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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE: Unassigned
`Patent No. 9,189,437
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. PAUL F. REYNOLDS, Ph.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.
`Ex. 1001, p. 1
`
`LG Exhibit 1001, Page 1
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Papst Licensing
`
`
`
`____________
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE: Unassigned
`Patent No. 9,189,437
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. PAUL F. REYNOLDS, Ph.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.
`Ex. 1001, p. 1
`
`LG Exhibit 1001, Page 1
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Papst Licensing
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Dr. Paul F. Reynolds, Ph.D., declare as follows:
`
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`1.
`
`From 1980 until August 2012, I was a Professor of Computer Science
`
`at the University of Virginia’s School of Engineering and Applied Science.
`
`2.
`
`I have also served, and in some cases continue to serve, as an expert
`
`consultant on distributed system matters for MITRE, Aerospace Corporation, the
`
`Institute for Defense Analyses, Vanguard Research and for the U.S. Army National
`
`Ground Intelligence Center.
`
`3.
`
`I have a Bachelor of Arts degree in Psychology from Ohio Northern
`
`University that I obtained in 1970, a Master’s of Science in Computer Science
`
`from the University of Texas at Austin, obtained in 1975, and a Doctor of
`
`Philosophy in Computer Science from the University of Texas at Austin, obtained
`
`in 1979. Both my Masters and Ph.D. focused on parallel and distributed systems
`
`and networking topics.
`
`4.
`
`During my time as a Professor, I was awarded over 60 grants, and
`
`conducted research sponsored by DARPA, the National Science Foundation,
`
`DUSA (OR), the National Institute for Science and Technology, the Defense
`
`Modeling and Simulation Office, Virginia Center for Innovative Technology and
`
`numerous industries.
`
`
`
`2
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.
`Ex. 1001, p. 2
`
`LG Exhibit 1001, Page 2
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Papst Licensing
`
`
`
`
`
`5.
`
`I taught many Ph.D. level classes on topics relating to distributed
`
`computing and high performance networking. I have advised, to completion, 65
`
`graduate degrees. The majority of my students, including my 16 Ph.D. students,
`
`conducted research in distributed computing and networking. I published on many
`
`of these topics.
`
`6.
`
`Since the mid-1970s, almost half of my research has been in the field
`
`of parallel and distributed systems and networking.
`
`7.
`
`In particular, much of my research in the 1980’s and 1990’s was
`
`focused on efficient time management of distributed simulations. I published
`
`widely on the topic, and was actively involved in the deployment of related
`
`technologies within the Department of Defense (DoD) modeling and simulation
`
`communities.
`
`8.
`
`Specifically, I was one of the originators of the DoD High Level
`
`Architecture for distributed simulations (IEEE standard 1516). I was also an
`
`organizer and overseer for the DoD Joint National Test Facility (having a focus on
`
`distributed simulation) in Colorado Springs.
`
`9.
`
`Because of my experience, I was selected to be the program chair for
`
`the IEEE Parallel and Distributed Simulation Conference on two different
`
`occasions.
`
`
`
`3
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.
`Ex. 1001, p. 3
`
`LG Exhibit 1001, Page 3
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Papst Licensing
`
`
`
`
`
`10.
`
`I am also the co-architect of Isotach Networks, a system which
`
`guarantees message delivery order in distributed systems without employing real
`
`time clocks and supports very efficient management of consistency in concurrent
`
`caches. Isotach Networks was supported by both the National Science Foundation
`
`and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and became subject material
`
`in four of the Ph.D. dissertations I supervised.
`
`11.
`
`Below is a partial list of my publications:
`
` Spiegel, M., Reynolds, P.F., "Lock-Free Multiway Search Trees,"
`ACM/IEEE International Conference on Parallel Processing, Sept,
`2010.
`
` Highley, T.J., Reynolds, P.F., and Vellanki, V. “Marginal Cost-
`Benefit Analysis for Predictive File Prefetching,” ACM Southeast
`Conference, March, 2003
`
` Srinivasa, R., Reynolds, P.F., and Williams, C., “A New Look at
`Time-Stamp Ordering Concurrency Control,” 12th International
`Conference on Database and Expert Systems Applications - DEXA
`2001, Sept, 2001.
`
` Williams, C., Reynolds, P.F., and de Supinski, B.R. “Delta Coherence
`Protocols,” IEEE Concurrency, Spring, 2000.
`
` Srinivasa, R., Reynolds, P.F., and Williams, C. “IsoRule: Parallel
`Execution of Rule-based Systems,” 1999 Int’l Conference on Parallel
`Processing, June 1999.
`
`
`
`4
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.
`Ex. 1001, p. 4
`
`LG Exhibit 1001, Page 4
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Papst Licensing
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Srinivasan S., and Reynolds, P.F. “Elastic Time,” ACM Trans on
`Modeling and Computer Simulation, 1998.
`
` Srinivasan, S., Lyell, M., Wehrwein, J., Reynolds, P.F., “Fast
`Reductions on a Network of Workstations,” 1997 International
`Conference on High Performance Computing (HiPC97), Bangalore,
`India, Dec 1997.
`
` Williams, C., and Reynolds, P.F. “Isotach Networks,” IEEE
`Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 1997.
`
` Williams, C., and Reynolds, P.F., "Combining Atomic Actions,"
`Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing, pp. 152-163, Feb,
`1995.
`
` Srinivasan, S. and Reynolds, P.F., "Non-Interfering GVT
`Computation via Asynchronous Global Reductions," Proceedings of
`ACM Winter Simulation Conference, pp. 740-749, Dec, 1993.
`
` Reynolds, P.F., Pancerella, C., and Srinivasan, S., "Design and
`Performance Analysis of Hardware Support for Parallel Simulation,"
`Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing, pp. 435-453, Aug,
`1993.
`
` Pancerella, C. and Reynolds, P.F., "Disseminating Critical Target-
`Specific Synchronization Information in Parallel Discrete Event
`Simulations," Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on Parallel and
`Distributed Simulation, pp. 52-59, May, 1993, San Diego, CA.
`
`5
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.
`Ex. 1001, p. 5
`
`LG Exhibit 1001, Page 5
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Papst Licensing
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Williams, C., and Reynolds, P.F., "Network-Based Coordination of
`Asynchronously Executing Processes with Caches," Workshop on
`Fine-Grain Massively Parallel Coordination, 4 pages, May, 1993, San
`Diego, CA.
`
` Reynolds, P.F., Pancerella, C. and Srinivasan, S. "Making Parallel
`Simulations Go Fast," Proceedings of the 1992 ACM Winter
`Simulation Conference, pp. 646-656, Dec, 1992.]
`
` Reynolds, P.F., "An Efficient Framework for Parallel Simulation,"
`International Journal on Computer Simulation, 2, 4, pp. 427-445
`(1992).
`
` Nicol, D.M., and Reynolds, P.F., "Optimal Dynamic Remapping of
`Parallel Computations," IEEE Transactions on Computer Systems, pp.
`206-219 (Feb, 1990).
`
` Reynolds, P.F., "Heterogeneous Distributed Simulation," Proceedings
`of the 1988 ACM Winter Simulation Conference, pp. 206-209, Dec,
`1988, San Diego, CA.
`
` Reynolds, P.F., "A Spectrum of Options for Parallel Simulation,"
`Proceedings of the 1988 ACM Winter Simulation Conference, pp.
`325-332, Dec, 1988, San Diego, CA.
`
` Carson, S.D. and Reynolds, P.F., "The Geometry of Semaphore
`Programs," ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and
`Systems, 9, 1, pp. 25-53 (Jan, 1987).
`
`6
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.
`Ex. 1001, p. 6
`
`LG Exhibit 1001, Page 6
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Papst Licensing
`
`
`
`
`
` O’Hallaron, D.R. and Reynolds, P.F., "A Generalized Deadlock
`Predicate," Information Processing Letters, pp. 181-188 (Nov, 1986).
`
` Nicol, D.M., and Reynolds, P.F., "An Optimal Repartitioning
`Decision Policy," Proceedings of The ACM Winter Simulation
`Conference, pp. 493-497, Nov, 1985, San Francisco, CA.
`
` Nicol, D.M. and Reynolds, P.F., "A Statistical Approach to Dynamic
`Partitioning," Proceedings of the SCS Winter Multi-Conference, pp.
`53-56, Jan 24-26, 1985, San Diego, CA.
`
` Reynolds, P.F., "A Shared Resource Algorithm for Distributed
`Simulation," Proceedings of The 9th International Symposium on
`Computer Architecture, pp. 259-266, April, 1982, Austin, TX.
`
` Chandy, K.M., and Reynolds, P.F., "Scheduling Partially Ordered
`Tasks with Probabilistic Execution Times," Proceedings of Fifth
`SIGOPS, pp. 169-177, March, 1975, Austin, TX.
`
`12.
`
`A copy of my curriculum vitae, which describes in further detail my
`
`qualifications, responsibilities, employment history, honors, awards, professional
`
`associations, invited presentations, and publications is attached as Exhibit 1002.
`
`Recent work not reflected in the attached CV includes authoring ten declarations to
`
`accompany ten inter partes review petitions submitted in June, 2016 regarding U.S.
`
`patents 8,966,144 and 8,504,746. All ten cases are pending.
`
`
`
`7
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.
`Ex. 1001, p. 7
`
`LG Exhibit 1001, Page 7
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Papst Licensing
`
`
`
`
`
`13.
`
`I have reviewed United States Patent No. 9,189,4371 (“the ’437
`
`patent”) to Michael L. Tasler as well as the applications referenced in the section
`
`of the ’437 patent entitled “Related U.S. Application Data.” I have also reviewed
`
`the publications cited in this declaration and referenced in the inter partes review
`
`petition submitted herewith. For my efforts in connection with the preparation of
`
`this declaration I have been compensated at my standard hourly rate of $425/hour.
`
`My compensation is in no way contingent on the results of this or any other
`
`proceedings relating to the above-captioned patent.
`
`II.
`INFORMATION PROVIDED TO ME
`14.
`
`In proceedings before the USPTO, I understand that the claims of an
`
`unexpired patent are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in view of
`
`the specification from the perspective of one skilled in the field. I have been
`
`informed that the ’437 patent has not expired. In comparing the claims of the ’437
`
`patent to the known prior art, I have carefully considered the ’437 patent, and the
`
`’437 patent’s file history using my experience and knowledge in the relevant field.
`
`
`
` 1
`
` Michael L. Tasler, “Analog Data Generating and Processing Device Having a
`
`Multi-Use Automatic Processor” U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437, filed August 24, 2006.
`
`(Ex. 1003)
`
`
`
`8
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.
`Ex. 1001, p. 8
`
`LG Exhibit 1001, Page 8
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Papst Licensing
`
`
`
`
`
`15.
`
`I am informed that the ’437 patent was filed on August 24, 2006, but
`
`that it claims to be related to a chain of applications going back to a German
`
`application alleged to have been filed March 4, 1997. I am informed that this
`
`German application does not contain all of the disclosure of the ’437 patent.
`
`Nevertheless, for purposes of this declaration only, I have assumed a priority date
`
`of March 4, 1997 in determining whether a reference constitutes prior art.
`
`16.
`
`I understand that a claim is unpatentable if its subject matter is
`
`anticipated or obvious. I further understand that anticipation of a claim requires
`
`that every element of a claim be disclosed expressly or inherently in a single prior
`
`art reference, in combination, as claimed.
`
`17.
`
`I further understand that obviousness of a claim requires that the claim
`
`be obvious from the perspective of a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art
`
`at the time the alleged invention was made. I further understand that a patent claim
`
`can be found unpatentable as obvious where the differences between the subject
`
`matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a
`
`whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the relevant field. I understand that an obviousness
`
`analysis involves a consideration of (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2)
`
`the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art, and (3) the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the pertinent field.
`
`
`
`9
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.
`Ex. 1001, p. 9
`
`LG Exhibit 1001, Page 9
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Papst Licensing
`
`
`
`
`
`18.
`
`I further understand that certain factors may support or rebut the
`
`obviousness of a claim. I understand that such secondary considerations include,
`
`among other things, commercial success of the patented invention, skepticism of
`
`those having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, unexpected results of
`
`the invention, any long-felt but unsolved need in the art that was satisfied by the
`
`alleged invention, the failure of others to make the alleged invention, praise of the
`
`alleged invention by those having ordinary skill in the art, and copying of the
`
`alleged invention by others in the field. I understand that there must be a nexus—a
`
`connection—between any such secondary considerations and the alleged invention.
`
`I also understand that contemporaneous and independent invention by others is a
`
`secondary consideration tending to show obviousness.
`
`19.
`
`I further understand that a claim is obvious if it unites old elements
`
`with no change to their respective functions, or alters prior art by mere substitution
`
`of one element for another known in the field and that combination yields
`
`predictable results. While it may be helpful to identify a reason for this
`
`combination, common sense should guide and no rigid requirement of finding a
`
`teaching, suggestion or motivation to combine is required. When a product is
`
`available, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it,
`
`either in the same field or different one. If a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`relevant art can implement a predictable variation, obviousness likely bars its
`
`
`
`10
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.
`Ex. 1001, p. 10
`
`LG Exhibit 1001, Page 10
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Papst Licensing
`
`
`
`
`
`patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one
`
`device and a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would
`
`improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious. I
`
`understand that a claim may be obvious if common sense directs one to combine
`
`multiple prior art references or add missing features to reproduce the alleged
`
`invention recited in the claims.
`
`20.
`
`I have been asked to consider U.S. Patent 5,758,081 by Haluk Aytac
`
`(“Aytac” or “the ’081 patent”), a technical specification published in 1994, the
`
`American National Standard for Information Systems, Small Computer System
`
`Interface-2, ANSI X3.131-1994 (1994) (“SCSI Specification”). Ex. 1005, Texas
`
`Instruments data sheet SLA006B (1996) (“TI data sheet”), U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,592,256 to Muramatsu (“Muramatsu”) and U.S. Patent No. 5,659,690 to Stuber
`
`(“Adaptec Patent”). I have also been asked to consider whether the techniques and
`
`procedures discussed in the ’081 patent, in view of other cited prior art, read on
`
`each limitation of independent claims 1, 39, 41, and 43 and dependent claims 2-38,
`
`40, 42, and 44-45 (the “Challenged Claims”) of the ’437 Patent. My conclusion is
`
`that the Challenged Claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437 are unpatentable as
`
`obvious over Aytac’s ’081 patent and other cited prior art.
`
`
`
`11
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.
`Ex. 1001, p. 11
`
`LG Exhibit 1001, Page 11
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Papst Licensing
`
`
`
`
`
`III. THE ’437 PATENT
`21.
`The ’437 patent generally relates to interface devices for transfer of
`
`data between a data transmitter (a.k.a. “data transmit/receive device”) and a host
`
`(a.k.a. “host computer” or “host device”) (437 patent, at 1:18-22).
`
`22.
`
`Tasler’s ’437 patent presents “randomly chosen” exemplars (437
`
`patent, at 1:61) in support of his statement that “Existing data acquisition systems
`
`for computers are very limited in their areas of application.” (437 patent, at 1:26-
`
`27). His first example describes interface devices that “generally require very
`
`sophisticated drivers which are prone to malfunction.” (437 patent, at 1:35-36).
`
`No concrete examples are offered in support his statement regarding “prone to
`
`malfunction.”
`
`23.
`
`A second example presents a diagnostic radiology system that is
`
`reporting a fault. A responding service technician with a laptop is characterized as
`
`needing “fast data transfer and rapid data analysis.” (437 patent, at 1:46-53) A
`
`third example involves a multimeter as an input source, and a need “for the
`
`interface device to support a high data transfer rate.” (437 patent, at 1:54-60)
`
`24.
`
`From these examples Tasler concludes that: 1) “an interface may be
`
`put to totally different uses”; 2) it should “be sufficiently flexible to permit
`
`attachment of very different electrical or electronic systems to a host device by
`
`
`
`12
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.
`Ex. 1001, p. 12
`
`LG Exhibit 1001, Page 12
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Papst Licensing
`
`
`
`
`
`means of the interface”; and 3) “a universal method of operating the interface be
`
`provided for a large number of applications.” (437 patent, at 1:61-2:3)
`
`25.
`
`Tasler finds disadvantage in interface devices that must be installed
`
`inside a host computer: “such types of interface have the disadvantage that they
`
`must be installed inside the computer casing to achieve maximum data transfer
`
`rates.” (437 patent, at 2:13-15)
`
`26.
`
`Tasler discusses PCMCIA (Personal Computer Memory Card
`
`Association) interface technology, which was extant at the priority date of the
`
`patent. He states that PCMCIA is “A solution to this problem” regarding the need
`
`to install an interface device inside a computer’s casing. The PCMCIA interface
`
`allowed “interface devices [to be] connected by means of a plug-in card”. (437
`
`patent, at 2:20-27) One type of PCMCIA card provided a special printer interface
`
`to a host computer by converting the PCMCIA interface to an established parallel
`
`standard interface (IEEE 1284). Tasler goes on to say about the PCMCIA
`
`technology:
`
`The known interface device generally consists of a driver
`component, a digital signal processor, a buffer and a hardware
`module which terminates in a connector to which the device whose
`data is to be acquired is attached. The driver component is attached
`directly to the enhanced printer interface thus permitting the known
`interface device to establish a connection between a computer and
`the device whose data is to be acquired.
`
`
`
`13
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.
`Ex. 1001, p. 13
`
`LG Exhibit 1001, Page 13
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Papst Licensing
`
`
`
`
`
`27.
`
`(437 patent, at 2:33-41).
`
`
`About PCMCIA, Tasler states “an interface-specific driver must be
`
`installed on the host device…” (437 patent, at 2:42-45). Tasler goes on to state:
`
`“if the driver is a general driver which is as flexible as possible and which can be
`
`used on many host devices, compromises must be accepted with regard to the data
`
`transfer rate.” (437 patent, at 2:49-52). No substantiation is offered regarding the
`
`claimed compromises.
`
`28.
`
`Tasler addresses the potential conflict for resources that may occur
`
`among tasks, including those that support data acquisition. He states that
`
`competing tasks may “result in a system crash.” (437 patent, at 2:53-67). Tasler’s
`
`discussion of competing tasks is not associated with any particular host, operating
`
`system, driver technology or interface device technology.
`
`29.
`
`Tasler discusses an interface device that connects to a bus. The
`
`interface device can communicate with multiple peripheral devices. Control logic
`
`in the interface device is implemented using finite states machines, one for each
`
`peripheral. Tasler states “This known interface device provides optimal matching
`
`between a host device and a specific peripheral device.” (437 patent, at 3:1-9)
`
`30.
`
`Finally, Tasler discusses an interface device that communicates with
`
`its host via its floppy drive interface, and permits attachment of a peripheral
`
`device. Tasler notes there is “no information as to how communication should be
`
`
`
`14
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.
`Ex. 1001, p. 14
`
`LG Exhibit 1001, Page 14
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Papst Licensing
`
`
`
`
`
`possible if the interface is connected to a multipurpose interface instead of to a
`
`floppy disk drive controller.” (437 patent, at 3:10-25)
`
`31.
`
`The purported object of the ’437 patent interface device is to “provide
`
`an interface device...whose use is host device-independent and which delivers a
`
`high data transfer rate.” (437 patent, at 3:29-32). The interface device is meant to
`
`“simulate[s], both in terms of hardware and software, the way in which a
`
`conventional input/output device functions, preferably that of a hard disk.” (437
`
`patent, at 4:17-20). I have read the following CAFC statement (as stated by the
`
`Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a decision relating to the construction
`
`of claim terms in two related patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,895,449 and 6,470,399))
`
`regarding host and device communications. My opinion is consistent with this
`
`CAFC statement:
`
`The patents describe an interface device intended to overcome those
`limitations. It is common ground between the parties that, when a
`host computer detects that a new device has been connected to it, a
`normal course of action is this: the host asks the new device what
`type of device it is; the connected device responds; the host
`determines whether it already possesses drivers for (instructions for
`communicating with) the identified type of device; and if it does not,
`the host must obtain device-specific drivers (from somewhere) before
`it can engage in the full intended communication with the new device.
`In the patents at issue, when the interface device of the invention is
`connected to a host, it responds to the host’s request for
`
`
`
`15
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.
`Ex. 1001, p. 15
`
`LG Exhibit 1001, Page 15
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Papst Licensing
`
`
`
`
`
`identification by stating that it is a type of device, such as a hard
`drive, for which the host system already has a working driver. By
`answering in that manner, the interface device induces the host to
`treat it—and, indirectly, data devices on the other side of the
`interface device, no matter what type of devices they are—like the
`device that is already familiar to the host. Thereafter, when the host
`communicates with the interface device to request data from or
`control the operation of the data device, the host translates the
`communications into a form understandable by the connected data
`device.
`
`Ex. 1011, at 4-5 (emphasis added).
`
`32.
`
`The ’437 patent describes an interface device capable of delivering the
`
`output of a data transmit/receive device to a host computer in a customary form on
`
`a multipurpose interface. The interface device can be viewed as a multi-step
`
`device that: 1) receives analog data on analog acquisition channels (437 patent, at
`
`independent claims 1, 43), 2) buffers digitized analog data in an internal memory
`
`(437 patent, at independent claims 1, 43), and then 3) delivers the buffered data to
`
`a host, presenting itself as a conventional device via a multi-purpose interface, e.g.,
`
`a hard drive, via a SCSI interface in the preferred embodiment (437 patent, at 3:51-
`
`56).
`
`33.
`
`The ’437 Patent describes that the interface device contains a
`
`processor, which may be a digital signal processor (DSP), data storage memory,
`
`
`
`16
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.
`Ex. 1001, p. 16
`
`LG Exhibit 1001, Page 16
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Papst Licensing
`
`
`
`
`
`and a program memory. (437 patent, at Claim 1, 43). In the ’437 patent’s
`
`preferred embodiment in the form of a SCSI interface device, upon receiving an
`
`INQUIRY from the host, the interface device responds to the host, indicating that it
`
`is communicating with an i/o device. (437 patent, at Abstract, 4:8-20). Also, the
`
`interface device represents itself to the host as a “conventional” i/o device. (437
`
`patent, at 4:16-20). In this preferred embodiment the interface device manages
`
`“virtual files” (437 patent, at 5:14-17) in support of simulating a conventional
`
`input/output device, “preferably as a virtual hard disk…” (437 patent, at 10:42-45)
`
`34.
`
`Communication between the interface device and the host computer
`
`takes place using a program in the host present in commercially available computer
`
`systems. The ’437 Patent admits that “usual BIOS routines . . . issue an
`
`instruction, known by those skilled in the art as an INQUIRY instruction.” (437
`
`patent, at 5:17-30). In one embodiment of the ’437 patent as a SCSI interface
`
`device, communications between the host device and its multi-purpose interface
`
`are described as follows:
`
`communication between the host device and the multi-purpose
`interface can take place not only via drivers for input/output device
`customary in a host device which reside in the BIOS system of the
`host device but also via specific interface drivers which, in the case of
`SCSI interfaces, are known as multi-purpose interface ASPI
`(advanced SCSI programming interface) drivers.
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.
`Ex. 1001, p. 17
`
`LG Exhibit 1001, Page 17
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Papst Licensing
`
`
`
`
`
`(437 patent, at 10:23-29).
`
`
`35.
`
`The ’437 patent states about the ASPI driver: “this multi-purpose
`
`interface driver has the task of moving precisely specified SCSI commands from
`
`the host program to the host system SCSI adapter.” (437 patent, at 10:33-36).
`
`36.
`
`The ’437 patent uses configuration files in order to provide
`
`instructions concerning operations a user may wish to perform on data from an
`
`analog input. For example, users can provide configuration files to the interface
`
`device that specify how long a measurement from the analog input is to last. (437
`
`patent, at 6:11-15). “[T]he user can also create a configuration file, whose entries
`
`automatically set and control various functions” on the interface device. (437
`
`patent, at 6:47-49). “These settings can be, for example, gain, multiplex or
`
`sampling rate setting.” (437 patent, at 6:51-52). Thus, the interface device
`
`requires a user to provide a configuration file specifying his/her parameters for
`
`capturing data from the data device.
`
`A. Automatic Recognition Process (ARP), and Identifying/
`Identification Parameter.
`
`37.
`
`The Tasler ’437 patent introduces the term “automatic recognition
`
`process” in its independent claim 1and discloses transmission of an identifying /
`
`identification parameter in independent claims 1 and 43. Request for and
`
`transmission of device identification information over a SCSI bus –the
`
`communication technology between the host device and an interface device
`
`
`
`18
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.
`Ex. 1001, p. 18
`
`LG Exhibit 1001, Page 18
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Papst Licensing
`
`
`
`
`
`(“ADGPD”) in the ‘437 patent’s preferred embodiment-- is discussed in ¶¶ 50-59,
`
`infra.
`
`B.
`38.
`
`File Transfer Characteristics
`
`The Tasler ’437 patent references the communication of “file transfer
`
`characteristics of the ADGPD” to the host device (“computer”) in its independent
`
`claim 1. “File transfer characteristics” is not defined in the ‘437 specification and
`
`is used without elaboration in claim 1. Information related to transfer of files
`
`generally includes knowledge of the type of device the file is stored on, the
`
`device’s “geometry” (e.g. number of blocks, size of blocks), and information about
`
`the file system(s) on the disk (e.g. directory contents, directory structure, method
`
`for allocating files to blocks on the device being accessed, and which blocks on the
`
`device a file resides in). This information is generally acquired in one or more
`
`exchanges that take place between an accessing system (e.g. a host device) and a
`
`storage device (real or virtual). For example, for the SCSI technology used in the
`
`‘437’s preferred embodiment, device type can be learned in a response to a SCSI
`
`INQUIRY command (“known by those skilled in the art, ‘437 patent 5:17-23),
`
`device geometry can be learned, for example, from derivative information
`
`associated with an INQURY response, or from a response to a SCSI MODE
`
`SENSE command, and file system information can be acquired by accessing
`
`predesignated regions of the device (e.g. boot sector / sector zero) (“known to
`
`
`
`19
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.
`Ex. 1001, p. 19
`
`LG Exhibit 1001, Page 19
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Papst Licensing
`
`
`
`
`
`those skilled in the art”, ‘437 patent, 5:37-47). Other bus architectures, device
`
`types and file system types may make the information available to the host device
`
`using different specifics, but in the end the information needs to be learned by the
`
`host device by some means to be able to access blocks and files on devices. (See
`
`for example,‘437 patent 6:20-24, “Those skilled in the art know that
`
`communication between a processor and a hard disk consists of the processor
`
`transferring to the hard disk the numbers of the blocks or clusters or sectors whose
`
`contents it wishes to read.”)
`
`C. End User
`39.
`Claim 1 refers to an “end user.” The term “end user” does not appear
`
`in the specification for the ’437 patent. The “end users” of a computer are “people
`
`who use (as opposed to design or program) computers and computer applications.”
`
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary (Ex. 1012) at p. 147. An end user is to be
`
`contrasted with a system administrator, a technician knowledgeable about the
`
`hardware and operating system of the computer. The system administrator is “[t]he
`
`person responsible for administering use of a multiuser computer system,
`
`communications system, or both. A system administrator performs such duties as
`
`assigning user accounts and passwords, establishing security access levels, and
`
`allocating storage space . . . .” Id. at pp. 380-381. Thus, an “end user” is to a
`
`system administrator as the driver of a car is to the car’s mechanic.
`
`
`
`20
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.
`Ex. 1001, p. 20
`
`LG Exhibit 1001, Page 20
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Papst Licensing
`
`
`
`
`
`IV. THE LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`40.
`I have been advised that there are multiple factors relevant to
`
`determining the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, including the educational
`
`level of active workers in the field at the time of the invention, the sophistication of
`
`the technology, the type of problems encountered in the art, and the prior art
`
`solutions to those problems. I have been informed that the level of skill in the art
`
`is evidenced by the prior art references. The prior art discussed herein
`
`demonstrates that a person of ordinary skill in the field, at the relevant time (1996-
`
`1998) would have had at least a four-year degree from a reputable university in
`
`electrical engineering, computer science, or related field of study, or equivalent
`
`experience, and at least two years’ experience in studying or developing computer
`
`interfaces or peripherals. In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill would also be
`
`familiar with operating systems (e.g., MS-DOS, Windows, Unix) and their
`
`associated file systems (e.g., a FAT file system), device drivers for computer
`
`components and peripherals (e.g., mass storage device drivers), and
`
`communication interfaces (e.g., SCSI and PCMCIA interfaces). Based on my
`
`experience I have an understanding of the capabilities of a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the relevant field. I have supervised and directed many such persons over the
`
`course of my career. Further, I had those capabilities myself at the priority date of
`
`the ’437 Patent.
`
`
`
`21
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.
`Ex. 1001, p. 21
`
`LG Exhibit 1001, Page 21
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Papst Licensing
`
`
`
`
`
`V. THE PRIOR ART
`A. Aytac ’081 Patent
`41.
`Aytac’s ’081 patent describes an interface device, called a “CaTbox”
`
`or a “separate embedded computer”, which separates handling of communications
`
`functions from a host (a.k.a. “PC”) and places that handling in the interface device
`
`(Ex. 1004, 4:8-14). The Aytac patent discloses various uses and capabilities of the
`
`CaTbox device. Of particular importance to my opinion is the use of CaTbox as an
`
`interface between multiple analog peripheral devices and a host device wherein a
`
`CaTbox appears to the host device as a hard disk – a customary I/O device. In this
`
`role, Aytac’s device funct
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
