throbber
Patent No. 6,513,058
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________
`
`ROCKWELL AUTOMATION, INC.
`ROCKWELL AUTOMATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`AUTOMATION MIDDLEWARE SOLUTIONS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 6,513,058
`Issue Date: January 28, 2003
`Title: DISTRIBUTION OF MOTION CONTROL COMMANDS OVER A
`NETWORK
`
`_______________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. 2017-00023
`
`____________________________________________________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ET SEQ.
`
`4812-6771-4618.1
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,513,058
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`NOTICE OF LEAD AND BACKUP COUNSEL .......................................... 1
`
`NOTICE OF EACH REAL-PARTY-IN-INTEREST ..................................... 1
`
`NOTICE OF RELATED MATTERS ............................................................. 1
`
`NOTICE OF SERVICE INFORMATION ...................................................... 2
`
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING ........................................................................ 2
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ................................... 2
`
`THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW ............... 2
`
`STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED ........................ 3
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 3
`
`THE ’058 PATENT ......................................................................................... 4
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ...........................................11
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)(3) ..................11
`
`V.
`
`TECHNICAL BACKGROUND ...................................................................15
`
`A. Device Drivers and Hardware Independence Were Well Known
`Long Before the ’058 Invention. .........................................................16
`
`1.
`
`Device Drivers and Hardware Independence in
`Microsoft’s Prior Art Operating Systems .................................16
`
`2. Windows Open Service Architecture (“WOSA”) and the
`Open Database Connectivity (“ODBC”) Interface ...................17
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Programmable Motion Control and Hardware-Independent
`Motion Control Operations Long Predated the Supposed ’058
`Invention ..............................................................................................18
`
`RGB’s Development of XMC Shows that the ’058 Inventors
`Merely Combined Known Technologies in a Predictable Way ..........25
`i
`
`4812-6771-4618.1
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,513,058
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`VI. EXPLANATION OF THE GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY.........27
`
`A. Obviousness: Content of the Applied Prior Art References ...............27
`
`1. WOSA – Cashin and ODBC’s Programmer’s Guide ...............27
`
`2. Motion Control References – GML and Motion Toolbox .......30
`
`a.
`
`Graphical Motion Control Language (“GML”) .............30
`
`b. Motion Toolbox ..............................................................34
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Obviousness: Motivation to Combine Cashin with ODBC
`Programmer’s Guide and either of the Motion Control
`References (GML or Motion Toolbox) ...............................................35
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-5 Are Unpatentable as Obvious under 35
`U.S.C. § 103 over Cashin in View of ODBC Programmer’s
`Guide and the GML References ..........................................................38
`
`1.
`
`Claim 1 ......................................................................................38
`
`a.
`
`Cashin alone or in combination with the ODBC
`Programmer’s Guide discloses every limitation of
`elements 1(a)-(b) and 1(f)-(k) of claim 1 .......................38
`
`(i)
`
`(ii)
`
`[1a] “A system for allowing an application
`program to communicate with any one of a
`group of supported hardware devices, the
`system comprising:” .............................................38
`
`[1b] “a software system operating on at least
`one workstation, the software system
`comprising at least one application program
`comprising” ..........................................................39
`
`(iii)
`
`[1f] “a core set of core driver functions,
`where each core driver function is associated
`with one of the primitive operations” ...................41
`
`4812-6771-4618.1
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,513,058
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`
`(iv)
`
`[1g] “an extended set of extended driver
`functions, where each extended driver
`function is associated with one of the non-
`primitive operations” ............................................45
`
`(v)
`
`(vi)
`
`(vii)
`
`[1h] “component code associated with each
`of the component functions, where the
`component code associates at least some of
`the component functions with at least some
`of the driver functions” ........................................46
`
`[1i] “a set of software drivers, where each
`software driver is associated with one of the
`hardware devices and comprises driver code
`for implementing the driver functions” ................49
`
`[1j] “a control command generating module
`for generating control commands based on
`the component functions of the application
`program, the component code associated
`with the component functions, and the driver
`code associated with the software drivers;
`and”.......................................................................53
`
`(viii) [1k] “a network communication protocol
`that allows the control commands to be
`communicated from the control command
`generating module on the at least one
`workstation to at least one of the supported
`hardware devices over a network” .......................54
`
`b.
`
`It would have been obvious to combine Cashin and
`the ODBC Programmer’s Guide with the GML
`references to achieve elements (c)-(e) of claim 1 ...........55
`
`(i)
`
`[1c] “a set of component functions defining
`a desired motion sequence, the desired
`motion sequence being comprised of” .................55
`
`4812-6771-4618.1
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,513,058
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`
`(ii)
`
`[1d] “primitive operations that are necessary
`to define the desired motion sequence and” .........58
`
`(iii)
`
`[1e] “non-primitive operations that may be
`simulated using a combination of primitive
`operations” ............................................................59
`
`2.
`
`Claim 2 ......................................................................................60
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`[2a] “A system as recited in claim 1, in which:” ............60
`
`[2b] “the software system operates on a plurality of
`workstations; the application program runs on a
`first of the plurality of workstations” .............................60
`
`[2c] “the control command generating module
`operates on a second of the plurality of
`workstations;” .................................................................63
`
`[2d] “and the network communication protocol
`allows the component functions to be
`communicated from the application program on
`the first of the plurality of workstations to control
`command generating module on the second
`workstation over the network.” ......................................63
`
`3.
`
`Claims 3, 4, and 5......................................................................63
`
`D. Ground 2: Claims 1-5 Are Unpatentable as Obvious under 35
`U.S.C. § 103 over Cashin in View of ODBC Programmer’s
`Guide and Motion Toolbox .................................................................69
`
`1.
`
`Claim 1 ......................................................................................69
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Cashin by itself or in combination with the ODBC
`Programmer’s Guide discloses every limitation of
`elements 1(a)-(b) and 1(f)-(k) of claim 1 .......................69
`
`It would have been obvious to combine Cashin and
`the ODBC Programmer’s Guide with Motion
`Toolbox to achieve elements (c)-(e) of claim 1..............69
`iv
`
`4812-6771-4618.1
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,513,058
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`
`(i)
`
`[1c] “a set of component functions defining
`a desired motion sequence, the desired
`motion sequence being comprised of” .................69
`
`(ii)
`
`(iii)
`
`[1d] “primitive operations that are necessary
`to define the desired motion sequence and” .........70
`
`[1e] “non-primitive operations that may be
`simulated using a combination of primitive
`operations” ............................................................71
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Claim 2 ......................................................................................73
`
`Claims 3, 4, and 5......................................................................73
`
`E.
`
`Claim Charts ........................................................................................74
`
`VII. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................74
`
`4812-6771-4618.1
`
`v
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,513,058
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Ex #
`
`Exhibit
`
`1004
`
`1008
`
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 6,513,058 B2 (“’058 Patent”)
`1002
`Expert Declaration of William Rizzi
`1003 AMS Motion to Dismiss Presentation, 2:15-cv-898-RWS (E.D. Tex.),
`Dkt. No. 159-1, dated August 3, 2016
`Patent Rule 4-3 Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement
`(with exhibits), 2:15-cv-898-RWS (E.D. Tex.), Dkt. Nos. 176, 176-1,
`176-2, 176-3, dated September 13, 2016
`1005 Defendants’ Patent Rule 4-2 Disclosures, dated September 2, 2016
`1006
`Plaintiff’s Patent Rule 4-2 Disclosures, dated September 2, 2016
`1007 Microsoft Windows 3.1 Device Driver Adaptation Guide (“DDAG”)
`(selected excerpts)
`Jerry Cashin, WOSA – Windows Open Services Architecture
`(“Cashin”)
`1009 National Electrical Manufacturers Association, Programmable Motion
`Control Handbook (“NEMA Handbook”) (selected excerpts)
`1010 David Gibbs and Thomas M. Crandell, An Introduction to CNC
`Machining and Programming (“Gibbs”) (selected excerpts)
`S.C. Jonathan Lin, Computer Numerical Control (“Lin”) (selected
`excerpts)
`SERCOS Interface – Digital Interface for Communication Between
`Controls and Drives in Numerically Controlled Machines (“SERCOS
`Digital Interface”)
`1013 David Halpert, Object Oriented Programming for Motion Control
`(“Halpert”)
`1014 U.S. Patent No. 5,453,933 to Wright et al. (“Wright”)
`1015 Roy-G-Biv Preliminary Infringement Contentions, Ex. 1029 from
`IPR2013-00063, dated November 6, 2012 from case 6:11-cv-00622-
`LED-ZJH (E.D. Tex.)
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`4812-6771-4618.1
`
`vi
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,513,058
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`
`1016 Declaration of David W. Brown, Ex. 2012 from IPR2013-00063, dated
`August 26, 2013, Ex. 2012
`1017 U.S. App. No. 60/067,466 (“’466 Provisional”), Ex. 1017 from
`IPR2013-00063
`1018 WOSA/XMC MCAPI and MCSPI Design Specification, Ex. 2012-1 in
`IPR2013-00063 (“Design Specification”)
`1019 Kevin Holloway, Motion Software Heads Toward Friendlier User
`Environments, Control Engineering, August 1995
`1020 ODBC 2.0 Programmer’s Reference and SDK Guide, Microsoft Press,
`1994 (“ODBC Programmer’s Guide”) (selected excerpts)
`1021 Allen-Bradley, GML Programmer’s Workshop User’s Manual,
`November 17, 1993 (“GML Programmer’s Workshop”)
`1022 Allen-Bradley, GML V3.3 Programming Manual, June 17, 1993 (“GML
`Programming Manual”)
`1023 Compumotor Motion Toolbox User Guide, Version 1.0, March 1994
`(“Motion Toolbox”)
`1024
`LabVIEW User Manual (“LabVIEW”), Ex. 1012 from IPR2014-00122
`1025 Motion Engineering, Inc. PC/DSP-Series Motion Controller C
`Programming Guide, Version 1.3, May 1992 (“Motion Control API”)
`1026 Office Action dated October 2, 1996, excerpted from prosecution history
`of U.S. Patent No. 5,691,897
`1027 Applicant’s Amendment and Response to October 2, 1996 Office Action
`dated January 6, 1997, excerpted from prosecution history of U.S. Patent
`No. 5,691,897
`First Amended ’058 Invalidity Contention Chart for Cashin, ODBC, and
`GML served by Defendants on AMS on September 16, 2016 in 2:15-cv-
`898-RWS (E.D. Tex.)
`’058 Invalidity Contention Chart for Cashin, ODBC, and Motion
`Toolbox served by Defendants on AMS on September 16, 2016 in 2:15-
`cv-898-RWS (E.D. Tex.)
`1030 Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary, 1991 (selected excerpts)
`1031 Declaration of Jeffrey N. Costakos
`vii
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`4812-6771-4618.1
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,513,058
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`
`NOTICE OF LEAD AND BACKUP COUNSEL
`Lead Counsel: Jeffrey N. Costakos (Reg. No. 34,144); Tel: 414.297.5782
`
`Address: Foley & Lardner LLP, 777 E. Wisconsin Avenue
`
`Milwaukee, WI. 53202. FAX: 414.297.4900
`
`Backup Counsel: Nikhil Pradhan (Reg. No. 73,296); Tel: 617.226.3143
`
`Address: Foley & Lardner LLP, 111 Huntington Avenue, Suite 2600,
`
`Boston, MA 02199-7610. FAX: 617.342.4001
`
`NOTICE OF EACH REAL-PARTY-IN-INTEREST
`
`The real-parties-in-interest for this Petition are Rockwell Automation, Inc.
`
`and Rockwell Automation Technologies, Inc.
`
`NOTICE OF RELATED MATTERS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,513,058 (“the ’058 Patent”) is presently asserted in six
`
`cases pending in the Eastern District of Texas: Automation Middleware Solutions,
`
`Inc. v. Rockwell Automation, Inc., 2:15-cv-01269; Automation Middleware
`
`Solutions, Inc. v. Invensys Systems, Inc., 2:15-cv-00898; Automation Middleware
`
`Solutions, Inc. v. Emerson Electric Company, 2:15-cv-01266; Automation
`
`Middleware Solutions, Inc. v. Yaskawa America, Inc., 2:15-cv-01771; Automation
`
`Middleware Solutions, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, 2:15-cv-01982;
`
`Automation Middleware Solutions, Inc. v. Kollmorgen Corporation, 2:15-cv-
`
`01539.
`
`4812-6771-4618.1
`
`1
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,513,058
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`
`NOTICE OF SERVICE INFORMATION
`
`Please send all correspondence to the lead counsel at the address shown
`
`above.
`
` Petitioner consents
`
`to service by email at: MILW-Rockwell-
`
`AMS@foley.com.
`
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioner hereby certifies that the ’058 Patent is available for inter partes
`
`review and Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes
`
`review challenging the patent claims on the Grounds identified in the petition.
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests cancellation of claims 1-5 of the ’058 Patent.
`
`THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`A petition for inter partes review must demonstrate “a reasonable likelihood
`
`that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims
`
`challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). The Petition meets this threshold.
`
`Each of the elements of claims 1-5 of the ’058 Patent are taught in the prior
`
`art as explained below in the proposed Grounds of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a). Also provided are motivations to combine the relevant aspects of the
`
`cited prior art and an explanation of why a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“POSA”) would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
`
`4812-6771-4618.1
`
`2
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,513,058
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`
`STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The ’058 Patent was the subject of a previous IPR not involving Petitioner
`
`(IPR2013-00063 (“the ’063 IPR”)). The ’058 Patent was at that time owned by
`
`Roy-G-Biv (“RGB”), which subsequently assigned the patent to the present owner.
`
`This petition is distinguishable from the petition in the ’063 IPR for at least
`
`the following reasons:
`
`First, none of the grounds in the present petition were asserted in the
`
`’063 IPR.
`
`Second, none of the prior art references applied in this petition were
`
`part of any grounds asserted in the ’063 IPR.
`
`Third, although Windows Open Service Architecture (“WOSA”) – in
`
`the form of WOSA/XFS (WOSA extension for financial services) – was discussed
`
`in the ’063 IPR, the present petition does not rely on WOSA as teaching “primitive
`
`operations” as that petition did. Instead, the present petition presents obviousness
`
`grounds with WOSA, described in detail in the Cashin reference, in combination
`
`with other references that indisputably teach “primitive operations.”
`
`4812-6771-4618.1
`
`3
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,513,058
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`II.
`
`THE ’058 PATENT1
`The ’058 Patent alleges priority, through a number of intervening
`
`applications, to U.S. Pat. No. 5,691,897, filed May 30, 1995. (Ex. 1001; Ex. 1002,
`
`¶31.)
`
`The ’058 Patent describes “interface software that facilitates the creation of
`
`hardware independent motion control software” for moving objects. (Ex. 1001,
`
`1:18-21; 3:50-51.) The system runs on a personal computer and is connected to
`
`motion control devices – described as hardware controllers combined with
`
`mechanical systems – via a hardware bus. (Id., 5:36-59; Ex. 1002, ¶32.)
`
`The general architecture of the ’058 Patent’s software system is depicted in
`
`Figure 1 of the patent. An annotated version of Figure 1 combining Figures 1A-1F
`
`is shown below:
`
`
`1This section is a summary of what is stated in the patent and what the patentees
`
`have represented in previous litigation. Petitioner makes no admission regarding
`
`the accuracy of these statements.
`
`4812-6771-4618.1
`
`4
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,513,058
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1001, FIGS. 1A-1F.) As shown in this Figure, the disclosed system can
`
`generally be broken down into six components: (1) the application program (boxed
`
`in red); (2) the DDE server (boxed in yellow); (3) the motion control component
`
`and motion control driver stub (boxed in orange); (4) the software drivers (boxed
`
`in green); (5) the stream transport layer (boxed in purple); and (6) the motion
`
`control devices (boxed in blue). (Ex. 1002, ¶33.)
`
`4812-6771-4618.1
`
`5
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,513,058
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`
`The ’058 Patent states
`
`that
`
`the disclosed software system allows
`
`programmers to create applications that move and control motion control devices.
`
`(Ex. 1001, 5:64-67.) The system as described allows programmers to create these
`
`motion control applications without extensive knowledge of the requirements of, or
`
`control language used by, any specific motion control device. (Id., 6:13-33.)
`
`Instead, the disclosed system proposes a theoretical set of “abstract” motion
`
`operations. (Id., 6:48-55.) These motion operations are abstract in the sense that
`
`they are general physical actions to be performed by a motion control device but
`
`not tied to a particular make and model of motion control device. (Id.) These
`
`operations are thus “hardware independent.” The described software system
`
`allows programmers to utilize this theoretical set of abstract motion operations to
`
`design a motion program – the “application program” boxed in red in Figure 1
`
`above. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶34-35.)
`
`These application programs utilize this theoretical abstract set of motion
`
`operations by using an application programming interface or “API.” (Ex. 1001,
`
`7:15-25.) This API is taught as containing the definition of a set of “component
`
`functions” that application programmers could include or “call” in their application
`
`programs. (Id., 7:15-25; 53-62.) The component functions defined by the ’058
`
`4812-6771-4618.1
`
`6
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,513,058
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`Patent would be comprised of the theoretical abstract set of motion operations. (Id;
`
`Ex. 1002, ¶36.)
`
`The software system of the ’058 Patent also includes a service provider
`
`interface (“SPI”), component code, and software drivers containing driver code.
`
`(Ex. 1001, 7:1-42.) The component code of the disclosed system implements the
`
`component functions of the API, and this component code is included in the
`
`motion control component boxed in orange in Figure 1 above. (Ex. 1002, ¶37.)
`
`The disclosed system includes a DDE server boxed in yellow in Figure 1
`
`above. “DDE” stands for “Dynamic Data Exchange” and was a Microsoft
`
`technology used for interprocess communication. (Ex. 1030, 120.) The ’058
`
`Patent teaches that the DDE Server 40 “provides the software interface through
`
`which the application program 26 communicates with the motion control
`
`component module 35.” (Ex. 1001, 9:60-63.) (Ex. 1002, ¶38.)
`
`Like the API, the SPI is taught as containing the definition of a set of “driver
`
`functions” that are callable by the component code of the component functions,
`
`and each driver function corresponds to one of the pre-defined motion control
`
`operations. (Ex. 1001, 7:1-42.) The component code of the described system is
`
`middleware software that then “associates” component functions of the API with
`
`the driver functions of the SPI. (Id.) The driver functions are comprised of driver
`
`4812-6771-4618.1
`
`7
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,513,058
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`code which produce and issue device-specific control commands to the targeted
`
`motion control devices. (Id.) The driver code is contained in the software drivers
`
`which are boxed in green above and the targeted motion control devices are boxed
`
`in blue above. (Ex. 1002, ¶39.)
`
`The ’058 Patent claims contain limitations directed to specific network
`
`configurations of the claimed software system. For example, Claim 1 requires a
`
`“network communication protocol” that “allows” communication of “control
`
`commands” to “the supported hardware devices over a network.” As another
`
`example, Claim 3 requires that the “application program” run on a “first
`
`workstation” and the “control command generating module” operate on a “second
`
`workstation” connected by a “network” with an associated “network
`
`communication protocol.” (Id., ¶40.)
`
`Despite these specific network configurations, the only embodiments
`
`discussed in the figures and specification are single-computer embodiments
`
`meaning the entire software system is deployed on a single machine. (Ex. 1001,
`
`FIGS. 1A-1F.) There are no networked or distribution system configurations
`
`described or depicted in the specification and the only places where the term
`
`“network” appears are in the abstract, title, and claims. Instead, the ’058 patent
`
`describes the use of “streams” – boxed in purple above – as the communication
`
`4812-6771-4618.1
`
`8
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,513,058
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`mechanism between the software drivers and the motion control devices. (Id.,
`
`16:61-20:61; Ex. 1002, ¶41.)
`
`In sum, the ’058 Patent’s software system teaches an application program
`
`including component functions from an API. When that program is run, the
`
`component code translates those function calls into driver function calls to the SPI.
`
`Driver code in the software drivers then translate those driver function calls into
`
`device-specific command codes and sends them to the targeted motion control
`
`device. (Ex. 1001, 8:15-19; Ex. 1002, ¶42.)
`
`The general architecture of the ’058 Patent’s software system is also
`
`depicted in the following figure, which was included in an AMS presentation in
`
`district court litigation:
`
`4812-6771-4618.1
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,513,058
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`(Ex. 1003, 38; Ex. 1002, ¶43.)
`
`Depending on the particular ’058 claim, various aspects of the software
`
`system are distributed over a network on different “workstations.” As described in
`
`the technical background below, the use of APIs, SPIs, and middleware software to
`
`direct function calls through a software system with some portions of the system
`
`distributed over a network was well-known in the art prior to the priority date of
`
`the ’058 Patent. Such an approach is disclosed, for example, by WOSA, which is
`
`admitted prior art (Ex. 1001, 3:13-25) and – as shown below – is the basis for the
`
`software system disclosed by the ’058 Patent. Further, the use of software drivers
`
`in such a software system is also admitted prior art and was well-known prior to
`
`the ’058 Patent. (Id., 3:26-29.) Similarly, the patent does not purport to invent the
`
`hardware used in conjunction with the disclosed invention (i.e., the hardware bus,
`
`the hardware controllers, and the mechanical systems) and admits that this
`
`hardware is prior art. (Id., 5:60-63.) Lastly, as shown by the prior art discussed
`
`herein, the inventors also did not invent defining an abstract set of motion control
`
`operations. As shown herein, the Applicants’ application of the WOSA
`
`architecture to motion control operations is an obvious evolution of the prior art
`
`and, as a result, claims 1-5 of the ’058 Patent are unpatentable. (Ex. 1002, ¶44.)
`
`4812-6771-4618.1
`
`10
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,513,058
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`A POSA as of the effective date of the ’058 Patent typically would have a
`
`Bachelor of Science Degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering,
`
`computer science, or one of their equivalents. In addition, this POSA would have
`
`one or two years of experience in software-based motion control systems. The
`
`descriptions are approximate, and a higher level of education or specific skill may
`
`make up for less experience, and vice-versa. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶45-46.)
`
`As evidenced by the art in this field, the POSA would have an understanding
`
`of prior art technologies discussed herein such as WOSA, G-code, and various
`
`motion control programming tools. Custom Accessories Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan
`
`Indus. Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986). (Ex. 1002, ¶47.)
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)(3)
`Since the ’058 Patent is expired, its claim terms are interpreted according to
`
`their plain and ordinary meaning in view of the specification, just as in district
`
`court litigation. In re CSB-System Int’l, Inc., 2015-1832, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS
`
`14561, at *11 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 9, 2016). Claim construction is being briefed by the
`
`parties in the underlying litigation. This petition applies the parties’ agreed
`
`construction for the following terms:
`
`4812-6771-4618.1
`
`11
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,513,058
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Terms
`
`Agreed Construction
`
`“component function”
`
`“control commands”
`
`“motion control device”
`
`“network”
`
`“plurality”
`
`“a hardware independent function that
`corresponds to an operation performed by a
`motion control device”
`
`“command codes in hardware language, which
`instruct a motion control device to perform
`motion control operations”
`
`“a device comprising a controller and a
`mechanical system capable of moving an object
`in a desired manner”
`
`“a communications and data exchange system
`created by connecting two or more computers”
`
`“two or more”
`
`(Ex. 1004, 1-2; Ex. 1002, ¶48.)
`
`Where the parties disagree as to the proper construction, this petition
`
`demonstrates unpatentability under both proposed constructions. This includes the
`
`following terms2:
`
`
`2 The proposed constructions are taken from the joint submission made to the
`Court pursuant to Local Patent Rule 4-3 and from the prior exchange of proposed
`constructions pursuant to Local Patent Rule 4-2.
`
`4812-6771-4618.1
`
`12
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,513,058
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Terms
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`
`AMS’s Construction
`
`“application
`program”
`
`“a software program that
`directly controls each motor
`using base incremental steps”
`
`“a software program designed
`to handle specific tasks”
`
`“associates”
`
`“cross references”
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`“core driver
`function”
`
`“a driver function associated
`one-to-one with a primitive
`motion control operation”
`
`“a driver function associated
`with one of the primitive
`motion control operations”
`
`“desired motion
`sequence”
`
`“a motion sequence desired
`by a designer or user of the
`application program”
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`“driver
`function(s)”
`
`“extended driver
`function”
`
`“hardware independent
`abstract functions that define
`the parameters necessary to
`carry out motion control
`operations and that are
`separate and distinct from the
`component functions”
`
`“a driver function associated
`one-to-one with a non-
`primitive motion control
`operation”
`
`“motion control”
`
`“controlled movement of an
`object along a desired path”
`
`“hardware independent
`functions that are separate
`and distinct from the
`component functions”
`
`“a driver function associated
`with one of the non-primitive
`motion control operations”
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
` Alternatively, “controlled
`movement”
`
`4812-6771-4618.1
`
`13
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,513,058
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`“motion control
`operation”
`
`“hardware independent
`operations that are used to
`perform motion control (such
`as GET POSITION, MOVE
`RELATIVE, or CONTOUR
`MOVE) and that are
`performed by a motion
`control device”
`
`“hardware independent
`operations (such as GET
`POSITION, MOVE
`RELATIVE, or CONTOUR
`MOVE) that are performed
`by a motion control device”
`
`“software drivers” “one or more controller
`dependent software modules
`that implements all core
`driver functions and generates
`motion control commands for
`the specific hardware device
`or group of related hardware
`devices”
`
`“one or more controller
`dependent software modules
`that support some core driver
`functions and are used to
`control a hardware device or
`group of related hardware
`devices”
`
`“workstation”
`
`“personal computer”
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`(Defendants’ Construction, Ex. 1005; AMS’s Construction, Ex. 1006; Ex. 1002,
`
`¶49.)
`
`Defendants have also contended at the district court that several terms are
`
`indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶2. Indefiniteness cannot be raised in this
`
`proceeding. 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). Accordingly, this Petition does not address
`
`indefiniteness and applies AMS’s proposed construction for those claim terms, as
`
`follows:
`
`4812-6771-4618.1
`
`14
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,513,058
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Terms
`
`AMS’s Proposed Construction
`
`“associated with”
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`“component code”
`
`“software code in the motion control component
`that associates at least some of the component
`functions with at least some of the driver
`functions”
`
`“control command generating
`module”
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`“driver code”
`
`“non-primitive operation”
`
`“primitive operation”
`
`“code associated with a hardware device or group
`of related hardware devices, which helps generate
`commands necessary to perform motion control
`operations associated with at least some driver
`functions”
`
`“motion control operations that can be simulated
`using a combination of other motion control
`operations”
`
`“motion control operations that cannot be
`simulated using a combination of other motion
`control operations”
`
`(Ex. 1006, 14; 15; 17; 31; 38; Ex. 1002, ¶50.)
`
`Application of these constructions here is not intended to waive any of
`
`Petitioner’s rights in the district court.
`
`V.
`
`TECHNICAL BACKGROUND
`
`The following technical background and introduction of the applied prior art
`
`references is supported by the expert declaration of William Rizzi. (Ex. 1002.)
`
`4812-6771-4618.1
`
`15
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,513,058
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`
`A. Device Drivers and Hardware Independence Were Well Known
`Long Before the ’058 Invention.
`1.
`
`Device Drivers and Hardware Independence in Microsoft’s
`Prior Art Operating Systems
`
`For years prior to the ’058 Patent, POSAs generally desired software
`
`applications that were hardware- or device-independent so they could run on many
`
`different systems regardless of the particular targeted hardware. (Ex. 1030, 104-
`
`105, definition of “device dependence” (“Device dependence in a program is often
`
`considered unfortunate…”) contrasted with “device independence”; Ex. 1002,
`
`¶51.)
`
`Consistent with this desire, well prior to the priority date of the ’058 Patent,
`
`Microsoft’s operating systems employed a software architecture that abstracted
`
`hardware details from applications that wanted to use such hardware by defining
`
`hardware-independent APIs and linking them using middleware software with
`
`hardware-dependent device driver software. (Ex. 1002, ¶51.)
`
`One such example of this API/middleware/device driver architecture is the
`
`graphic device interface (“GDI”) and associated display device drivers employed
`
`in Windows 3.1, released in mid-1992. GDI was used by applications that wanted
`
`to access and/or control display devices or printers without knowing the hardware
`
`details of the targeted device: “The display driver

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket