Patent No. 8,073,557
`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. 8,073,557
`Issue Date: December 6, 2011
`Title: MOTION CONTROL SYSTEMS
`
`_______________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. 2017-00049
`
`____________________________________________________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ET SEQ.
`
`4847-9717-4843.1
`
`
`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. 8,073,557
`Issue Date: December 6, 2011
`Title: MOTION CONTROL SYSTEMS
`
`_______________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. 2017-00049
`
`____________________________________________________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ET SEQ.
`
`4847-9717-4843.1
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,073,557
`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 ’557 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 AND INTRODUCTION OF
`APPLIED PRIOR ART REFERENCES .......................................................16
`
`A. Device Drivers and Hardware Independence Were Well Known
`Long Before the ’557 Patent. ..............................................................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
`
`Programmable Motion Control and Hardware-Independent
`Motion Control Operations Long Predated the ’557 Patent ...............18
`
`RGB’s Development of XMC Shows that the ’557 Inventors
`Merely Combined Known Technologies in a Predictable Way ..........24
`i
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`4847-9717-4843.1
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,073,557
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`VI. EXPLANATION OF THE GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY.........26
`
`A. Obviousness: Content of the Applied Prior Art References ...............26
`
`1. WOSA – Cashin and ODBC Programmer’s Guide ..................26
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Function Tables and Streams – Brockschmidt .........................29
`
`Emulation – ODBC Programmer’s Guide ................................32
`
`Graphical Motion Control Language (“GML”) ........................33
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Obviousness: Motivation to Combine Cashin with ODBC
`Programmer’s Guide, Brockschmidt and the GML References .........37
`
`Ground 1: Claims 16, 19-22, and 27-28 Are Unpatentable as
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Cashin in View of ODBC
`Programmer’s Guide, and the GML References .................................40
`
`1.
`
`Cashin in combination with the ODBC Programmer’s
`Guide and the GML References disclose every limitation
`of the elements of claim 16 .......................................................40
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`[16a] “A motion control system, comprising:” ..............40
`
`[16b] “an application program comprising at least
`one call to at least one component function”..................40
`
`[16c] “a plurality of motion control devices, where
`a plurality of unique motion controller languages
`are associated with the plurality of motion control
`devices, each controller language comprises at
`least some control commands for processing
`information associated with motion control
`devices, and each of the motion control devices
`comprises a controller capable of generating
`electrical signals associated with the motion
`control device, and a mechanical system capable of
`causing a motion control operation based on
`electrical signals generated by the controller”................42
`
`4847-9717-4843.1
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,073,557
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`
`d.
`
`[16d] “a set of software drivers each comprising
`driver code, where” .........................................................44
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`i.
`
`j.
`
`k.
`
`[16e] “each software driver is associated with at
`least one of the plurality of motion controller
`languages, and” ...............................................................47
`
`[16f] “each software driver exposes a service
`provider interface defining a set of driver
`functions, where the driver functions are
`independent of the plurality of controller
`languages” .......................................................................48
`
`[16g] “at least one driver function is an extended
`driver function that is associated with a non-
`primitive motion operation that can be performed
`using at least one primitive motion operation,
`where the at least one primitive motion operation
`cannot be performed using a combination of
`primitive or non-primitive motion operations” ..............50
`
`[16h] “at least one driver function is a core driver
`function that is associated with a primitive motion
`operation” .......................................................................53
`
`[16i] “the driver code of at least one software
`driver associates at least one driver function with
`at least one control command of the at least one
`motion controller language associated with at least
`one of the software drivers, and” ....................................56
`
`[16j] “at least one selected software driver is
`associated with at least one selected motion control
`device” ............................................................................56
`
`[16k] “a motion component comprising component
`code, where the motion component exposes an
`application programming interface comprising a
`set of component functions, where” ...............................58
`
`4847-9717-4843.1
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,073,557
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`
`l.
`
`[16l] “each component function is implemented by
`component code, and the component code
`associates at least one of the component functions
`with at least one of the driver functions”........................61
`
`m.
`
`[16m] “the at least one selected software driver
`generates at least one control command in the
`controller language associated with the at least one
`selected motion control device based on the calls
`to component functions of the application
`program, the component code, and the driver code
`of the at least one selected software driver.” ..................63
`
`2.
`
`Cashin in combination with the ODBC Programmer’s
`Guide and the GML References disclose every limitation
`of the elements of claim 19 .......................................................64
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`[19a] “A motion control system as recited in claim
`16, in which the component code emulates at least
`one extended driver function by associating at least
`one component function with a plurality of the
`core driver functions;” ....................................................64
`
`[19b] “the component code implements at least
`one extended driver function by associating at least
`one component function with one of the extended
`driver functions; and” .....................................................65
`
`[19c] “the component code implements at least one core
`driver function by associating at least one
`component function with one of the core driver
`functions.” .......................................................................65
`
`3.
`
`Cashin in combination with the ODBC Programmer’s
`Guide and the GML References disclose every limitation
`of the elements of claim 20 .......................................................66
`
`a.
`
`[20a] “A motion control system as recited in claim
`16, in which the application program further
`
`4847-9717-4843.1
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,073,557
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`
`comprises at least one call to a component function
`comprising at least one parameter, where:” ...................66
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`[20b] “the at least one parameter is associated with
`a data item associated with the at least one selected
`motion control device” ...................................................67
`
`[20c] “the at least one parameter is passed from the
`application program to the at least one selected
`software driver by the motion component.” ...................67
`
`Cashin in combination with the ODBC Programmer’s
`Guide and the GML References disclose every limitation
`of the elements of claim 21 .......................................................68
`
`a.
`
`[21a] “A motion control system as recited in claim
`16, in which the drivers are binary modules.” ................68
`
`Cashin in combination with the ODBC Programmer’s
`Guide and the GML References disclose every limitation
`of the elements of claim 22 .......................................................68
`
`a.
`
`[22a] “A motion control system as recited in claim
`16, in which the software drivers conform to the
`service provider interface such that the software
`drivers may be interchanged without changing the
`component code.” ...........................................................68
`
`6.
`
`Cashin in combination with the ODBC Programmer’s
`Guide and the GML References disclose every limitation
`of the elements of claim 27 .......................................................69
`
`b.
`
`[27a] “A motion control system as recited in claim
`16, in which the motion component is a component
`binary module; the software drivers are driver
`binary modules; and the driver binary modules
`may be interchanged without changing the
`component binary module.” ...........................................69
`
`4847-9717-4843.1
`
`v
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,073,557
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`
`7.
`
`Cashin in combination with the ODBC Programmer’s
`Guide and the GML References disclose every limitation
`of the elements of claim 28 .......................................................70
`
`c.
`
`[28a] “A motion control system as recited in claim
`16, in which the control commands of each of the
`plurality of controller languages comprise binary
`codes.” ............................................................................70
`
`D. Ground 2: Claims 23, 24, and 29 Are Unpatentable as Obvious
`under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Cashin in View of ODBC
`Programmer’s Guide, Brockschmidt, and the GML References ........71
`
`1.
`
`Cashin in combination with the ODBC Programmer’s
`Guide, Brockschmidt and the GML References disclose
`every limitation of the elements of claim 23 ............................71
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`a.
`
`[23a] “A motion control system as recited in claim
`16, further comprising a plurality of streams,
`where each stream contains transmit stream code
`that determines how control commands are
`transmitted to a destination of control commands.” .......71
`
`Cashin in combination with the ODBC Programmer’s
`Guide, Brockschmidt, and the GML References disclose
`every limitation of the elements of claim 24 ............................72
`
`a.
`
`[24a] “A motion controls system as recited in
`claim 23, in which the destination of the control
`commands is the at least one selected motion
`control device.” ...............................................................72
`
`Cashin in combination with the ODBC Programmer’s
`Guide, Brockschmidt and the GML References disclose
`every limitation of the elements of claim 29 ............................72
`
`b.
`
`[29a] “A motion control system as recited in claim
`16, in which the component code uses function
`table that associates at least one of the component
`functions with at least one of the driver functions.”.......72
`vi
`
`4847-9717-4843.1
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,073,557
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`
`E.
`
`Claim Chart .........................................................................................73
`
`VII. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................74
`
`4847-9717-4843.1
`
`vii
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,073,557
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Ex #
`
`Exhibit
`
`1004
`
`1008
`
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,073,557 B2 (“’557 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. 1022 from
`IPR2013-00074, dated November 6, 2012 from case 6:11-cv-00622-
`LED-ZJH (E.D. Tex.)
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`4847-9717-4843.1
`
`viii
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,073,557
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`
`1016 Declaration of David W. Brown, Ex. 2013 from IPR2013-00074, dated
`July 18, 2013, Ex. 2010
`1017 U.S. App. No. 60/067,466 (“’466 Provisional”), Ex. 1017 from
`IPR2013-00063
`1018 WOSA/XMC MCAPI and MCSPI Design Specification, Ex. 2013-1 in
`IPR2013-00074 (“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 ’557 Invalidity Contention Chart for Cashin, ODBC,
`Brockschmidt and GML served by Defendants on AMS on September
`16, 2016 in 2:15-cv-898-RWS (E.D. Tex.)
`1029 Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary, 1991 (selected excerpts)
`1030 Kraig Brockschmidt, Inside OLE 2.0, Microsoft Press, 1994
`(“Brockschmidt”)
`1031 Declaration of Jeffrey N. Costakos
`
`1028
`
`4847-9717-4843.1
`
`ix
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,073,557
`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. 8,073,557 (“the ’557 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. Kollmorgen Corporation, 2:15-cv-01539.
`
`4847-9717-4843.1
`
`1
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,073,557
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Petitioner has filed concurrent petitions for inter partes review of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,513,048 (Case No. IPR2017-00023) and U.S. Patent No. 6,516,236
`
`(Case No. IPR2017-00048).
`
`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 ’557 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 identified Grounds.
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests cancellation of claims 16, 19-24, and 27-29
`
`of the ’557 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 the challenged claims are taught in the prior art as
`
`explained below in the proposed Grounds of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C.
`2
`
`4847-9717-4843.1
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,073,557
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`§103(a). Also provided are motivations to combine the relevant aspects of the
`
`cited prior art and an explanation of why a POSA would have had a reasonable
`
`expectation of success.
`
`STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The ’557 Patent was the subject of a previous IPR not involving Petitioner
`
`(IPR2013-00074 (“the ’074 IPR”)). The ’557 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 ’074 IPR for at least
`
`the following reasons:
`
`First, the grounds in the present petition were not asserted in the ’074
`
`IPR.
`
`Second, except for secondary reference Brockschmidt, none of the
`
`prior art references applied in this petition were part of any grounds asserted in the
`
`’074 IPR.
`
`Third, although Windows Open Service Architecture (“WOSA”) – in
`
`the form of WOSA/XFS (WOSA extension for financial services) – was discussed
`
`in the ’074 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
`3
`
`4847-9717-4843.1
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,073,557
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`with other references that teach “primitive operations” under AMS’s construction
`
`of that term.
`
`II.
`
`THE ’557 PATENT1
`The ’557 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 ’557 Patent describes “interface software that facilitates the creation of
`
`hardware independent motion control software” for moving objects. (Ex. 1001,
`
`1:50-52; 3:60-62.) 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., 6:66-57; 7:1-6; Ex. 1002, ¶32.)
`
`The general architecture of the ’557 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 the patent’s statements and what the patentees have
`
`represented in previous litigation. Petitioner makes no admission regarding the
`
`accuracy of these statements.
`
`4847-9717-4843.1
`
`4
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,073,557
`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.)
`
`4847-9717-4843.1
`
`5
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,073,557
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`
`The ’557 Patent states
`
`that
`
`the disclosed software system allows
`
`programmers to create applications that move and control motion control devices.
`
`(Ex. 1001, 7:26-28.) 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., 7:41-59.)
`
`Instead, the disclosed system proposes a theoretical set of “abstract” motion
`
`operations. (Id., 8:8-16.) These motion operations are abstract in 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,
`
`7:54-65.) This API contains the definition of a set of “component functions” that
`
`application programmers could include or “call” in their application programs.
`
`(Id., 8:43-54; 9:15-24.) The component functions defined by the ’557 Patent
`
`4847-9717-4843.1
`
`6
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,073,557
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`would be comprised of the theoretical abstract set of motion operations. (Id.; Ex.
`
`1002, ¶36.)
`
`The software system of the ’557 Patent also includes a service provider
`
`interface (“SPI”), component code, and software drivers containing driver code.
`
`(Ex. 1001, 8:29-42; 8:55-63.) 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. 1029, 120.) The ’557
`
`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, 11:20-23.) (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, 8:29-59.) The component code of the described system is
`
`middleware software that then “associates” component functions of the API with
`
`4847-9717-4843.1
`
`7
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,073,557
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`the driver functions of the SPI. (Id.) The driver functions comprise driver 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 ’557 Patent teaches using a stream transport layer to communicate the
`
`control commands from the driver to the targeted motion control devices. (Ex.
`
`1001, 18:28-30.) The ’557 Patent does not describe how to design or implement
`
`the streams themselves. Regarding “transmit stream code,” the ’557 Patent
`
`explains that “[t]he software system designer, or in some cases the hardware
`
`system designer, will write transmit stream code for each stream 28 that determines
`
`how the control commands are to be transferred[.]” (Id., 9:59-63.) The stream
`
`components are boxed in purple in the above diagram. (Ex. 1002, ¶40.)
`
`Some of the relevant dependent claims of the ’557 Patent include claim
`
`limitations directed to “binary modules,” “binary codes,” and “function tables.”
`
`Very little detail is given in the ’557 Patent regarding the meaning of these terms
`
`or how these features would be designed or implemented; indeed, “function table”
`
`is not even mentioned in the ’557 Patent’s specification. The ’557 Patent does
`
`briefly describe that “a module can be an executable binary[.]” (Ex. 1001, 29:31-
`
`4847-9717-4843.1
`
`8
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,073,557
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`37.) (Ex. 1002, ¶41.)
`
`In sum, the ’557 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 translates those driver function calls into
`
`device-specific command codes and sends them to the targeted motion control
`
`device. (Id., 9:44-48.) (Ex. 1002, ¶42.)
`
`The general architecture of the ’557 Patent’s software system is also
`
`depicted in the following figure, which was included in an AMS presentation in
`
`district court litigation:
`
`4847-9717-4843.1
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,073,557
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`(Ex. 1003, 38; Ex. 1002, ¶43.)
`
`As described below, the use of APIs, SPIs, and middleware software to
`
`direct function calls through a software system was well-known in the art prior to
`
`the priority date of the ’557 Patent. Such an approach is disclosed, for example, by
`
`WOSA, which is admitted prior art (Ex. 1001, 3:27-37) and – as shown below – is
`
`the basis for the software system disclosed by the ’557 Patent. Further, the use of
`
`software drivers in such a system is also admitted prior art and was well-known
`
`prior to the ’557 Patent. (Id., 3:38-43.) Similarly, the patent does not purport to
`
`invent the hardware used in conjunction with the disclosed invention (i.e., the
`
`hardware bus, the motion control devices, and the hardware controllers and
`
`mechanical systems included in such devices) and admits that this hardware is
`
`prior art. (Id., 7:22-25.) Additionally, the patent does not assert that it invents
`
`various software aspects of the claims including streams, binary modules, binary
`
`codes, and function tables. 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
`
`16, 19-24, and 27-29 of the ’557 Patent are unpatentable. (Ex. 1002, ¶44.)
`
`4847-9717-4843.1
`
`10
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,073,557
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`A POSA as of the effective date of the ’557 Patent typically would have a
`
`Bachelor of Science Degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering,
`
`computer science, or an equivalent. 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, OLE, 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 ’557 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., 832 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`Claim construction is being briefed by the parties in the underlying litigation. This
`
`petition applies the parties’ agreed construction for the following terms:
`
`Terms
`
`Agreed Construction
`
`“component function”
`
`“a hardware independent function that
`corresponds to an operation performed by a
`
`4847-9717-4843.1
`
`11
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,073,557
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`
`“control commands”
`
`“motion control device”
`
`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 set of”
`
`“plurality”
`
`“two or more”
`
`“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 terms:2
`
`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
`
`“a driver function associated
`one-to-one with a primitive
`
`2 The proposed constructions are taken from joint submissions to the Court and
`from prior exchanges of proposed constructions.
`
`“a driver function associated
`with one of the primitive
`
`4847-9717-4843.1
`
`12
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,073,557
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`function”
`
`motion control operation”
`
`“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”
`
`“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”
`
`motion control operations”
`
`“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”
`
`“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”
`
`4847-9717-4843.1
`
`13
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,073,557
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`(Defendants’ Construction, Ex. 1005; AMS’s Construction, Ex. 1006; Ex. 1002,
`
`¶49.)
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
