`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