Petition for IPR of US 6,895,449
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Petitioner,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case No. To Be Assigned
`Patent No. 6,895,449 B2
`
`
`
`[CORRECTED] PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S.
`
`PATENT NO. 6,895,449 UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319
`
`AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq.
`
`SMRH:480479546.16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for IPR of US 6,895,449
`
`Exhibit
`Ex. 1001
`Ex. 1002
`Ex. 1003
`Ex. 1004
`Ex. 1005
`Ex. 1006
`
`Ex. 1007
`Ex. 1008
`
`Ex. 1009
`
`Ex. 1010
`
`Ex. 1011
`
`Ex. 1012
`Ex. 1013
`
`Ex. 1014
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`Description
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,895,449 to Tasler (“the ’449 Patent”)
`File History for U.S. Pat. No. 6,895,449
`Declaration of Kevin C. Almeroth (“Almeroth Declaration”)
`Curriculum vitae of Kevin C. Almeroth
`U.S. Patent No. 5,758,081 to Aytac (“Aytac”)
`Am. Nat’l Standard Inst., Inc., Am. Nat’l Standard for Info.
`Sys’s, Small Computer System Interface-2, ANSI X3.131-1994
`(1994) (the “SCSI Specification”)
`Ray Duncan, The MS-DOS Encyclopedia (1988)
`In re Papst Licensing Dig. Camera Pat. Litig., 778 F.3d 1255,
`1265 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`Papst’s Opening Claim Constr. Brief and Appendix 8 of Papst’s
`Opening Claim Constr. Brief, Papst Licensing GmbH & Co.,
`KG v. Apple, Inc., et al., No. 6:15-cv-01095-RWS (E.D. Tex.
`Nov. 22, 2016)
`Papst’s Opening Claim Constr. Brief and Decl. of Robert
`Zeidman, In re Papst Licensing Dig. Camera Pat. Litig., MDL
`No. 1880, No. 1:07-mc-00493 (D.D.C. June 3, 2016)
`As-Filed Filed German priority document Patent Application
`197 08 755.8
`’399 German Application Publication (DE 197 08 755)
`Certified Translation of Published ’399 German Application
`(DE 197 08 755)
`English Translation of PCT Application PCT/EP98/01187
`
`SMRH:480479546.16
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for IPR of US 6,895,449
`
`Ex. 1015
`Ex. 1016
`Ex. 1017
`Ex. 1018
`
`Ex. 1019
`
`Ex. 1020
`Ex. 1021
`
`Ex. 1022
`Ex. 1023
`
`
`
`(published as PCT Pub. No. WO98/39710)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,589,063 to Shah
`U.S. Patent No. 5,038,320 to Heath
`U.S. Patent No. 5,787,246 to Lichtman
`Rufus P. Turner et al., The Illustrated Dictionary of Electronics
`(1991)
`Decision, Institution of Inter Partes Review, Paper No. 8, IPR
`2016-01200
`File History for U.S. Pat. No. 5,758,081 to Aytac
`Papst's Brief, In re Papst Licensing Digital Camera Patent
`Litig.,
`No. 2014-1110 (Fed. Cir., February 20, 2014)
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,470,399 to Tasler (“the ’399 patent”)
`File History for U.S. Pat. No. 6,470,399
`
`
`SMRH:480479546.16
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for IPR of US 6,895,449
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1)) ............................................................ 4
`A.
`Real Parties-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) ............................................................. 4
`B.
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) ......................................................................... 4
`1.
`Related Litigation ......................................................................................................... 4
`2.
`Related Inter Partes Review Petitions .......................................................................... 5
`C.
`Counsel and Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) and (b)(4)) ............................ 6
`III.
`FEES (37 C.F.R. § 42.103) .................................................................................................. 6
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 .......... 7
`A.
`Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a))................................................................. 7
`B.
`Claims for Which Review is Requested (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1)) ............................... 7
`C.
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge and Prior Art Relied Upon for Each Ground (37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(b)(2)) ................................................................................................................. 7
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art .................................................................................. 8
`D.
`Unpatentability of the Construed Claims (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)) ............................. 9
`E.
`Supporting Evidence (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5)) ............................................................. 9
`F.
`V. THE ’449 PATENT ................................................................................................................ 9
`A.
`Overview of the ’449 Patent............................................................................................. 9
`B.
`Prosecution History of the ’449 Patent .......................................................................... 11
`1.
`“data transmit/receive device” .................................................................................... 12
`2.
`“simulating a virtual file system” ............................................................................... 12
`3.
`“interface device” ....................................................................................................... 13
`SUMMARY OF REFERENCES APPLIED IN THIS PETITION ................................... 13
`VI.
`Aytac Overview (Ex. 1005) ........................................................................................... 13
`A.
`Aytac Source Code ......................................................................................................... 20
`B.
`The SCSI Specification and Overview (Ex. 1006) ........................................................ 22
`C.
`VII. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS ................................................................ 29
`A.
`Ground I: Claims 1, 16 and 17 are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
`Combination of Aytac, the SCSI Specification, MS-DOS Encyclopedia and the
`admitted prior art ............................................................................................................ 29
`Rationale for Combining Aytac, the SCSI Specification, MS-DOS Encyclopedia and
`the admitted prior art. ................................................................................................. 29
`Claims 1 and 17 .......................................................................................................... 31
`Claim 16 ..................................................................................................................... 52
`
`2.
`3.
`
`1.
`
`SMRH:480479546.16
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`VIII.
`
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................. 54
`
`Petition for IPR of US 6,895,449
`
`
`
`
`
`SMRH:480479546.16
`
`
`
`
`-iv-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Petition for IPR of US 6,895,449
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`Cases
`
`Intel Corp. v. MicroUnity Systems
`Appeal No. 2010- 008981 (BPAI, Dec. 9, 2010) .....................................................................28
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................19
`
`pre-KSR. Optivus Tech., Inc. v. Ion Beam Apps S.A.
`469 F.3d 978 (Fed. Cir. 2006)..................................................................................................35
`
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc.
`504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007)................................................................................................19
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a)
`
`35 U.S.C. §102(b) ..........................................................................................................................16
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ...................................................................................................................16, 28
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) .............................................................................................................11, 15, 34
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) ...................................................................................................................12
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ....................................................................................................................12
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ....................................................................................................................12
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 (b)(4) ...................................................................................................................14
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ....................................................................................................................19
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103) ........................................................................................................................14
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 .........................................................................................................................15
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a).....................................................................................................................15
`
` 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1) ...............................................................................................................15
`
`SMRH:480479546.16
`
`
`
`
`-v-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for IPR of US 6,895,449
`
` 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2) ...............................................................................................................15
`
` 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ...............................................................................................................19
`
` 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) ...............................................................................................................17
`
` 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) ...............................................................................................................17
`
`
`
`SMRH:480479546.16
`
`
`
`
`-vi-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for IPR of US 6,895,449
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The IBM Personal Computer (PC), first released in 1981, owes its longevity,
`
`in part, to its open architecture. The down-side to the open architecture is the PC
`
`must be able to work with different peripherals. Traditionally, each peripheral
`
`required its own device driver, and different device drivers were often
`
`incompatible with each other or with different PC’s.
`
`To address this problem, computer companies proposed “plug-and-play”
`
`systems that allowed peripherals to communicate with a PC without the need for
`
`specialized device drivers for each peripheral. (See e.g. Exs. 1015, 1016, and
`
`1017.) The ’449 Patent describes and claims one such system, but, as explained
`
`herein, not the first.
`
`The ’449 Patent purports to describe an “interface device”—which may or
`
`may not be built into the peripheral itself—that handles communications between a
`
`peripheral and the host computer without requiring the use of different drivers for
`
`different peripheral devices. (Ex. 1001 at 3:20-43, 4:17-24.) Thus, ’449 Patent
`
`discusses an “interface device” intended to eliminate the need for specialized
`
`device drivers. When the interface device is connected to a host, it responds to the
`
`host’s request for identification by “simulat[ing] both in terms of hardware and
`
`software, the way in which a conventional input/output device functions, preferably
`
`that of a hard disk drive,” for which the host system already has a working driver.
`
`SMRH:480479546.16
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for IPR of US 6,895,449
`
`(Ex. 1001, at 4:11-13 (emphasis added).) And as the ‘449 patent admits, there
`
`were well-established protocols for identifying and controlling hard disks, and
`
`every computer had a pre-installed device driver for communicating with a hard
`
`disk. (Ex. 1001, at 4:11-17; Ex 1003 at ¶97-98.)
`
`The interface device of the ’449 Patent merely exploits these protocols and
`
`pretends to be a hard disk to the computer. (Ex. 1001, at 4:10-24, 4:66-5:2; Ex
`
`1003 at ¶¶43-44.) In so doing, the peripheral is able to communicate with the
`
`computer using the preexisting hard disk device driver, rather than a specialized
`
`device driver. (Id. at 4:17-24.)
`
`But this idea was well known before the ’449 Patent was filed. For example,
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,758,081 to Aytac (“Aytac” or Ex. 1005) describes a device
`
`referred to as a “CaTbox” that provides an interface for handling communications
`
`between a host computer and various peripheral devices (e.g., modems 308-11,
`
`“printer 103,” “Central Office 123” and accompanying telephone lines, “scanner
`
`104,” “speaker 124,” “microphone 125,” “receiver 107”, “handset 105,” etc.). Ex.
`
`1005, at 8:61-9:4, Fig. 1; Ex. 1003 at ¶58-60. In response to receiving a standard
`
`SCSI INQUIRY command from the host PC, the processor 201 of CaTbox causes
`
`a signal to be sent through the SCSI bus 113 to the host PC identifying the CaTbox
`
`as a SCSI hard disk. See Ex. 1005, at 5:43-45. This same signal (identifying the
`
`CaTbox as a SCSI hard disk) is sent in response to the host regardless of whether
`
`SMRH:480479546.16
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for IPR of US 6,895,449
`
`or what type of data transmit/receive device(s) is/are attached to the CaTbox.1. In
`
`fact, in the preferred embodiment, the “CaTbox look[s] like a SCSI disk to the
`
`PC,” and communicates this to the PC in accordance with “a specification of
`
`SCSI” (Ex. 1005, at 4:49-53), exactly in the same manner used by the ’449 patent.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 4:63-5:47; Ex. 1003 at ¶122.
`
`In sum, and as explained in more detail below, an examination of Aytac in
`
`view of the SCSI specification (cited in the Aytac disclosure) leads quickly to the
`
`conclusion that the technology claimed in the ‘449 was already known. Such
`
`examination also reveals that the idea of configuring an interface device to send a
`
`signal to a host device indicating that it is a storage device customary in a host
`
`device - so the host device can communicate with the interface device by using the
`
`driver for the storage device customary in a host device – was not new as of the
`
`effective filing date of the ‘449. Ex. 1005, at 10:52-58; Ex. 1006, at pp. 123-127 ;
`
`Ex 1003 at ¶¶66-72. Finally, arranging an interface device for simulating a virtual
`
`file system to the host was also not a new idea as of the effective filing date of the
`
`‘449. Ex. 1005, at 10:52-66, 11:38-48; Ex 1003 at ¶¶66-83, 137-144.
`
`This Petition demonstrates that claims 1, 16 and 17 of the ‘449 Patent are
`
`unpatentable under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), and that there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that Petitioner will prevail based on prior art the U.S. Patent and
`
`
`1 The details of these communications are discussed herein, but can be found in the SCSI Specification (Ex. 1006, at
`e.g., 123-127), and in the accompanying Almeroth declaration (Ex. 1003) at paragraphs 61-81.
`
`SMRH:480479546.16
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for IPR of US 6,895,449
`
`Trademark Office (“PTO”) did not consider during prosecution. Accordingly, and
`
`for the reasons set forth below, Petitioner respectfully requests inter partes review
`
`of claims 1, 16 and 17.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1))
`
`A. Real Parties-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`
`The real-parties-in-interest are ZTE (USA) Inc. and ZTE Corporation.
`
`B. Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`
`1.
`
`Related Litigation
`
`Petitioner is aware of the following litigations involving the ’449 Patent in
`
`the Eastern District of Texas: 6-15-cv-01099, 6-15-cv-01100, 6-15-cv-01001, 6-
`
`15-cv-01010, and 6-15-cv-01014.
`
`Petitioner is aware of the following litigations involving the ’449 Patent in
`
`the United States District Court for the District of Columbia: 1-09-cv-00530, 1-08-
`
`cv-01433, 1-08-cv-01404, 1-08-cv-01405, 1-08-cv-01406, 1-08-cv-01407, 1-08-
`
`cv-00985, 1-08-cv-00865, 1-07-cv-02086, 1-07-cv-02087, 1-07-cv-02088, MDL
`
`1880, 1-07-mc-00493, 1-07-cv-01222, 1-07-cv-01017, and 1-06-cv-01751.
`
`Petitioner is aware of the following litigations involving the ’449 Patent in
`
`the Northern District of Illinois: 1-08-cv-03627, 1-08-cv-03606, 1-08-cv-03609, 1-
`
`08-cv-03608, 1-08-cv-02510, 1-08-cv-01218.
`
`SMRH:480479546.16
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for IPR of US 6,895,449
`
`Petitioner is aware of the following litigation involving the ’449 Patent in
`
`the Northern District of California: 5-08-cv-01732.
`
`Petitioner is aware of the following litigation involving the ’449 Patent in
`
`the District of Delaware: 1-07-cv-00415.
`
`2.
`
`Related Inter Partes Review Petitions
`
`Petitioner is aware of the following inter partes review Petition for U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,895,449: IPR2017-00415.
`
`Petitioner is aware of the following inter partes review Petitions filed for
`
`related U.S. Patent No. 6,470,399: IPR2016-01839, IPR2016-01843, IPR2016-
`
`01864, and IPR2017-00443.
`
`Petitioner is aware of the following inter partes review Petitions filed for
`
`related U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746: IPR2016-01200, IPR2016-01206, IPR2016-
`
`01211, IPR2016-01213, IPR2016-01223, IPR2016-01224, IPR2016-01862,
`
`IPR2016-01863, and IPR2017-00158.
`
`Petitioner is aware of the following inter partes review Petitions filed for
`
`related U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144: IPR2016-01199, IPR2016-01202, IPR2016-
`
`01212, IPR2016-01214, IPR2016-01216, IPR2016-01222, IPR2016-01225,
`
`IPR2016-01849, IPR2016-01860, and IPR2017-00154.
`
`SMRH:480479546.16
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for IPR of US 6,895,449
`
`Petitioner is aware of the following inter partes review Petition filed for
`
`related U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437: IPR2016-01733, IPR2016-01840, IPR2016-
`
`01841, IPR2016-01842, IPR2016-01844, and IPR2017-00156.
`
`Concurrent with the filing of this Petition, Petitioner is also filing one
`
`additional inter partes review Petition for related U.S. Patent No. 6,470,399, one
`
`additional inter partes review Petition for related U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144, and
`
`one additional inter partes review Petition for related U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437.
`
`C. Counsel and Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) and
`
`(b)(4))
`
`Counsel
`
`Lead Counsel:
`
`Service Information
`
`Postal and hand delivery
`
`Scott R. Miller (Reg. No. 32,276)
`
`Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
`
`smiller@sheppardmullin.com
`
`333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor
`
`Backup Counsel:
`
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`
`Darren Franklin (Reg. No. 51,701)
`
`T: 213-620-1780
`
`dfranklin@sheppardmullin.com
`
`F: 213-620-1398
`
`
`
`III. FEES (37 C.F.R. § 42.103)
`
`The PTO is authorized to charge $23,000 ($9,000 request fee and $14,000
`
`post-institution fees) to Deposit Account No. 50-4562. The PTO is also authorized
`
`SMRH:480479546.16
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for IPR of US 6,895,449
`
`to charge all fees due at any time during this proceeding to Deposit Account No.
`
`50-4562.
`
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.104
`
`A. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a))
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’449 Patent is available for inter partes review
`
`and Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review
`
`challenging the ’449 Patent on the grounds identified in the present Petition.
`
`B. Claims for Which Review is Requested (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1))
`
`Petitioner requests review of claims 1, 16 and 17 of the ’449 Patent
`
`(“Challenged Claims”).
`
`C.
`
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge and Prior Art Relied Upon for
`
`Each Ground (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2))
`
`The Challenged Claims should be cancelled as unpatentable based on the
`
`following grounds:
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1, 16 and 17 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`over U.S. Patent No. 5,758,081 to Aytac (Ex. 1005) in view of the SCSI
`
`Specification (Ex. 1006), MS-DOS Encyclopedia, and the admitted prior art in
`
`the ’449 Patent (Ex. 1001).
`
`Relevant Dates for the ’449 Patent and the Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`SMRH:480479546.16
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for IPR of US 6,895,449
`
`The ’449 Patent claims priority Application No. 09/331,002 (now US
`
`6,470,399; (Ex. 1022), which claims priority to PCT application PCT/EP98/01187
`
`filed on March 3, 1998 (Ex. 1014), which claims priority to the German priority
`
`application filed on March 4, 1997 (Ex. 1011), which is included in the file history
`
`of U.S. Patent 6,470,399 (Ex. 1023, at 144-70). The German priority application
`
`was published as German publication 19708755 A1 (Ex. 1012). A certified
`
`translation of the German priority application is provided as Ex. 1013 (“German
`
`Priority Application”). Although Petitioner has demonstrated in earlier filed inter
`
`partes review petitions that the Challenged Claims are entitled to a priority date of
`
`no earlier than March 3, 1998, for purposes of this Petition it may be assumed that
`
`the priority date of the ’449 patent is March 4, 1997.
`
`Aytac issued on May 26, 1998 from an application filed on December 8,
`
`1995, and is therefore prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`The SCSI Specification was published in 1994, and is therefore prior art
`
`under at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), 102(b).
`
`MS-DOS Encyclopedia was published in 1988 and is therefore prior art
`
`under at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 102(b).
`
`D.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’449 Patent at the time of the
`
`alleged invention (“POSITA”) would have a four-year degree in electrical
`
`SMRH:480479546.16
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for IPR of US 6,895,449
`
`engineering, computer science, or related field of study. A POSITA would also
`
`have either a masters degree, or at least two years of experience in the relevant
`
`field, e.g., computer science, computer systems, or peripheral devices. (Ex. 1003,
`
`at ¶47.)
`
`E. Unpatentability of the Construed Claims (37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.104(b)(4))
`
`Claims 1, 16, and 17 of the ’449 Patent are unpatentable under the statutory
`
`ground(s) identified above, as explained in Section VII below.
`
`F.
`
`Supporting Evidence (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5))
`
`The exhibit numbers of the supporting evidence relied upon to support the
`
`challenge and the relevance of the evidence to the challenge raised, including
`
`identifying specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge, are
`
`provided in Section VII, below, and the Exhibit List above.
`
`V.
`
`THE ’449 PATENT
`
`A. Overview of the ’449 Patent
`
`The ’449 Patent generally describes an interface designed to facilitate the
`
`transfer of data between a host computer and a peripheral device. Ex. 1001, at Title
`
`and Abstract. While such interfaces were known at the time of the invention,
`
`according to the `449 patent they typically “require very sophisticated drivers
`
`SMRH:480479546.16
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for IPR of US 6,895,449
`
`which are prone to malfunction and which limit data transfer rates” between the
`
`computer and the peripheral. Id. at 1:27-31; Ex. 1003 at ¶ 42 .
`
`The ’449 Patent purports to describe an “interface device” intended to
`
`eliminate the need for specialized device drivers for each peripheral device. When
`
`the interface device is connected to a host, it responds to the host’s request for
`
`identification by “simulat[ing] both in terms of hardware and software, the way in
`
`which a conventional input/output device functions, preferably that of a hard disk
`
`drive,” for which the host system already has a working driver. (Ex. 1001, at 4:11-
`
`13 (emphasis added).) By responding in that manner, the interface device induces
`
`the host to treat it—and, indirectly, data devices on the other side of the interface
`
`device, no matter what type of devices they are—like a device that is already
`
`familiar to the host. Thereafter, when the host communicates with the interface
`
`device to request data from or control the operation of the data device, the host
`
`uses its customary device driver, and the interface device translates the
`
`communications into a form understandable by the connected peripheral data
`
`device. (See id. at 3:25-4:36.) The interface device thus does not require a
`
`“specially designed driver” for the peripheral connected to the interface device to
`
`communicate with a host computer. Id. at 4:19; Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 42-44.
`
`SMRH:480479546.16
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for IPR of US 6,895,449
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History of the ’449 Patent
`
`The Examiner allowed the application that gave rise to the ’449 Patent
`
`without making any rejections over the prior art. According to the Examiner, the
`
`prior art did not disclose an interface device which (1) “sends a signal to the host
`
`device that the attached device is a storage device customary in a host device,
`
`regardless of the type of the attached device,” and (2) “simulat[es] a virtual file
`
`system” including a “directory structure.” Ex. 1002, at 50. However, the Examiner
`
`did not consider highly relevant prior art, such as Aytac and the SCSI
`
`Specification, each in light of the admitted prior art, that should have precluded
`
`allowance of the claims.
`
`C. Claim Construction (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3))
`
`In an inter partes review, the Board construes claim terms in an unexpired
`
`patent according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under the broadest reasonable construction,
`
`claim terms are given their ordinary and accustomed meaning as would be
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure.
`
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`SMRH:480479546.16
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for IPR of US 6,895,449
`
`Petitioner believes the Challenged Claims should be interpreted consistent
`
`with their ordinary and customary meaning within the context of the ’449 Patent.
`
`Further context regarding the meaning of certain terms is set forth below.2
`
`1.
`
`“data transmit/receive device”
`
`This term is recited in claims 1, 16 and 17. The broadest reasonable
`
`construction encompasses “a device capable of transmitting or receiving data.”
`
`This is consistent with the specification, which discloses “a data transmit/receive
`
`device which is to receive data from the host device or from which data is to be
`
`read, i.e. acquired, and transferred to the host device.” (Ex. 1001, at 4:55-59
`
`(emphasis added); Ex. 1003, ¶51.)
`
`2.
`
`“simulating a virtual file system”
`
`
`
`This term is recited in claims 1 and 17. For purposes of this proceeding,
`
`under the broadest reasonable construction standard, this term should be
`
`interpreted to encompass (at a minimum) “emulating a file system, including a
`
`directory structure, such that the host device use its native driver to access data
`
`even if the data is not actually on a device for which the native driver was
`
`designed,” as Patent Owner has proposed in litigation concerning the ’449 Patent.
`
`Ex. 1009, at 31-32 (Patent Owner’s brief); Ex. 1003, ¶54.
`
`
`2 Petitioner reserves the right to propose different constructions in other proceedings and in particular
`district court litigation, for which the narrower claim construction standard of Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) would apply.
`
`SMRH:480479546.16
`
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for IPR of US 6,895,449
`
`3.
`
`“interface device”
`
`
`
`This term, recited in claims 1, 16 and 17, was considered by the Federal
`
`Circuit, which stated that an interface device “is not limited to . . . a device that is
`
`physically separate and apart from, and not permanently attached to, a data device
`
`(or a host computer).” Ex. 1107, at 7; Ex. 1003, ¶55. Under the broadest reasonable
`
`construction standard, this term should be interpreted to encompass (at a
`
`minimum) that construction.
`
`VI.
`
`SUMMARY OF REFERENCES APPLIED IN THIS PETITION
`
`A. Aytac Overview (Ex. 1005)
`
`Aytac teaches a multi-function data generating and processing device,
`
`termed by the inventor the “CaTbox,” as an allusion to the way the device sits as
`
`an interface device between Computing and Telecommunications apparatus. Ex.
`
`1005, 4:11-14; Ex. 1003, ¶ 56-57. As explained in the claim analysis below,
`
`Aytac’s CaTbox meets all the limitations, both structurally and functionally, of the
`
`Challenged Claims when combined with the SCSI Specification referred to in the
`
`Aytac disclosure.
`
`In the preferred embodiment, various peripheral data transmit/receive
`
`devices are attached to the CaTbox 102 as depicted below in Figure 1. Ex. 1005,
`
`8:61-9:4; Ex. 1003, ¶ 56-57.
`
`SMRH:480479546.16
`
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for IPR of US 6,895,449
`
`
`
`Thus, CaTbox 102 receives inputs transmitted from various peripheral data
`
`transmit/receive devices, including printer 103, scanner 104, telephone network
`
`123 (connecting fax machines and telephones via phone lines 116, 118, 120, and
`
`122, fax modems 308-311), telephone handset 105, telephone receiver 107,
`
`microphone 125, and speaker 124. Id.; Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 58-62. Such peripheral devices
`
`send and/or receive data that is shared with or comes from the host computer
`
`including, without limitation, scanned and/or fax images and voice data (from
`
`telephone lines). Ex. 1005, at 10:14-27; Ex. 1003, at ¶¶ 58-62. The CaTbox
`
`modems 308-311 convert between analog signals and digital representations of fax
`
`images, voice mail, and other types of data. Id.; Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 58-62. These
`
`peripheral devices may transmit and/or receive information to/from CaTbox, and
`
`be stored as digital files on CaTdisc under the control of X86 processor 201. Ex.
`
`SMRH:480479546.16
`
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for IPR of US 6,895,449
`
`1005, at id., Abstract; Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 58-62. Aytac discusses how these peripheral
`
`data transmit/receive devices may be tied in to the CaTbox through various
`
`connections such as, for example, elements 312-319 and 321. See Ex. 1005, 9:5-
`
`52.
`
`Regardless of what peripheral data transmit/receive devices are plugged in to
`
`the CaTbox, CaTbox 102 presents itself to the host as a “SCSI disk”, and
`
`communicates with PC 101 solely over a SCSI interface 113. Ex. 1001, at 4:39-53;
`
`6:16-20, 10:28-29, Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 116.
`
`CaTbox 102 has both program memory (BIOS EPROM 222, RAM 203,
`
`portions of CaTdisc storing CaTOS 590) and data memory (RAM 203, portions of
`
`CaTdisc, buffer memories within the modems). Ex. 1005, 9:5-15, 11:58-64.
`
`CaTOS is built on MS-DOS, and CaTdisc uses a DOS-FAT file system. Ex. 1005,
`
`11:65-12:39; Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 109, 112, 139. CaTbox data processing, storage and
`
`communications operations are controlled by the processor 201 and its associated
`
`chipset 221. See Ex. 1005, at 9:5-15, Fig. 2 (below).
`
`SMRH:480479546.16
`
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for IPR of US 6,895,449
`
`CaTbox 102 includes motherboard 200 and daughter boards 308-311
`
`mounted within casing 300, as depicted in Figures 3 and 4 below:
`
`
`
`SMRH:480479546.16
`
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for IPR of US 6,895,449
`
`
`
`
`
`SMRH:480479546.16
`
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for IPR of US 6,895,449
`
`
`
`CaTbox 102 includes BIOS code which allows the system to run MS-DOS
`
`and applications for controlling various CaTbox functions. Ex. 1005, at 8:20-23,
`
`11:65-67, Fig. 5; Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 147. Not surprisingly, in connection with a “multi-
`
`purpose interface,” both Aytac’s ’081 patent and Tasler’s ’449 patent disclose the
`
`use of an ASPI driver as an exemplary “specific driver.” Ex. 1001, at 10:9-25; Ex.
`
`1006, at 10:52-56.
`
`In particular, Aytac discloses “[a]n ASPI driver such as ASPI2DOS.SYS
`
`521” for use as the driver specific to the SCSI interface (the multi-purpose
`
`interface). Ex. 1006, at 10:52-56. The ‘449 discloses that “[g]enerally speaking,
`
`this multi-purpose interface driver has the task of moving precisely specified SCSI
`
`commands from the host system program to the host system SCSI adaptor.” Ex.
`
`1001, at 10:19-22. This is exactly what Aytac’s ASPI2DOS.SYS driver does.
`
`Aytac even points out that the ASPI2DOS.SYS driver “On the PC side, . . .
`
`provides the SCSI interface layer to all LUNs on CaTbox 102 SCSI node, as well
`
`as other SCSI nodes,” which necessarily involves moving the SCSI commands
`
`from the PC program to the SCSI adaptor. Ex. 1006, at 10:52-56; Ex. 1003, at .The
`
`CaTbox hard disk drive (CaTdisc) can also be accessed by the host PC for tasks
`
`such as retrieving or playing a voicemail recording, reading or printing a stored
`
`fax, retrieving and