguments regarding the dependent claims.
` Turning now to the core disputed issue, the
`construction of the "whereupon" clause.
` On slide 33, we are at slide 1, and on -- we have
`highlighted the contested "whereupon" clause that is the
`primary dispute in this proceeding. The corresponding label
`from the other independent claims is shown on slide 34 and
`35.
` As shown on slide 36, there are two disputed
`issues here. The first relates to the importation of a
`negative limitation regarding the use of additional
`software, and the second related to importation of the
`reliability limitation.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00714
`Patent 6,470,399
`
` I will begin with the importation of the negative
`limitation, beginning with slide 32.
` In Claim 1, the limitation is highlighted on slide
`33. Papst's attempt to rewrite the claim language is
`illustrated on slide 37. On the left-hand side, we have
`included the actual claim language from Claims 1, 11, and
`14, and, on the right-hand side, the claim language as
`rewritten by Papst. Some of Papst related patents,
`including the '716 and '144 patent, include without
`requiring limitation, which states that a user is not
`required to install or load file transferring software as
`discussed in Exhibits 1022 and 1023. In contrast, the '399
`patent does not include a negative limitation that prohibits
`the installation, presence, or operation of other software
`in addition to the claim driver.
` Thus, as shown on slide 39, the board rejected
`Papst's improper importation of negative limitations in its
`decision on institution. The board should maintain its
`position.
` The (inaudible) slide 40, this specification does
`not justify importing negative limitations. This
`specification actually provides examples of other software
`that is related to, but does not actually perform,
`communication.
` Now, focusing on the claim language itself,
`without the properly -- improperly imported negative
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00714
`Patent 6,470,399
`
`limitation, as shown on slide 41, the ordinary meaning of
`communication "by means of" is readily apparent and can be
`understood without further digging. Communication "by means
`of" would be communications "with the use of" or "owing to."
`And as shown in the definition found on Exhibit 1024.
` The disputed limitations have two steps, as shown
`on slide 42. The first step is the handshake between the
`host device and the interface device. The second is
`communication with the use of their recited driver. Papst's
`arguments regarding the second step, the communication with
`the use of the recited driver changed the route of its
`response, as shown on slides 43 through 45. First, Papst
`argues that you can't use other software, then, that you
`can't rely on a specialized driver. Next Papst argues you
`can't resort to noncustomary software to communicate. Then,
`it says you can't use specialized user loaded software to
`facilitate communication. Finally, Papst argues that you
`must communicate fully by means of a specified driver.
` Papst's general position seems to be that no
`additional user loaded software can be used for anything
`even tangentially related to communication, including
`providing additional functionalities in addition to
`(inaudible) data transfer.
` This is not what the claim said. The position, as
`the board noted when considering an express negative
`limitation in the latest proceedings, without requiring them
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00714
`Patent 6,470,399
`
`not being prohibiting. The board should not construe
`Papst's importing limitation, the prohibited use of other
`software, when a explicitly recited negative limitation was
`not delimited.
` The second disputed issue concerning the
`construction of the "whereupon" clause relates to the
`reliability limitation. The board largely dealt with the
`same issue in the other Aytac IPR. The challenged claims do
`not mention reliability. Looking at slide 48, Papst says
`that the claims inherently require reliability. The
`justification is that they think somebody would not want to
`use (inaudible) not always reliable.
` Turn to slide 49. In support of its argument for
`reliability, Papst relies on one of the claims in Aytac, the
`prior art. It's reliance on this was that the claims from
`Aytac are what highlight the absence for reliability
`limitations. Here, we show the claim language, the actual
`claim language of the '399 patent, contrasted with the claim
`language in the Aytac reference. The Aytac claim clearly
`claims reliable assets, the '399 patent does not. Included
`are reliability limitations that would further require
`rewriting the claims as shown on slide 50.
` Here, on slide 50, again, we have shown the actual
`claim language from Claims 1, 11, and 14, on the left and
`the claim language as rewritten by Papst on the right. In
`the rewriting on the right-hand side, we've included both
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00714
`Patent 6,470,399
`
`out of the imported limitation that Papst took on use for.
`As you can see, requires substantial revision to the claim
`as written by Papst. Papst could have recited reliability
`in challenged claims, just as Aytac did, but it did not,
`just like it did not in the related patents, which the board
`found that reliability was not required by the claims, as
`shown in slide 51.
` Now, turning to the impact of the claim
`construction dispute, we turn to slide 53. If the imported
`limitations are not included in the claims, communication by
`the recited driver is not disputed. The use of standard
`ASPI drivers and Aytac SCSI-based communication is admitted
`by Papst. With the imported limitations, Papst argues that
`Aytac's specialized software violates the import
`limitations. It's still unpatentable, even with the
`imported limitation. First, the specialized software is
`irrelevant. It provides additional functionality beyond
`communication. The CATSYNC software is responsible for
`synchronization and cache clearance, as shown in slide 53
`and 54, and it does not (inaudible). The CATCAS and the
`CATSER relates to remote modem functions, as shown in slide
`56 and 67.
` CATCAS and CATSER, are the very least, are not
`needed for a scanner functionality that is also disclosed as
`a peripheral in Aytac. In addition, the data can be
`reliably transferred, as shown on slide 55 and 57, at least
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00714
`Patent 6,470,399
`
`where the host and CaTbox processors are not active in the
`CATSER at the same time. Papst and its experts only argued
`that not using CATSYNC could result in data corruption or
`incorrect data being read from or written to the
`CAT-(inaudible). They do not argue that it will.
` Communication in Aytac occurs by means of SCSI
`protocol and drivers. First, as shown on slide 59, we begin
`with a handshake. There's a handshake that is described on
`slide 59, 60, and 61, in which the host device and interface
`device complete a handshake through SCSI. Then,
`communication in the form of data transfer takes place using
`the ASPI driver. This begins on slide 62.
` The ASPI driver provides a steady interface layer
`to all (inaudible) on the CaTbox. This communication by
`means of the SCSI protocol and driver is shown in the
`position -- it is a declaration supporting the position, and
`in the response and (inaudible) declaration from patent
`owner, as shown on slide 62 through 67.
` Aytac uses the very same SCSI drivers. They are
`discussed in the '399 patent, as shown on slide 69 to 72.
`Aytac computers uses the ASPI drivers to communicate with
`and access CaTboxes that (inaudible). Both experts agree
`that CATSYNC is not necessary to transfer a file.
`Petitioner's expert Dr. Almeroth testified that Aytac's
`system does not require software on a computer beyond SCSI
`drivers.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00714
`Patent 6,470,399
`
` Papst expert, Mr. Gafford, admitted that cache
`flaring only occurred after a successful file transfer,
`synchronization, which were simultaneous accesses to the
`CaTdisc. The CATSYNC, CATSER, and CATCAS software are not
`required for data submitted transfer or communication
`between the host device and the interface in the Aytac
`reference. Indeed, if there were no ASPI drivers, there
`would be no communication. The communication is through the
`ASPI drivers.
` JUDGE CHANG: Counsel, you have less than three
`minutes.
` MS. BEYER: Thank you.
` Turning briefly to slide 76, I'd like to address
`patent owner's arguments concerning the motivation to
`combine. Petitioner specifically identified limitations
`that were not expressly disclosed in Aytac in support of the
`obviousness conclusion with evidentiary support. The
`details of the construction of a scanner are found in Lin.
`The details of SCSI communication are found in the SCSI
`specification.
` Looking at slide 79 (inaudible), there is no
`question that if a (inaudible) would be motivated to combine
`Aytac and SCSI specification. Aytac expressly cites the
`SCSI specification, as shown on 79, 80, 81, and 82.
`Likewise, the combination of Aytac and Lin is something that
`would be clear to a person of ordinary skill in the art that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00714
`Patent 6,470,399
`
`they would be motivated to make, as shown on slides 83 and
`84.
` Aytac says that any scanner can be used, and Lin,
`as an example of a typical scanner and detailed teachings
`confirm that a person skilled in the art would have known
`that a scanner includes a CPV, as well as a stand-alone
`circuit and an ATP converter.
` Petitioner has established the motivation to
`combine each of the references, included in the combination
`in the grounds for unpatentability under 103, for each of
`the independent and dependent claims of the '399 patent.
` At this point, I will reserve my additional time
`for rebuttal.
` JUDGE CHANG: Okay. Counsel for patent owner, you
`can start anytime.
` MR. HENKELMANN: Thank you, Your Honor. Can you
`hear me?
` JUDGE CHANG: Yes.
` MR. HENKELMANN: This is Paul Henkelmann on behalf
`of the patent owner Papst Licensing.
` I'd just like to cover a couple points. As
`petitioner mentioned, you are very familiar with the
`disclosure of the '399 patents and the Aytac reference
`through the other proceedings. I just want to touch on one
`of our main arguments about the construction of the
`"whereupon" clause and the independent claims, “whereupon the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00714
`Patent 6,470,399
`
`host device communicates with the interface device by means
`of [a specified customary] driver.”
` The proper construction of this term in view of
`the spec requires that the host communicates by means of the
`specified driver without resorting to a specialized user
`loaded software. And in view of these teachings and as
`agreed upon in the petitioner's petition, the parties don't
`seem to dispute that what the '399 patent teaches on this.
` If you go to slide 5, we reproduced a few sections
`from our response at '399 patent discussing the -- what the
`present invention is. In stepping back quickly to slide 4,
`we cited a number of Federal Circuit cases that say it is
`appropriate to limit the scope of the claims when
`specification describes an embodiment or limitation as being
`part of the present invention, as the David Nessler's case,
`and, similarly, in the Cymed Life Systems case. I'll just
`read it: “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.”
` That's the situation we have here. And
`petitioner's did not address or distinguish this case law in
`their reply. They also did not attempt to address these
`clear teachings on slide 5 in the '399 patent. It states
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00714
`Patent 6,470,399
`
`that the object of the invention is to provide an interface
`device for communication between a host device and a data
`transmit receive device, whose use is host device
`independent.
` The patent explains what that means in the next
`passage on slide 5, that 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 or by means of a specific program for the multi-purpose
`interface, which are present in all host systems, so that the
`interface device is host device independent.
` In the third passage, it goes on again,
`consistently, saying that the interface device, according to
`the present invention, permits communication with any host
`device, is automatically supported by all known host systems
`without any additional sophisticated driver software. And
`then states again it is independent from special software
`implemented on the host device.
` These clear teachings that are consistent in the
`'399 patent, require that the “whereupon” clause be construed
`to exclude reliance on specialized user loaded software for
`communication.
` Petitioners, when summarizing the '399 patent, on
`slide 6, state that the '399 patent describes an interface
`device, eliminates the need for specialized device drivers.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00714
`Patent 6,470,399
`
`They go on to say, but the '399 patent distinguishes the
`prior art interface devices, which typically require very
`sophisticated drivers to be downloaded onto the host
`computer, but denigrated such drivers as being prone to
`malfunction and limiting data transfer aid.
` They say again on page 10 of their petition that
`the interface device of the '399 patent does not require a
`specially designed driver with the interface device to be
`loaded into a host computer.
` And they make one other statement I'd like to
`point out that's not in the slide about the proper
`interpretation of these claim limitations. And this is on
`the petition at pages 54 to 55, discussing the first claim
`interpreter limitation, which includes the “whereupon”
`limitation. Petitioners state, and I quote: “These claim
`limitations and their various elements all relate to a
`device type recognition process and the concept of
`signaling to the host that the device connected to the host
`is a storage device of the kind customarily found in a host
`device, and then communicating with the host device without
`requiring a specialized driver.”
` So petitioners recognized what the claims
`required, which is communicating without requiring a
`specialized driver. So it shouldn't be controversial that
`the claims be construed in this manner.
` On slide 7, the Federal Circuit also agreed, but
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00714
`Patent 6,470,399
`
`what the '399 patent discloses, stating that the interface
`device was the invention, thus does not require that a
`specially designed driver for the interface be loaded into a
`host computer.
` The results of the written description is to allow
`data transfer at a high speed without needing a new set of
`instructions for every host. To provide the interface
`device for communication between a host device and a data
`transmit receive device, whose use is host device
`independent.
` So we have the clear teachings of the '399 patent,
`we have petitioners seemingly admitting in their petition
`that claims should be construed to require communication
`with the host without requiring a specialized driver, and we
`have the Federal Circuit weighing in on their understanding
`of what the '399 patent discloses.
` In contradistinction to all of this, if we move on
`to slide 8, the main asserted reference, Aytac, does not
`disclose an interface device with which a host device
`communicates without using specialized software on the host
`device. As the board is familiar with, Aytac's CaTbox
`relies on a number of specialized drivers installed on the
`host for communications, these being the CATSYNC, CATCAS,
`and CATSER drivers, along with the ASPI 2000 ASPI disk
`drivers.
` We have undisputed testimony from our expert
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00714
`Patent 6,470,399
`
`Mr. Thomas Gafford, shown in slide 11, that each of the
`CATSYNC, CATSER, and CATCAS software are specialized
`software and drivers created for the operation of the
`CaTbox, would need to be loaded by an end user, and were not
`customary drivers typically present on most host computers
`at the time of the invention.
` In slide 12, we have his undisputed testimony that
`each of these specialized drivers facilitate communication.
`In particular, the CATSYNC driver is involved in every
`single filing input, output, to and from the CaTdisc, the
`CATSER driver is involved in all input, output calls to the
`CaTmodem, and CATCAS is involved in CAS modem calls, as well
`as reading stacks, files from the CaTdisc, which are all
`forms of communication between the host and the interface
`device.
` Mr. Gafford further testifies on slide 13, I'm
`sorry, on slide 13 we have testimony from Dr. Almeroth in
`the related 713 IPR, which was dealing with the related '449
`patent, which has the same disclosure as the '399 patent.
`But here he's discussing what Aytac discloses, the same
`applied reference. He admits that CATSYNC is used for
`communications. He says, Aytac described use of ASPI
`drivers and other drivers of host received, including
`CATSYNC (inaudible) for use in conjunction with the SCSI
`interface on the host and communications with CaTbox. Using
`these drivers, the host may connect with the CaTbox to
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00714
`Patent 6,470,399
`
`access data captured by one or more of the peripheral data
`transmit receive devices.
` In slide 14, we reproduce a section of Aytac where
`it discusses CATSYNC, and that how it hooks -- finally put
`up the calls from the PC operating system and replaces those
`calls with the following code, which is reproduced on the
`right column.
` This shows a few different things, including the
`cache clearing function of the CATSYNC driver and the
`synchronization aspect, which is notifying the CaTdisc that
`it is about to send a file I/O, to wait for it, wait for it
`to say it's done, that's they receive acknowledgment, and
`then it makes the intended file I/O call. This code is
`saying it is CATSYNC, which is making the file input output
`call to the CaTbox.
` Nowhere in Aytac does it say that the ASPI disk
`driver is doing this. CATSYNC inserts itself into every
`single file transfer, and that's what it means by hooking
`all file I/O calls. And then when it is done, it notifies
`the CaTdisc that it is done so the CaTdisc can continue on
`doing what it is doing, being operated by an independent
`processor of the CaTbox.
` Just briefly, going over the other drivers that
`also facilitate communication. Mr. Gafford says in slide
`15, CATSER implements the remote modem function, which means
`it acts as a port driver for the host operating system for
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00714
`Patent 6,470,399
`
`communication support, such that whenever programming input,
`output calls to those ports, the host operating system calls
`the CATSER program. He further testifies that CATSER is
`involved in writing data to and reading data from the CaTbox
`modem. A person of ordinary skill would recognize that
`CATSER is part of the means by which the host communicates
`with the CaTbox.
` And I'd like to just point out here that
`petitioner decided not to take the deposition and
`cross-examine Mr. Gafford on his testimony, nor did they
`submit a response declaration to Mr. Gafford in their reply.
`So this testimony's not been disputed directly.
` At deposition, when I asked Mr. Almeroth,
`Dr. Almeroth, about CATSER, he explained that his
`understanding was that the CATSER provided the interface the
`ability to access files that would be available via the
`modem. In slide 17, we have testimony of Mr. Gafford
`regarding the CATCAS driver and how it facilitates
`communications as well. Or CAS modem calls, as well as
`reading fax files from the CaTdisc.
` In slide 18, at deposition, Dr. Almeroth admitted
`that in at least some cases CATCAS is involved in sending
`faxes.
` Further, in slide 19, in the related '713
`proceeding, petitioners and Mr. Almeroth alleged that CATSER
`and CATSYNC simulate a virtual file system, which they
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00714
`Patent 6,470,399
`
`allege to be an exchange of file system information to be a
`common initial sequence of exchanges between the initiator
`and target, which are communications back and forth.
` So to briefly address the reliability issue, Papst
`really only argued reliability in connection with whether a
`person of ordinary skill would be inclined to modify Aytac
`to reach Tasler's invention. And the reason why they would
`not be motivated to do so would be it would render Aytac's
`system unreliable. So it is really only -- reliability is
`only a concern if you are modifying Aytac's system to remove
`that specialized software. We're not arguing that you need
`to import these limitations into the claims about
`reliability. And this is only in the section on -- wouldn't
`be obvious to modify Aytac. But petitioner's confirmed that
`they're not making such an argument. They confirm that in
`their reply.
` And what else? I think I'd like to wrap up with
`one last point. Our last slide, slide 22, where we provided
`a number of examples, although we didn't argue every single
`limitation in our response, we did point to numerous
`failings of the petition to provide our obviousness
`analysis, and particularly providing a number of unsupported
`arguments regarding the prior art, common knowledge, and
`understanding of a person of ordinary skill. And I think a
`really good example of that is in the petition with respect
`to Claim 5.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00714
`Patent 6,470,399
`
` Claim 5 requires that the digital signal
`processor, that the processor in Claim 1 is a digital signal
`processor. The petitioners argue that Aytac includes an SA6
`(phonetic) processor. They cite the Aytac patent, and then
`they say, “the SA6 is commonly known to be a family of
`backward compatible digital single processors based on the
`Intel 808 6CPU and its Intel 808 (inaudible).” No cite.
` “A POSITA would have understood that Aytac's SA6
`processor was a digital signal processor as required by
`Claims 1 and 11 of the '399 patent.” No cite.
` So you've got two statements about what S86 is,
`without any citation. We submit you cannot hold a claim
`invalid based on your attorney argument. It needs to be
`supported by evidence. This is stated in the K/S HIMPP case
`we cite in our brief. This argument that I am talking about
`is provided in pages 70 and 71 of the petition. And we also
`submit that the SA6 processor is not known to be a digital
`signal processor, and invite the board to use its right to
`check the record on that one.
` And I believe that's all I have for today. So
`unless the board has any questions, I will end here.
` JUDGE CHANG: I don't have any questions.
` JUDGE BISK: No.
` JUDGE CHANG: Thank you. No questions.
` MR. HENKELMANN: Thank you, Your Honors.
` JUDGE CHANG: Thank you so much.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00714
`Patent 6,470,399
`
` MS. BEYER: I would like to make a few points in
`response to patent owner's arguments.
` First, concerning the case law cited concerning
`the present invention and what the patent specification
`describes as Mr. Tasler's invention, the reply at pages 5
`through 8 discusses the patent specification in regards to
`the patent owner's position regarding the disavowal of claim
`skills.
` Second, concerning slide -- patent owner slide 13
`and testimony of Dr. Almeroth concerning the use of other
`drivers, we disagree. This testimony does not show that
`Dr. Almeroth admits the use of other drivers is
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
