UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`LG Electronics, Inc.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`CASE: Unassigned
`Patent No. 9,189,437
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.100
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 
`
`

`

`I.
` 
`II.
` 
`III.
` 
`
`IV.
`
` 
`
`C. 
`D. 
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 
`Grounds for Standing Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.104(a) ................................. 2 
`’437 Patent Overview ....................................................................................... 2 
`A. 
`Summary ............................................................................................... 2 
`B. 
`Comparison of Independent Claims of the ’437 Patent ......................... 4 
`Identification of Challenge Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.104(b) ......................... 4 
`A. 
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(1): Claims for Which IPR Is Requested ............ 4 
`B. 
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(2): The Prior Art and Specific Grounds on
`Which the Challenge to the Claims Is Based ......................................... 4 
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(3): Claim Construction ...................................... 8 
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(4): How the Construed Claims are Unpatentable
` ............................................................................................................. 11 
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(5): Supporting Evidence .................................. 11 
`E. 
`  Detailed Grounds for Unpatentability ............................................................ 11 
`A.  Aytac .................................................................................................... 11 
`B. 
`SCSI Specification ............................................................................... 15 
`C. 
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ........................................................ 20 
`  Ground 1: Claims 1, 4-12, 14-16, 18, 19, 21-30, 33, 34, 36, 37, and 43 are
`unpatentable as obvious over Aytac in view of the SCSI Specification. ....... 20 
`A.  Aytac discloses every limitation of independent claim 1 with the
`possible exception of automatic recognition process (ARP) features. 22 
`1. 
`Limitations 1[preamble] and 1[a] – Analog data generating and
`processing device (ADGPD) and i/o port .................................. 22 
`Limitation 1[b] – program memory ........................................... 24 
`Limitation 1[c] – data storage memory ..................................... 26 
`Limitation 1[d] – processor operatively interfaced with the i/o
`port, the program memory and the data storage memory .......... 27 
`Limitation 1[e(i)] – wherein the processor is adapted to
`implement a data generation process by which analog data is
`acquired from each respective analog acquisition channel of a
`plurality of independent analog acquisition channels ............... 29 
`
`2. 
`3. 
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
` 
`
`

`

`8. 
`
`9. 
`
`7. 
`
`6. 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT’D)
`
`Limitation 1[e(ii)] – the analog data from each respective
`channel is digitized, coupled into the processor, and is
`processed by the processor ........................................................ 30 
`Limitation 1[e(iii)] – the processed and digitized analog data is
`stored in the data storage memory as at least one file of
`digitized analog data .................................................................. 31 
`Limitation 1[f(i)] – wherein the processor is adapted to be
`involved in an automatic recognition process (ARP) ................ 32 
`Limitation 1[f(ii)] – ARP occurs when the i/o port is
`operatively interfaced with the host’s multi-purpose interface
` ................................................................................................... 35 
`10.  Limitation 1[f(iii)] – In ARP the processor executes at least
`one instruction set stored in the program memory and thereby
`causes at least one parameter [identifying it to be sent to the
`host] ........................................................................................... 36 
`11.  Limitation 1[f(iv)] – In ARP the at least one parameter
`identifies the ADGPD, independent of analog source, as a
`digital storage device instead of as an ADGPD ........................ 36 
`12.  Limitation 1[f(v)] – In ARP the at least one parameter is
`automatically sent through the i/o port and to the host’s
`multipurpose interface ............................................................... 37 
`13.  Limitation 1[f(vi)] – ARP occurs without requiring any end
`user to load any software onto the computer at any time .......... 37 
`14.  Limitation 1[f(vii)] – ARP occurs without requiring any end
`user to interact with the computer to set up a file system in the
`ADGPD at any time .................................................................. 38 
`15.  Limitation 1[f(viii)] – ARP - Wherein the at least one
`parameter is consistent with the ADGPD being responsive to
`commands from a customary driver .......................................... 39 
`16.  Limitation 1[g] – wherein the at least one parameter
`provides information to the computer about the ADGPD’s file
`transfer characteristics ............................................................... 39 
`17.  Limitation 1[h(i)] – wherein the processor is further
`adapted to be involved in an automatic file transfer process
`(AFTP) ...................................................................................... 40 
`
` 
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT’D)
`
`18.  Limitation 1[h(ii)] – AFTP occurs when the i/o port is
`operatively interfaced with the host’s multi-purpose interface
` ................................................................................................... 41 
`19.  Limitation 1[h(iii)] – AFTP occurs after the at least one
`parameter has been sent from the i/o port to the host’s
`multipurpose interface ............................................................... 42 
`20.  Limitation 1[h(iv)] – In AFTP the processor executes at
`least one other instruction set stored in the program memory
`to thereby cause [the data transfer] ............................................ 42 
`21.  Limitation 1[h(v)] – AFTP transfers at least one file of
`digitized analog data acquired from at least one of the plurality
`of analog acquisition channels to be transferred to the computer
` ................................................................................................... 43 
`22.  Limitation 1[h(vi)] – AFTP occurs using the customary device
`driver for the digital storage device while causing the ADGPD
`to appear to the computer as if it were the digital storage
`device ........................................................................................ 43 
`23.  Limitation 1[h(vii)] – AFTP occurs without requiring any
`user-loaded file transfer enabling software to be loaded on or
`installed in the computer at any time ......................................... 44 
`Aytac in view of the SCSI Specification discloses every limitation of
`independent claim 43. .......................................................................... 44 
`Combining Aytac and the SCSI Specification would have been
`obvious. ............................................................................................... 45 
`D.  Dependent claims 4-16, 18-31, 33-37, 45 are unpatentable over Aytac
`in view of the SCSI Specification. ....................................................... 45 
`1. 
`Dependent Claim 4 .................................................................... 46 
`2. 
`Dependent Claim 5 .................................................................... 46 
`3. 
`Dependent Claim 6 .................................................................... 47 
`4. 
`Dependent Claim 7 .................................................................... 47 
`5. 
`Dependent Claim 8 .................................................................... 48 
`6. 
`Dependent Claim 9 .................................................................... 49 
`7. 
`Dependent Claim 10 .................................................................. 50 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
` 
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT’D)
`
`Dependent Claim 11 .................................................................. 50 
`8. 
`Dependent Claims 12 and 33 ..................................................... 51 
`9. 
`10.  Dependent Claims 13, 18, and 45 .............................................. 52 
`11.  Dependent Claim 14 .................................................................. 53 
`12.  Dependent Claim 15 .................................................................. 54 
`13.  Dependent Claim 16 .................................................................. 54 
`14.  Dependent Claim 19 .................................................................. 55 
`15.  Dependent Claim 20 .................................................................. 55 
`16.  Dependent Claim 21 .................................................................. 56 
`17.  Dependent Claim 22 .................................................................. 56 
`18.  Dependent Claim 23 .................................................................. 57 
`19.  Dependent Claim 24 .................................................................. 59 
`20.  Dependent Claim 25 .................................................................. 59 
`21.  Dependent Claim 26 .................................................................. 60 
`22.  Dependent Claim 27 .................................................................. 61 
`23.  Dependent Claim 28 .................................................................. 62 
`24.  Dependent Claim 29 .................................................................. 62 
`25.  Dependent Claim 30 .................................................................. 63 
`26.  Dependent Claim 31 .................................................................. 63 
`27.  Dependent Claim 34 .................................................................. 64 
`28.  Dependent Claim 35 .................................................................. 64 
`29.  Dependent Claim 36 .................................................................. 65 
`30.  Dependent Claim 37 .................................................................. 66 
`
`every limitation of independent claim 41. ...................................................... 66 
`
`over Aytac in view of the SCSI Specification and Adaptec. ......................... 67 
`A. 
`Claims 39 and 40 ................................................................................. 67 
`1. 
`Aytac in view of the SCSI Specification and Adaptec discloses
`
`  Ground 3: Claims 2, 3, 17, 39, 40, 42, and 44 are unpatentable as obvious VIII.
`
`  Ground 2: Aytac in view of the SCSI Specification and AAPA discloses VII.
`
` 
`
`

`

`B. 
`
`IX.
`
`X.
`
`XI.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT’D)
`
`every limitation of independent claim 39. ................................. 67 
`Dependent Claim 40 .................................................................. 69 
`2. 
`Dependent Claims 2, 3, 17, 42, and 44 ................................................ 69 
`1. 
`Dependent Claims 2 and 17 ....................................................... 69 
`2. 
`Dependent Claim 3 .................................................................... 70 
`3. 
`Dependent Claims 42 and 44 ..................................................... 71 
`Combining Aytac with Adaptec would have been obvious. ................ 72 
`C. 
`  Ground 4: Claim 32 is unpatentable as obvious over Aytac in view of the
`SCSI Specification and knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art and/or
`Muramatsu. .................................................................................................... 72 
`A.  Muramatsu discloses fast Fourier transform. ....................................... 73 
`B. 
`Combining Aytac and Muramatsu would have been obvious. ............ 73 
`  Ground 5: Claims 13 and 45 are unpatentable as obvious over Aytac in view
`of the SCSI Specification and the TI data sheet. ........................................... 74 
`A. 
`The TI data sheet discloses sample and hold amplifiers. ..................... 74 
`B. 
`Combining Aytac and the TI data sheet would have been obvious. .... 75 
`  Ground 6: Claim 40 is unpatentable as obvious over Aytac in view of the
`SCSI Specification, Adaptec, and the TI data sheet. ..................................... 75 
`A. 
`The TI data sheet discloses sample and hold amplifiers. ..................... 75 
`B. 
`Combining Aytac and the TI data sheet would have been obvious. .... 76 
`
`SCSI Specification, the TI data sheet, and the TI Patent. ............................. 76 
`A. 
`The TI data sheet and TI Patent disclose use of a BNC connector as
`recited in claim 38. .............................................................................. 76 
`Combining Aytac with the TI data sheet and the TI Patent would have
`been obvious. ....................................................................................... 77 
`
`A. 
`C.F.R. §42.8(b)(1): Real Parties-In-Interest ....................................... 78 
`B. 
`C.F.R. §42.8(b)(2): Related Matters ................................................... 78 
`C. 
`C.F.R. §42.8(b)(3) and (4): Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service
`Information .......................................................................................... 85 
`
`  Mandatory Notices Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.8(a)(1) ................................. 78 XIII.
`
`  Ground 7: Claim 38 is unpatentable as obvious over Aytac in view of the XII.
`
`B. 
`
` 
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT’D)
`
`  Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 86 
`
`
`XIV.
`
`
`
`
`
` 
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,189,437
`
`
`Introduction
`
`
`I.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437 (“the ’437 patent”) (Ex. 1003) is in a chain of
`
`applications dating back to 1997 acquired by Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG in
`
`2006. Papst filed multiple patent infringement suits, and during their pendency,
`
`serially filed continuation applications seeking to broaden its patent claims and
`
`capture accused products.
`
`But Papst reached too far and presented claims in Application No.
`
`11/467,092 (“’092 application”), from which the ’437 patent issued, that are so
`
`broad they go beyond the specification, and read on the prior art.
`
`During prosecution, highly relevant prior art was not considered —
`
`including U.S. Patent No. 5,758,081 to Aytac. Aytac discloses exactly the ’437
`
`Patent’s supposed invention: a device that interfaces a host computer and a
`
`peripheral device without requiring loading or installing additional drivers or
`
`software. Aytac achieves this through a SCSI connection — the very same
`
`connection described in the ’437 patent.
`
`Aytac describes the ’437 patent’s claimed invention better than the ’437
`
`specification. Indeed, Aytac submitted 450 pages of source code with his
`
`application in 1995, demonstrating a working embodiment Papst now tries to claim
`
`20 years later as its own. For the reasons below, the Board should institute IPR of
`
`the ’437 patent and cancel the Challenged Claims.
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,189,437
`
` Grounds for Standing Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.104(a)
`II.
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’437 patent is available for IPR and that
`
`Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting IPR because, pursuant to 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.122(b), this Petition is being filed, together with a Motion for Joinder,
`
`within one month of the institution date of inter partes review in IPR2016-01733,
`
`to which joinder is requested.
`
`
`III.
`
`’437 Patent Overview
`
`A.
`
`Summary
`
`The ’437 patent describes a device alleged to facilitate the transfer of data
`
`between a data transmit/receive device (“DTRD”) from which data is to be
`
`acquired and a host. Ex. 1003 at 1:18-22. While interface devices were known,
`
`existing devices had drawbacks, including data-transfer speed and device
`
`compatibility. Id. at 1:26-2:19. The ’437 patent purports to describe an interface
`
`device overcoming these limitations.
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,189,437
`
`
`
`When a new device is connected to a port, normal action includes these
`
`steps: 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 the identified
`
`type of device; and if it does not, an appropriate driver must be installed on the
`
`host and loaded into memory before proceeding. Declaration of Dr. Paul F.
`
`Reynolds, Ph.D. (Ex. 1001) at ¶56. In the ’437 patent, when the interface device is
`
`connected between a DTRD and a host, the interface device responds to the request
`
`for identification by stating that it is a type of device, such as a hard drive, for
`
`which the computer already has a driver. By mis-identifying itself to the host, the
`
`interface device induces the host to treat it like a device already familiar to the
`
`host. Thereafter, the host uses its native driver to communicate with the interface
`
`device. Ex. 1001 at ¶¶67-69; Ex. 1003 at 3:29-4:41.
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,189,437
`
`B. Comparison of Independent Claims of the ’437 Patent
`
`Independent claims 1, 39, 41, and 43 significantly overlap, as reflected in the
`
`claim listing appended to this Petition. See Ex. 1001, ¶¶118, 124, 127 and tables.
`
`Common elements will be addressed together below, with differing limitations
`
`addressed separately.
`
`IV.
`
`
`
`Identification of Challenge Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)
`
`A.
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(1): Claims for Which IPR Is Requested
`
`IPR is requested for claims 1-45. The undersigned authorizes the Office to
`
`charge any additional fees that may be due in connection with this Petition to
`
`Deposit Account 50-2428.
`
`B.
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(2): The Prior Art and Specific Grounds on
`
`Which the Challenge to the Claims Is Based
`
`The references below are prior art to the ’437 patent under pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 102, 103. The one-year time bar under §102(b) is measured from the
`
`’437 patent’s effective U.S. filing date, which at best is March 3, 1998.
`
`IPR is requested in view of:
`
` USPN 5,758,081 to Aytac (Ex. 1004). “Aytac” was filed
`
`12/8/1995, issued 5/26/1998, and is prior art at least under §102(e).
`
` American National Standard for Information Systems, Small
`
`Computer System Interface-2, ANSI X3.131-1994 (1994) (Ex.
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,189,437
`
`1005). This “SCSI Specification” was published by ANSI in 1994
`
`(Id., at 3), and is prior art under §102(b).
`
`
`As further evidence that the SCSI Specification was reasonably
`
`accessible to a POSITA before the ’437 patent’s earliest
`
`claimed priority, the SCSI Specification is explicitly referenced in
`
`Aytac. Ex. 1004 at 4:50-53.
`
` “8-Bit Analog-to-Digital Converters With Serial Control and 19
`
`Inputs (Rev. B),” SLAS066B, Dec. 1985, revised Oct. 1996
`
`by Texas Instruments Inc. (“TI data sheet”) (available at
`
`http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/slas066b/slas066b.pdf) (Ex. 1007). The
`
`TI data sheet was published October 1996 (Ex. 1007, p. 1) and is
`
`prior art under §102(b).
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,189,437
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The reference was reasonably accessible to a POSITA exercising
`
`reasonable diligence as of its publication date, and could be
`
`found in several publications known by a POSITA. Ex. 1001,
`
`¶48.
`
` USPN 5,592,256 to Muramatsu (Ex. 1008). “Muramatsu” was
`
`filed 5/29/1996, issued 1/7/1997, and is prior art under §102(b).
`
` USPN 5,659,690 to Stuber (“Adaptec”) (Ex. 1009). Adaptec was
`
`filed 10/15/1992, issued 8/19/1997, and is prior art under at least
`
`§§102(a) and 102(e).
`
` “The MS-DOS Encyclopedia” by Ray Duncan, General Editor
`
`(“MS- DOS Reference”) (Ex. 1010) was published in 1988 and is
`
`prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,189,437
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1010, p. 4.
`
` USPN 5,325,071 to Westmoreland (“TI Patent”) (Ex. 1013).
`
`The TI Patent was filed 1/15/1993, issued 6/28/1994, and is
`
`prior art under §102(b).
`
` Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA”) in the ’437 patent. Ex.
`
`1003, 1:25-3:251.
`
`Petitioner asks that the Board find claims 1-45 of the ’437 patent
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a), based on the following grounds:
`                                                            
`1 In the Institution Decision, note 2, for IPR2016-01733, the Board found that all
`
`claims were challenged based, in part, on AAPA. Petitioner here similarly
`
`confirms its intent to assert AAPA against all challenged claims.
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,189,437
`
`
`Claims
`
` 
`
`References
`
`1 Aytac, SCSI Specification
`
`2 Aytac, SCSI Specification,
`
`AAPA
`
`3 Aytac, SCSI Specification,
`
`Adaptec
`
`4 Aytac, SCSI Specification,
`
`Muramatsu
`
`
`
`
`
`1, 4-16, 18-31, 33-37,
`
`43, and 45
`
`41
`
`2, 3, 17, 39, 40, 42, and
`
`44
`
`32
`
`5 Aytac, SCSI Specification,
`
`13 and 45
`
`TI data sheet
`
`6 Aytac, SCSI Specification,
`
`40
`
`Adaptec, TI data sheet
`
`7 Aytac, SCSI Specification,
`
`38
`
`TI data sheet, TI Patent
`
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(3): Claim Construction
`
`C.
`
`Claims are to be given their “broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`specification.” 37 C.F.R. §42.100(b). The constructions proposed below are
`
`intended to aid in this proceeding, and should not be understood as waiving any
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,189,437
`
`arguments for litigation. Because the standard in an IPR is different from that used
`
`in District Court, Cuozzo Speed Tech., LLC v. Lee, 136 S.Ct. 2131, 2142 (2016); In
`
`re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 1369 (Fed.Cir. 2004); MPEP
`
`§ 2111, Petitioner expressly reserves the right to argue different constructions
`
`there.
`
`For this proceeding only, without conceding their correctness for litigation,
`
`Petitioner proposes adopting Papst’s constructions from related litigation:
`
`MDL No. 1880 (Ex. 1014):
`
`
`
`Claim Term
`
`Adopted BRI
`
`“automatic recognition process”
`
`“process by which
`
`the
`
`computer
`
`recognizes the ADGPD upon connection
`
`with the computer without requiring any
`
`user intervention other than to start the
`
`process”
`
`“without requiring any end user to load
`
`“Without requiring the end user to install
`
`any software onto the computer at any
`
`or load specific drivers or software for
`
`time”
`
`
`
`the ADGPD beyond that provided in or
`
`with the operating system or BIOS.”
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,189,437
`
`Additionally, Petitioner proposes the following constructions:
`
`Claim Term
`
`BRI
`
`“end user”
`
`“actual user, as opposed to a system
`
`administrator or manufacturer”
`
`“file transfer characteristics”
`
`“information that enables transfer of
`
`files”
`
`“attached directly”
`
`“connected, for example via a cable,
`
`without any intervening components”
`
`“customary device driver”
`
`“driver normally part of commercially
`
`available computer systems at the time of
`
`the invention”
`
`“medical device”
`
`device for use in the medical field
`
`
`
`In the MDL, Papst argued that “customary” should not be construed as “at
`
`the time of the invention.” Ex. 1014, pp.40/46. However, “[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.Cir. 2005); Catch Curve, Inc. v. Venali, Inc., 2010 WL 270889,
`
`*3 (Fed.Cir. 2010) (“Because the specification was first filed in 1988, the reference
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,189,437
`
`to ‘existing fax terminal machines,’ . . . pertains to the technology as it existed at
`
`that time.”).
`
`This dispute does not matter here because Aytac and SCSI disclosed drivers
`
`that were customary before and after the purported invention.
`
`D.
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(4): How the Construed Claims are
`
`Unpatentable
`
`An explanation of how claims 1-45 are unpatentable, including identification
`
`of how each claim feature is found in the prior art, is set forth below in Parts VI-
`
`XII.
`
`E.
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(5): Supporting Evidence
`
`Petitioner’s Exhibit List supporting this Petition is attached. Exhibit 1001 is
`
`a Declaration of Dr. Paul F. Reynolds (“Reynolds Decl.”) under 37 C.F.R. §1.68
`
`setting forth his qualifications in ¶¶1-20. The evidence’s relevance to the
`
`challenged claims, including an identification of the specific portions of the
`
`evidence supporting the challenge, is included in Parts VI-XII.
`
`V.
`
` Detailed Grounds for Unpatentability
`
`Claims 1-45 patent are unpatentable as obvious primarily over Aytac in view
`
`of the SCSI Specification and other secondary references detailed below.
`
`A. Aytac
`
`Aytac teaches the “CaTbox,” an analog data generating and processing
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,189,437
`
`device. Ex. 1004, 4:11-14; Ex. 1001, ¶41. Aytac’s Figure 1 discloses that CaTbox
`
`102 communicates with host PC 101 over SCSI interface 113 for analog peripheral
`
`devices connected to CaTbox. Ex. 1001, ¶42.
`
`
`CaTbox receives inputs from analog peripheral devices, including
`
`
`
`microphone 125, telephone receiver 107, telephone handset 105, scanner 104, and
`
`telephone network 123 connecting fax machines and telephones via phone lines
`
`116, 118, 120, and 122 and modems 308-311. Ex. 1001, ¶¶41-42. The peripherals
`
`include sensors for transmitting, e.g., fax images (from fax machines) and voice
`
`mail (from outside telephones). CaTbox includes modems 308-311 for converting
`
`between analog signals and digital representations of fax images, voice mail, and
`
`other types of data. Ex. 1001, ¶¶41-42. Signals received from analog sources are
`
`stored as digital files on CaTdisc under processor 201’s control. Ex. 1001, ¶¶43-44.
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,189,437
`
`
`CaTbox has program memory (BIOS EPROM 222, RAM 203, portions of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CaTdisc storing CaTOS 590) and data memory (RAM 203, portions of CaTdisc,
`
`buffer memories within modems). Ex. 1004, 9:5-15, 11:58-64. CaTOS is built on
`
`MS-DOS; CaTdisc uses a DOS-FAT file system. Ex. 1004, 12:9-12; Ex. 1001,
`
`¶¶103-04, 168, 179-80. Processor 201 controls CaTbox data processing, storage
`
`and communications operations. See Fig. 2.
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,189,437
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1004, 9:16-52; Ex. 1001, ¶80.
`
`Figures 3-4 show CaTbox includes multiple connectors, including:
`
` Connectors 315-319 and 321 connecting to telephone lines and
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,189,437
`
`attaching sensor devices to CaTbox; and
`
` Connectors 312 and 313 for coupling CaTbox’s SCSI I/O port to
`
`the host PC 101’s SCSI port
`
`Ex. 1004, 9:16-45; Ex. 1001, ¶¶80, 85, 142.
`
`CaTbox’s SCSI drivers ASPIDISK.SYS and ASPIDOS.SYS and PC’s
`
`MASPI.SYS provide a communications link for Windows 95 (520) and CaTOS.
`
`Ex. 1001, ¶42. Under processor 201’s control, when CaTbox and PC 101 are
`
`operatively interfaced through the SCSI connection, a recognition process is
`
`carried out using standard SCSI procedures whereby the PC issues an INQUIRY
`
`command and CaTbox responds that it is a mass storage class device. Ex. 1001,
`
`¶44. CaTbox then looks like a hard disk to PC 101. Ex. 1004, 4:49-50; Ex. 1001,
`
`¶67-70. Files of digitized analog data stored on CaTdisc can then be accessed by
`
`and transferred to PC 101 under processor 201’s control. Ex. 1001, ¶¶71-72.
`
`B.
`
`SCSI Specification
`
`SCSI was developed to enable a variety of peripheral devices to be
`
`connected to a computer. Peripheral devices are connected to the computer via a
`
`SCSI input/output (I/O) bus. Ex. 1005, at xxii and 1; Ex. 1001, ¶46. The SCSI
`
`Specification includes command sets for “magnetic and optical disks, tapes,
`
`printers, processors, CD-ROMs, scanners, medium changers, and communications
`
`devices.” Ex. 1005, at xxii; Ex. 1001, ¶¶46-47. SCSI was designed to function with
`
`-15-
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,189,437
`
`a variety of peripherals and operating systems (such as MS-DOS and UNIX):
`
`to provide host
`is
`interface
`the
`The primary objective of
`computers with device independence within a class of devices.
`Thus, different disk drives, tape drives, printers, optical media
`drives, and other devices can be added to the host computers
`without requiring modifications to generic system hardware
`or software.
`. The command set definitions allow a
`.
`.
`required
`to obtain all
`sophisticated operating
`system
`initialization information from the attached SCSI-2 devices.
`The formalized sequence of requests identify the type of attached
`SCSI-2 device, the characteristics of the device, and all the
`changeable parameters supported by the device.
`
`Ex. 1005, at 6 (emphasis added); Ex. 1001, ¶¶46-47.
`
`A typical SCSI arrangement includes one “initiator” (commonly a host
`
`computer with a SCSI adapter installed) and peripheral “target” device(s)
`
`connected to the SCSI bus. Ex. 1001, ¶48. The initiator issues commands on the
`
`SCSI bus to seek out target devices. Ex. 1005, at 3, 5; Ex. 1001, ¶¶48-49. In
`
`particular, an initiator seeks out devices during start-up or when a new device is
`
`connected to the initiator via the SCSI bus. Ex. 1001, ¶¶48-49. A target responds
`
`to commands received from the initiator. Ex. 1005, at 5, 30; Ex. 1001, ¶51.
`
`This figure illustrates a common initial sequence of initiator/target
`
`exchanges:
`
`-16-
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,189,437
`
`
`
`
`The initiator begins the exchange by issuing an “INQUIRY” command. Ex.
`
`
`
`1001, ¶50. Each connected target receives the INQUIRY and responds by
`
`providing identifying information, e.g., device type or vendor/product
`
`identification. Ex. 1005, at 84, 96-100; Ex. 1001, ¶50. For a hard disk (or
`
`device simulating a hard disk) connected to the SCSI bus, the target’s
`
`“device type” would be a “direct-access device.” Ex. 1005, at 96-100; Ex. 1001,
`
`¶¶50, 52. The INQUIRY exchange outlined above is performed automatically,
`
`typically by drivers installed in SCSI devices or devices with SCSI adapters. Ex.
`
`1001, ¶¶50, 52.
`
`In addition to the INQUIRY command, the SCSI Specification includes
`
`various read/write commands for obtaining file system information from a target
`
`-17-
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,189,437
`
`and reading data from and writing data to the target. Ex. 1001, ¶¶53, 54. For
`
`example, the “READ(6)” and “READ(10)” commands can be used to read data
`
`from “direct-access devices.” Ex. 1005, at 195; Ex. 1001, ¶¶53, 54. A file system
`
`information acquisition exchange is circled in this diagram. Ex. 1001, ¶58.
`
`
`
`In 1998, file system information (e.g., file system type, device size
`
`
`
`information, and location of important file system data structures containing the
`
`file system’s directory and file location information) typically was stored on a hard
`
`disk at a location known as “sector zero.” Ex. 1001, ¶¶59-61. The initiator would
`
`request a target’s file system information by issuing a SCSI read command of its
`
`sector zero. Ex. 1001, ¶62; Ex. 1005, a t 195. Typically, following the INQUIRY
`
`-18-
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,189,437
`
`exchange, the file system information request would be initiated automatically by
`
`the initiator’s operating system or device driver. Ex. 1001, ¶62. The target’s
`
`processor would then retrieve and send file system information in response to the
`
`sector zero read. Ex. 1001, ¶¶62-63.
`
`Once a target’s file system information is known, the initiator accesses the
`
`target’s files using SCSI read/write commands. Ex. 1001, ¶63.
`
`
`Typically, accesses to a target’s file system are initiated by a user-level or
`
`
`
`operating system program (e.g., Windows Explorer) on the initiator. Ex. 1001,
`
`¶64. The program provides the access request to the initiator’s SCSI driver, which
`
`automatically issues the appropriate SCSI file access command to th