`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`CANON INC.; CANON U.S.A., INC.; CANON FINANCIAL
`SERVICES, INC.; NIKON CORPORATION; NIKON INC.;
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.; SAMSUNG
`ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.; SANYO ELECTRIC
`CO., LTD.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO. KG,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`Patent 6,895,449 B2
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO.
`6,895,449 UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq.
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,895,449 B2
`
`PETITIONERS’ EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 6,895,449 B2 to Tasler
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 6,895,449
`Declaration of Kevin C. Almeroth
`Curriculum vitae of Kevin C. Almeroth
`U.S. Patent No. 5,508,821 to Murata
`Friedhelm Schmidt, The SCSI Bus and IDE Interface (1995)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,850,484 to Beretta et al.
`European Patent Office Publication Number 0 685 799 Al
`IBM Corp., Communication Method Between Devices Through
`FDD Interface 38 IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin 245
`Ray Duncan, The MS-DOS Encyclopedia (1988)
`In re Papst Licensing Dig. Camera Pat. Litig., 778 F.3d 1255,
`1265 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`Papst’s Opening Claim Constr. Brief and Appendix 8 of Papst’s
`Opening Claim Constr. Brief, Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG
`v. Apple, Inc., et al., No. 6:15-cv-01095-RWS (E.D. Tex. Nov.
`22, 2016)
`Papst’s Opening Claim Constr. Brief and Decl. of Robert
`Zeidman, In re Papst Licensing Dig. Camera Pat. Litig., MDL
`No. 1880, 1:07-mc-00493, (D.D.C. June 3, 2016)
`Am. Natl Standards Inst., Inc., Am. Nat’l Standard for Info.
`Sys’s, Small Computer System Interface-2, ANSI X3.131-1994
`(1994) (“SCSI Standard”)
`Dave Williams, The Programmer’s Technical Reference: MS-
`DOS, IBM PC & Compatibles (1990)
`
`Exhibit
`Ex. 1001
`Ex. 1002
`Ex. 1003
`Ex. 1004
`Ex. 1005
`Ex. 1006
`Ex. 1007
`Ex. 1008
`Ex. 1009
`
`Ex. 1010
`Ex. 1011
`
`Ex. 1012
`
`Ex. 1013
`
`Ex. 1014
`
`Ex. 1015
`
`Ex. 1016
`
`File History for U.S. Patent Application No. 08/411,369
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,895,449 B2
`
`Ex. 1017
`
`Ex. 1018
`
`Ex. 1019
`
`Ex. 1020
`Ex. 1021
`
`Ex. 1022
`
`Ex. 1023
`
`Comparison of excerpts of File History for U.S. Patent
`Application No. 08/411,369 and U.S. Patent No. 5,850,484
`to Beretta et al. (Ex. 1007)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,589,063 to Shah et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,038,320 to Heath et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,787,246 to Lichtman et al.
`
`Vetterli & Nussbaumer, Simple FFT and DCT Algorithms,
`6 Signal Processing 267-78 (1984)
`
`Papst’s Brief, In re Papst Licensing Dig. Camera Pat. Litig.,
`No. 2014-1110 (Fed. Cir. February 20, 2014)
`
`Rufus P. Turner et al., The Illustrated Dictionary of
`Electronics (1991)
`
`Ex. 1024
`
`Chart of Litigation Regarding the Tasler Patents
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,895,449 B2
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`C.
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1)) .................................... 3
`A.
`Real Parties-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) ................................. 3
`B.
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) ............................................. 5
`1.
`Related Litigation ....................................................................... 5
`2.
`Related Inter Partes Review Petitions ........................................ 5
`Counsel and Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) and
`(b)(4)) ................................................................................................... 6
`FEES (37 C.F.R. § 42.103) .................................................................. 8
`D.
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37
`C.F.R. § 42.104 ............................................................................................... 8
`A. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)) .................................... 8
`B.
`Claims for Which Review is Requested (37 C.F.R. §
`42.104(b)(1)) ........................................................................................ 8
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge and Prior Art Relied Upon for
`Each Ground (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2)) ............................................. 8
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art .................................................... 10
`Unpatentability of the Construed Claims (37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(b)(4)) ................................................................................... 10
`F.
`Supporting Evidence (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5)). .............................. 10
`IV. THE ’449 PATENT ...................................................................................... 11
`A. Overview of the ’449 Patent ............................................................... 11
`B.
`Prosecution History of the ’449 Patent .............................................. 12
`C.
`Claim Construction (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)) ................................. 12
`1.
`“data transmit/receive device” ................................................. 13
`2.
`“simulating a virtual file system to the host” ........................... 13
`3.
`“interface device” ..................................................................... 14
`
`C.
`
`D.
`E.
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,895,449 B2
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`V.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE REFERENCES APPLIED IN THIS
`PETITION .................................................................................................... 14
`A. U.S. Patent No. 5,508,821 to Murata (Ex. 1005) ............................... 14
`B.
`Schmidt (Ex. 1006). ............................................................................ 15
`C. MS-DOS Encyclopedia (Ex. 1010) .................................................... 16
`D. U.S. Patent No. 5,850,484 to Beretta et al. (Ex. 1007) ...................... 18
`VI. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS ........................................... 18
`A. Ground I: Claims 1-3, 6-10, 12-13, and 15-18 are Unpatentable
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Over the Combination of Murata,
`Schmidt, and MS-DOS Encyclopedia ................................................ 19
`1.
`Rationale for Combining Murata, Schmidt, and MS-DOS
`Encyclopedia ............................................................................ 19
`2.
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 22
`3.
`Claim 2 ..................................................................................... 37
`4.
`Claim 3 ..................................................................................... 38
`5.
`Claim 6 ..................................................................................... 38
`6.
`Claim 7 ..................................................................................... 40
`7.
`Claim 8 ..................................................................................... 41
`8.
`Claim 9 ..................................................................................... 43
`9.
`Claim 10 ................................................................................... 45
`10. Claim 12 ................................................................................... 48
`11. Claim 13 ................................................................................... 50
`12. Claim 15 ................................................................................... 51
`13. Claim 16 ................................................................................... 51
`14. Claim 17 ................................................................................... 52
`15. Claim 18 ................................................................................... 56
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,895,449 B2
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`B. Ground II: Claims 4 and 5 are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. §
`103(a) Over the Combination of Murata, Schmidt, MS-DOS
`Encyclopedia and Beretta ................................................................... 63
`1.
`Rationale for Combining Murata, Schmidt, MS-DOS
`Encyclopedia and Beretta ........................................................ 63
`2.
`Claim 4 ..................................................................................... 65
`3.
`Claim 5 ..................................................................................... 67
`VII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 68
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,895,449 B2
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Desktop and laptop computers that are “PCs” are direct descendants of the
`
`original IBM PC, first released in 1981. The PC owes its longevity, in part, to its
`
`open architecture. A PC manufactured by Dell may have a CPU manufactured by
`
`Intel, a graphics card manufactured by Nvidia, a monitor manufactured by Sony, a
`
`keyboard and mouse manufactured by Logitech, and a printer manufactured by HP.
`
`The down-side to the open architecture is the PC must be able to work with a
`
`broad array of different peripherals. A PC manufacturer cannot know, in advance,
`
`which make and model of printer, scanner, camera, speaker, or microphone the
`
`customer may choose
`
`to purchase and
`
`install. Traditionally, peripheral
`
`manufacturers provided specialized software—called “device drivers”—that
`
`enabled the PC to communicate with the peripheral. One drawback to this
`
`approach is that each peripheral required its own device driver, and different
`
`device drivers were often incompatible with each other or with different PC
`
`models.
`
`To address this problem, computer companies have proposed “plug-and-
`
`play” systems that allow a peripheral to communicate with a PC without the need
`
`to install specialized device drivers. See U.S. Patent Nos. 4,589,063 (Ex. 1018),
`
`5,038,320 (Ex. 1019), and 5,787,246 (Ex. 1020); see also Exs. 1008, 1009. The
`
`’449 Patent describes and claims one such system.
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,895,449 B2
`
`The ’449 Patent describes an “interface device”—which might be built into
`
`the peripheral itself that handles all of the communications between the peripheral
`
`and the computer. The interface device pretends to be a standard peripheral—one
`
`for which the computer already has a device driver. By the late 1990s, when the
`
`application leading to the ’449 Patent was filed, desktop and laptop computers had
`
`a hard disk. Ex. 1001, at 4:13-17. There were well-established protocols for
`
`identifying, configuring, and controlling hard disks, and computers had a pre-
`
`installed device driver for communicating with a hard disk. The interface device
`
`of the ’449 Patent exploits these protocols and pretends to be a hard disk. Id. at
`
`4:10-13, 4:66-5:2. In so doing, the peripheral is able to communicate with the
`
`computer using the pre-existing hard disk device driver, eliminating the need for a
`
`specialized device driver.
`
`This idea was well-known before the ’449 Patent, and the interface device
`
`described and claimed in the ’449 Patent was no leap forward in the art. U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,508,821 Murata (“Murata”) (Ex. 1005) describes a scanner having an
`
`“interface means” for communicating with a computer and a “file system
`
`emulation means” for simulating a hard disk. Murata, at 1:64-67. Murata’s
`
`scanner “looks like” a hard disk to the computer. Id. at 4:20-23. The scanner
`
`communicates with the computer “using the device driver for existing hard discs,”
`
`so the scanner does not need its own device driver. Id. at 2:8-12.
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,895,449 B2
`
`It also was known to configure an interface device to send a signal to the host
`
`device indicating that it is a storage device customary in a host device, so the host
`
`device communicates with the interface device by using the driver for the storage
`
`device customary in a host device. Murata, at 6:33-39, 7:54-55; see also 1:9-12,
`
`4:11-15; Schmidt (Ex. 1006), at 122, 133 (Table 12.1), 137 (Table 12.8), 138
`
`(Table 12.10, showing the INQUIRY command 12h as Type “M”), 139-40.
`
`Additionally, arranging an interface device for simulating a virtual file system to the
`
`host was also known. Murata, at 6:17-19, 7:31-35.
`
`This Petition demonstrates that claims 1-10, 12-13, and 15-18 of the ’449
`
`Patent are unpatentable under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), and that there is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail based on prior art the U.S. Patent
`
`and Trademark Office (“PTO”) did not consider during prosecution.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1))
`A. Real Parties-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`
`
`
`Canon Inc.; Canon U.S.A., Inc.; Canon Financial Services, Inc.; Nikon
`
`Corporation; Nikon Inc.; Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd; Samsung Electronics
`
`America, Inc.; Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Petitioners”) are real parties-in-
`
`interest. Xacti Corporation is also a real party-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`1.
`Related Litigation
`Petitioners are aware of the following litigations involving the ’449 Patent in
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,895,449 B2
`the Eastern District of Texas: 6-15-cv-01099, 6-15-cv-01100, 6-15-cv-01102, 6-15-
`
`cv-01111, and 6-15-cv-01115.
`
`Petitioners are aware of the following litigations involving the ’449 Patent in
`
`the United States District Court for the District of Columbia: 1-09-cv-00530, 1-08-
`
`cv-01433, 1-08-cv-01404, 1-08-cv-01405, 1-08-cv-01406, 1-08-cv-01407, 1-08-cv-
`
`00985, 1-08-cv-00865, 1-07-cv-02086, 1-07-cv-02087, 1-07-cv-02088, 1-07-mc-
`
`00493 (MDL 1880), 1-07-cv-01222, 1-07-cv-01118, and 1-06-cv-01751.
`
`Petitioners are aware of the following litigations involving the ’449 Patent in
`
`the Northern District of Illinois: 1-08-cv-03627, 1-08-cv-03606, 1-08-cv-03609, 1-
`
`08-cv-03608, 1-08-cv-02510, 1-08-cv-01218.
`
`Petitioners are aware of the following litigation involving the ’449 Patent in
`
`the Northern District of California: 5-08-cv-01732.
`
`Petitioners are aware of the following litigation involving the ’449 Patent in
`
`the District of Delaware: 1-07-cv-00415.
`
`2.
`Related Inter Partes Review Petitions
`Petitioners are aware of the following inter partes review Petitions filed for
`
`the ’449 Patent: IPR2017-00415, IPR2017-00448, IPR2017-00713, and IPR2017-
`
`01617.
`
`Petitioners are aware of the following inter partes review Petitions filed for
`
`related U.S. Patent No. 6,470,399: IPR2016-01839, IPR2016-01843, IPR2016-
`
`01864, IPR2017-00443, IPR2017-00714, IPR2017-01682, and IPR2017-01808.
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,895,449 B2
`Petitioners are aware of the following inter partes review Petitions filed for
`
`related U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746: IPR2016-01200, IPR2016-01206, IPR2016-
`
`01211, IPR2016-01213, IPR2016-01223, IPR2016-01224, IPR2016-01862,
`
`IPR2016-01863, IPR2017-00158, IPR2017-00449, IPR2017-00678, and IPR2017-
`
`00710.
`
`Petitioners are aware of the following inter partes review Petitions filed for
`
`related U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144: IPR2016-01199, IPR2016-01202, IPR2016-
`
`01212, IPR2016-01214, IPR2016-01216, IPR2016-01222, IPR2016-01225,
`
`IPR2016-01849, IPR2016-01860, IPR2017-00154, IPR2017-00670, IPR2017-
`
`00672, IPR2017-00679, and IPR2017-00711.
`
`Petitioners are aware of the following inter partes review Petition filed for
`
`related U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437: IPR2016-01733, IPR2016-01840, IPR2016-
`
`01841, IPR2016-01842, IPR2016-01844, IPR2017-00156, IPR2017-00712, and
`
`IPR2017-01038.
`
`C. Counsel and Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) and
`(b)(4))
`Petitioners provide the following designation of counsel:
`Lead Counsel
`David M. Maiorana (Reg. No. 41,449)
`
`JONES DAY
`901 Lakeside Avenue
`Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1190
`Telephone: 216-586-7499
`Fax: 216-579-0212
`
`dmaiorana@jonesday.com
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,895,449 B2
`Backup Counsel
`David L. Witcoff (Reg. No. 31,443)
`Marc S. Blackman (Reg. No. 43,501)
`JONES DAY
`JONES DAY
`77 West Wacker
`77 West Wacker
`Chicago, Illinois 60601-1692
`Chicago, Illinois 60601-1692
`Telephone: 312- 269-4369
`Telephone: 312-269-4259
`Facsimile: 312-782-8585
`Fax: 312-782-8585
`
`
`msblackman@jonesday.com
`dlwitcoff@jonesday.com
`Carrie A. Beyer (Reg. No. 59,195)
`Matthew W. Johnson (Reg. No. 59,108)
`JONES DAY
`DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
`500 Grant Street, Suite 4500
`191 N. Wacker Dr., Suite 3700
`Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2514
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Telephone: 412-394-9524
`Telephone: 312-569-1000
`Fax: 412-394-7959
`Facsimile: 312-569-3000
`
`
`mwjohnson@jonesday.com
`Carrie.Beyer@dbr.com
`Brian C. Rupp (Reg. No. 35,665)
`Nikola Colic (Reg. No. 62,412)
`DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
`DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
`191 N. Wacker Dr., Suite 3700
`1500 K Street, N.W. , Suite 1100
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Washington, DC 20005
`Telephone: 312-569-1000
`Telephone: 202-230-5115
`Facsimile: 312-569-3000
`Facsimile: 202-842-8465
`
`
`Brian.Rupp@dbr.com
`Nick.Colic@dbr.com
`Mark Ungerman (Reg. No. 32,070)
`
`UNGERMAN IP PLLC
`2305 Calvert St., NW
`Washington, DC 20008
`Telephone: 202-461-3200
`
`mungerman@ungermanip.com
`
`A power of attorney accompanies this Petition. Please address all
`
`correspondences to lead and back-up counsel. Petitioners consent to service by
`
`email.
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,895,449 B2
`FEES (37 C.F.R. § 42.103)
`D.
`The PTO is authorized to charge $23,400 ($9,000 request fee and $14,400
`
`post-institution fees) to Deposit Account No. 50-3013. The PTO is also authorized
`
`to charge all fees due at any time during this proceeding to Deposit Account No.
`
`50-0310.
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104
`A. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a))
`Subject to the issues discussed in the contemporaneously filed Motion for
`
`Joinder and Petition to Suspend the Rules, Petitioners certify that the ’449 Patent is
`
`available for inter partes review and Petitioners are not otherwise barred or
`
`estopped from requesting an inter partes review challenging the ’449 Patent on the
`
`grounds identified in the present Petition.
`
`B. Claims for Which Review is Requested (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1))
`Petitioners request review of claims 1-10, 12-13, and 15-18 of the ’449
`
`Patent (“challenged claims”).
`
`C.
`
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge and Prior Art Relied Upon for
`Each Ground (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2))
`The challenged claims should be cancelled as unpatentable based on the
`
`following grounds:
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-3, 6-10, 12-13, and 15-18 are unpatentable under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,508,821 to Murata, The SCSI Bus
`
`and IDE Interface (“Schmidt”) (Ex. 1006), and The MS-DOS Encyclopedia (“MS-
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DOS Encyclopedia”) (Ex. 1010).
`
`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,895,449 B2
`
`Ground 2: Claims 4 and 5 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in
`
`view of Murata, Schmidt, The MS-DOS Encyclopedia, and U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,850,484 to Beretta et al. (“Beretta”) (Ex. 1007).
`
`The ’449 Patent claims priority to U.S. Patent Application No. 09/331,002
`
`(now U.S. Patent No. 6470,399) which, in turn, claims priority to PCT No.
`
`PCT/EP98/01187, filed March 3, 1998. The ’449 Patent further claims priority to
`
`German Patent Application DE 197 08 755, filed March 4, 1997. For purposes of
`
`this proceeding, and without conceding the claims are in fact entitled to claim
`
`priority back to the German patent application, Petitioner has assumed the claims
`
`of the ’449 Patent are entitled to a priority date of no earlier than March 4, 1997.
`
`Murata issued on April 16, 1996, and is therefore prior art under at least 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 102(e).
`
`Schmidt was published in 1995, and MS-DOS Encyclopedia was published
`
`in 1988. Therefore, these references are prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §§
`
`102(a) and 102(b).
`
`Beretta is a U.S. Patent that claims priority, under 35 U.S.C. § 120, to
`
`Application No. 08/411,369 (Ex. 1016) filed on March 27, 1995. In Sections
`
`VII.B.2 and VII.B.3 below, Petitioner relies on Beretta, at 1:40-2:60; 4:44-46;
`
`4:56-61; 4:65-67; 5:5-7; 5:20-22; 5:39-63; 10:1-6; Title. As shown in Ex. 1017,
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,895,449 B2
`
`these disclosures are also disclosed in the ‘369 application. Accordingly, Beretta is
`
`prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`The Examiner neither cited nor considered Murata, Schmidt, MS-DOS
`
`Encyclopedia, or Beretta during prosecution of the ’449 Patent.
`
`D.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`A person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’449 Patent at the time of the
`
`alleged invention (“POSITA”) would have a four-year degree in electrical
`
`engineering, computer science, or related field of study. A POSITA would also
`
`have either a Master’s degree, or at least two years of experience in the relevant
`
`field, e.g., computer science, computer systems, or peripheral devices. Ex. 1003,
`
`¶¶45-49.
`
`E. Unpatentability of the Construed Claims (37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(b)(4))
`Claims 1-10, 12-13, and 15-18 of the ’449 Patent are unpatentable under the
`
`statutory ground(s) identified above, as explained in Section VII, below.
`
`F.
`Supporting Evidence (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5))
`The exhibit numbers of the supporting evidence relied upon to support the
`
`challenge and the relevance of the evidence to the challenge raised, including
`
`identifying specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge, are
`
`provided in Section VI, below. An Exhibit List with the exhibit numbers and a
`
`brief description of each exhibit is set forth above.
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,895,449 B2
`
`IV. THE ’449 PATENT
`A. Overview of the ’449 Patent
`The ’449 Patent generally describes an interface designed to facilitate the
`
`transfer of data between a host computer and a peripheral device. Ex. 1001, at
`
`Title and Abstract. While the ’449 Patent admits such interfaces were known at
`
`the time of the invention, it states that they typically “require very sophisticated
`
`drivers which are prone to malfunction and which limit data transfer rates”
`
`between the computer and the peripheral. Id. at 1:27-31.
`
`The ’449 Patent describes an “interface device” intended to eliminate the
`
`need for specialized device drivers. When the interface device of the alleged
`
`invention is connected to a host, it responds to the host’s request for identification
`
`by “simulat[ing] both in terms of hardware and software, the way in which a
`
`conventional input/output device functions, preferably that of a hard disk drive,”
`
`for which the host system already has a working driver. Id. at 4:11-13 (emphasis
`
`added). By responding in that manner, the interface device induces the host to
`
`falsely treat it—and, indirectly, data devices on the other side of the interface
`
`device, no matter what type of devices they are—like a 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
`
`uses its own familiar native device driver, and the interface device translates the
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,895,449 B2
`
`communications into a form understandable by the connected data device. Id. at
`
`3:25-4:36. The interface device of the ‘449 Patent thus does not require a
`
`“specially designed driver” for the interface device in a host computer. Id. at 4:19.
`
`B.
`Prosecution History of the ’449 Patent
`The Examiner allowed the application that gave rise to the ’449 Patent
`
`without making any rejections over the prior art. According to the Examiner, the
`
`prior art did not disclose an interface device which both (1) “sends a signal to the
`
`host device that the attached device is a storage device customary in a host device,
`
`regardless of the type of the attached device,” and (2) “simulat[es] a virtual file
`
`system” including a “directory structure.” Ex. 1002, at 50. However, the
`
`Examiner was not aware of, and did not consider, relevant prior art, such as Murata
`
`and Schmidt.
`
`C. Claim Construction (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3))
`In an inter partes review, the Board construes claim terms in an unexpired
`
`patent according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under the broadest reasonable construction,
`
`claim terms are given their ordinary and accustomed meaning as would be
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure.
`
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,895,449 B2
`
`For purposes of this proceeding, Petitioners believe the challenged claims
`
`should be interpreted consistent with their ordinary and customary meaning within
`
`the context of the ’449 Patent. Further context regarding the meaning of certain
`
`terms is set forth below.1
`
`1.
`“data transmit/receive device”
`The term “data transmit/receive device” is recited in claims 1, 2, 5, 16 and
`
`17. The broadest reasonable construction of this term encompasses “a device
`
`capable of
`
`transmitting or receiving data.” This
`
`is consistent with
`
`the
`
`specification, which discloses “a data transmit/receive device which is to receive
`
`data from the host device or from which data is to be read, i.e. acquired, and
`
`transferred to the host device.” Ex. 1001, at 4:55-59 (emphasis added); Ex. 1003,
`
`131.
`
`2.
`“simulating a virtual file system to the host”
`This term is recited in claims 1, 17 and 18. For purposes of this proceeding,
`
`under the broadest reasonable construction standard, this term should be
`
`interpreted to encompass (at a minimum) “emulating a file system, including a
`
`1 Petitioner reserves the right to propose different constructions in other
`
`proceedings and in particular district court litigation, for which the narrower claim
`
`construction standard of Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`
`would apply.
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,895,449 B2
`
`directory structure, such that the host device use its native driver to access data
`
`even if the data is not actually on a device for which the native driver was
`
`designed,” as Patent Owner has proposed in litigation concerning the ‘449 patent.
`
`Ex. 1012, at 37-38 (Patent Owner’s brief); Ex. 1003, ¶52.
`
`3.
`“interface device”
`This term, recited in claims 1 and 18, was considered by the Federal Circuit,
`
`which stated that an interface device “is not limited to . . . a device that is
`
`physically separate and apart from, and not permanently attached to, a data device
`
`(or a host computer).” Ex. 1011, at 7; Ex. 1003, ¶53. Under the broadest
`
`reasonable construction standard, this term should be interpreted to encompass (at
`
`a minimum) that construction.
`
`V.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE REFERENCES APPLIED IN THIS PETITION
`A. U.S. Patent No. 5,508,821 to Murata (Ex. 1005)
`Murata describes several types of computer peripherals—including an image
`
`scanner—that are able to communicate with a computer without the need for “any
`
`new device driver.” Murata, at 1:58-61. The image scanner connects to the
`
`computer through a small computer system interface (SCSI) bus. Id. at 1:17-37.
`
`SCSI is a multi-purpose interface that can be used to connect a variety of different
`
`types of peripherals to a computer. As Murata explains, SCSI “is standardized as
`
`an interface means for carrying out high-speed data transfer. Through
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,895,449 B2
`
`standardization, the SCSI is in wide practical use today as an interface for various
`
`computers.” Id. at 1:18-21.
`
`Peripherals connected through a SCSI interface generally require a device
`
`driver to be installed on the host computer. Id. at 1:32-37. At the time of the
`
`invention, most computers did not include a device driver for a scanner. Id. at 1:38-
`
`41 (“Because image scanners . . . are not standardized . . . the device driver therefor
`
`is not generally contained in an operating system (OS) of the computer.
`
`Accordingly, it is necessary to prepare the device driver for the image scanner. . .
`
`connected to the host computer.”). The scanner in Murata, however, does not
`
`require a specialized device driver, and includes a “file system emulation means
`
`for emulating a file system contained in the external host computer. ” Id. at 1:65-
`
`67. The scanner acts “as if it were a hard disc.” Id. at 4:21. “[T]he image scanner . .
`
`. looks like the hard disc from the [computer] and can be handled as the hard disc.”
`
`Id. at 4:21-23. The scanner is able to communicate with the computer using the
`
`computer’s customary hard disk device driver. Id. at 2:8-12.
`
`B.
`Schmidt (Ex. 1006)
`Schmidt describes details of the SCSI bus and standard. As of 1995,
`
`“[a]lmost all modern computers including PCs, workstations and mainframes are
`
`equipped with a SCSI interface.” Schmidt, at v. Figure 9.1 of Schmidt (below),
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,895,449 B2
`
`illustrates “[a] simple SCSI configuration” where a host adapter sends SCSI
`
`commands over a SCSI bus to a disk drive. Id. at 80.
`
`SCSI defines a number of device classes, such as disk drives, as shown in
`
`Table 12.1. Id. at 132-33. One of the mandatory commands supported by a SCSI
`
`device is an INQUIRY command that “requests that information regarding
`
`parameters of the target and its attached peripheral device(s) be sent to the
`
`initiator.” Id. at 88. In response to an INQUIRY command, a device provides,
`
`among other parameters, its device class (e.g. disk drive class) “that are returned
`
`from an INQUIRY command.” Id. at 132; see also id. at 133 (Table 12.1).
`
`
`contents of the
`
`C. MS-DOS Encyclopedia (Ex. 1010)
`MS-DOS Encyclopedia discloses the structure, format, and
`
`file system used by the MS-DOS operating system. Figure 3-5 (right) shows the
`
`“general layout for the file system.” Ex. 1010, at 93.
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,895,449 B2
`
`The file allocation table (“FAT”) is a record of which clusters on the disk are
`
`free, which clusters are currently being used, and how the used clusters are
`
`organized into files. Id. At 97-101.
`
`MS-DOS files can be stored in a hierarchy of directories and subdirectories.
`
`Information about the top level directory in this hierarchy (called the “root
`
`directory”) is stored in a table that immediately follows the file allocation table.
`
`Id. at 95, 101-03.
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,895,449 B2
`
`
`The boot sector contains a number of parameters that identify, among other
`
`things, the type of disk on which the file system resides, the physical layout of the
`
`disk, and the structure of the file system. Figure 3-6 (above) illustrates the
`
`structure and contents of the boot sector. Id. at 95.
`
`D. U.S. Patent No. 5,850,484 to Beretta et al. (Ex. 1007)
`Beretta teaches the use of a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) and Discrete
`
`Fourier Transform (DFT), as known ways to compress image data (such as the
`
`output of a scanner) and transform such data into the frequency domain. Beretta, at
`
`4:56-61.
`
`VI. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS
`As set forth herein and in the Declaration of Dr. Kevin C. Almeroth (Ex.
`
`1003), the concepts claimed in the ’449 Patent were neither new nor non-obvious.
`
`Each element of the challenged claims is disclosed in the prior art, and the
`
`- 17 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,895,449 B2
`
`references cited in Grounds I–II render each of the challenged claims obvious.
`
`None of the prior art in Grounds I–II were considered by the Examiner. The
`
`Declaration of Dr. Almeroth was also not before the Examiner. Accordingly, none
`
`of Grounds I-II present the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments
`
`previously presented to the Office. 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).
`
`A. Ground I: Claims 1-3, 6-10, 12-13, and 15-18 are Unpatentable