fax: (202) 371-2540 united states patent and trademark ... · 1255 (fed. cir. 2015). 1017–1018...
TRANSCRIPT
Filed on behalf of Apple Inc. By: Lori A. Gordon Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC 1100 New York Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. Tel: (202) 371-2600 Fax: (202) 371-2540
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,504,746
Mail Stop PATENT BOARD Patent Trial and Appeal Board U.S. Patent & Trademark Office P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- i -
TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Mandatory notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)). ................................................. 2
II. Grounds for standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a))............................................... 4
III. Identification of challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)). ..................................... 4
A. Citation of prior art. ....................................................................................... 4
B. Statutory grounds for the challenge. .............................................................. 6
IV. The ’746 patent. ............................................................................................. 7
A. Overview. ....................................................................................................... 7
B. The challenged claims of the ’746 patent are not entitled to priority benefit of the March 1997 German application. ........................................................ 9
C. Level of ordinary skill in the art. ................................................................. 15
D. Claim construction. ...................................................................................... 16
V. Ground 1: The combination of Ard, Schmidt, and Webb renders claims 1, 6–8, 14, 20, 21, 30, and 34 obvious. ............................................................ 18
A. Overview of Ard. ......................................................................................... 18
B. Overview of Schmidt. .................................................................................. 21
C. Overview of Webb. ...................................................................................... 23
D. The combination renders claim 1 obvious. .................................................. 24
1. The combination discloses the “analog data acquisition device” recited in the preamble of claim 1 [1P]. .......................................................... 24
a) “analog data acquisition device” ................................................... 25
b) Computer architecture/operation component ................................. 26
2. The combination discloses the analog data acquisition device architectural limitations. ...................................................................... 30
a) “program memory” [1A] ................................................................ 30
b) “an analog signal acquisition channel for receiving a signal from an analog source” [1B] ........................................................................ 31
c) The “processor” limitation [1C] .................................................... 33
3. The combination discloses the “data generation process” limitations [1D]. ..................................................................................................... 36
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- ii -
a) “data generation process” [1D.1] ................................................... 37
b) “analog data is processed and digitized” [1D.2] ............................ 38
c) “file system” [1D.3] ....................................................................... 38
4. The combination discloses claim limitation [1E]. .............................. 39
a) “parameter indicative of the class of devices” [1E.2] .................... 39
b) “the processor executes at least one instruction set” [1E.1] .......... 43
c) “not within the class of devices” [1E.3]. ........................................ 43
5. The combination discloses claim element [1F]. .................................. 44
a) file transfer process [1F.2] ............................................................. 44
b) “at least one other instruction set” [1F.1] ...................................... 46
c) appearance of the device as part of the class of devices [1F.3] ..... 46
6. The combination discloses claim limitation [1G]. .............................. 47
E. The combination renders claim 6 obvious. .................................................. 49
F. The combination renders claim 7 obvious. .................................................. 49
G. The combination renders claim 8 obvious. .................................................. 50
H. The combination renders claim 14 obvious. ................................................ 51
I. The combination renders claim 20 obvious. ................................................ 52
J. The combination renders claim 21 obvious. ................................................ 55
K. The combination renders claim 30 obvious. ................................................ 56
L. The combination renders independent claim 34 obvious. ........................... 58
1. The combination discloses “[a] method for analog data acquisition and interfacing to a host device wherein the host device includes a device driver” as recited in the preamble of claim 34 [34P]. ......................... 59
2. The combination discloses the “interfacing” step of claim 34 [34A]. 59
3. The combination discloses the “acquiring” step of claim 34 [34B]. .. 60
4. The combination discloses the “sending” step of claim 34 [34C]. ..... 61
5. The combination discloses the “transferring” step of claim 34 [34D].62
VI. Ground 2: The combination of Ard, Schmidt, Webb, and Araghi renders claims 4 and 11 obvious. ............................................................................. 64
A. The combination renders claim 4 obvious. .................................................. 64
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- iii -
B. The combination renders claim 11 obvious. ................................................ 65
VII. Ground 3: The combination of Ard, Schmidt, Webb, and Steinle renders claims 10 and 35 obvious. ........................................................................... 67
A. The combination renders claim 10 obvious. ................................................ 67
B. The combination renders claim 35 obvious. ................................................ 70
VIII. Ground 4: The combination of Ard, Schmidt, Webb, and Reisch renders claim 23 obvious. ......................................................................................... 72
IX. Conclusion. .................................................................................................. 73
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- iv -
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases: In re Papst Licensing Digital Camera Patent Litigation, 778 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................................................ 16 Martin v. Mayer, 823 F.2d 500 (Fed. Cir. 1987) .................................................................................. 10 Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ................................................................................ 18 PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................................ 10 Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ................................................................................ 10 Statutes: 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ................................................................................................. 5, 6 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ................................................................................................. 5, 6 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ................................................................................................. 5, 6
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- v -
EXHIBIT LIST
Ex. No. Description 1001 U.S. Patent 8,504,746 to Tasler 1002 Excerpts of File History of U.S. Patent 8,504,746 to Tasler 1003 Declaration of Dr. Erez Zadok in Support of Petition for Inter Partes
Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746 1004 Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Erez Zadok
1005–1006 Intentionally Left Blank 1007 The SCSI Bus and IDE Interface Protocols, Applications and
Programming, by Schmidt, First Edition, Addison-Wesley, 1995 1008 Intentionally Left Blank 1009 U.S. Patent No. 4,727,512 to Birkner 1010 U.S. Patent No. 4,792,896 to Maclean 1011 International Publication Number WO 92/21224 to Jorgensen 1012 Small Computer System Interface-2 (SCSI-2), ANSI X3.131-1994,
American National Standard for Information Systems (ANSI). 1013 Operating System Concepts, by Silberschatz et al., Fourth Edition. 1014 Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Third Edition, Microsoft Press,
1997. 1015 Intentionally Left Blank 1016 In re Papst Licensing Digital Camera Patent Litigation, 778 F.3d
1255 (Fed. Cir. 2015). 1017–1018 Intentionally Left Blank
1019 Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, Random House, 1996.
1020 Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6-15-cv-01095 (E.D. Tex.), Complaint filed November 30, 2015
1021–1023 Intentionally Left Blank 1024 Declaration of Scott Bennett 1025 Intentionally Left Blank 1026 U.S. Patent No. 4,698,131 to Araghi et al. 1027 Intentionally Left Blank 1028 U.S. Patent No. 5,706,216 to Reisch
1029-1030 Intentionally Left Blank
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- vi -
Ex. No. Description 1031 Plug-and-Play SCSI Specification, Version 1.0, dated March 30,
1994 (“PNP SCSI”) 1032 Intentionally Left Blank 1033 U.S. Patent No. 4,970,605 to Fogaroli et al. 1034 U.S. Patent No. 5,623,556 to Murayama et al. 1035 U.S. Patent No. 5,196,946 to Balkanski et al.
1036-1045 Intentionally Left Blank 1046 U.S. Patent No. 5,915,106 to Ard 1047 Intentionally Left Blank 1048 U.S. Patent No. 5,489,772 to Webb et al. 1049 German Patent Application DE 197 08 755 A1 to Tasler 1050 German Patent Application DE 197 08 755 A1 to Tasler (English
Translation) 1051-1053 Intentionally Left Blank
1054 Livingston, Brian “Windows 3.1 Secrets” (1992) 1055 RFC 1314, “A File Format for the Exchange of Images in the
Internet,” published April 1992, https://tools.ietf.org/pdf/rfc1314.pdf 1056 U.S. Patent No. 5,300,767 to Steinle et al. 1057 MacPaint Manual
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 1 -
Apple Inc. petitions for inter partes review of claims 1, 4, 6–8, 10, 11, 14, 20,
21, 23, 30, 34, and 35 of United States Patent No. 8,504,746 to Tasler (“the ʼ746
patent”). The ’746 patent claims priority benefit to a March 1997 German
application. However, the challenged claims recite limitations having no written
description support in the German application. Therefore, the earliest possible
priority date of the ’746 patent is the March 1998 filing date of the PCT application.
In the present petition, Apple presents an intervening reference, U.S. Patent
5,915,106 to Ard (“Ard”) filed after the German application date but before the
PCT application date. Apple demonstrates herein that a reasonable likelihood exists
that the challenged claims are unpatentable in view of the intervening Ard
reference.
The challenged claims recite an analog data acquisition device and associated
method. The device performs well-known tasks such as acquiring analog data,
digitizing the analog data, storing the digitized data in memory, and allowing
transfer of the digitized data to a host computer. The purported novelty of the ’746
patent is that, when attached to a host computer, the analog data acquisition device
identifies itself as “automatically caus[ing] at least one parameter indicative of the
class of devices” of which the device is not a member, such that for file transfer, the
“analog data acquisition device appears to the computer as if it were a device of the
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 2 -
class of devices.” (Ex. 1001, ’746 patent, claim 1.) This technique is commonly
referred to as emulation.
Devices that emulated a digital storage device (e.g., hard disk drives) and
used the existing storage device’s driver for communication with a host computer
were well known before the March 3, 1998 filing date of the PCT application to
which the’746 patent claims priority (“the PCT application.”). For example, Ard,
filed more than a year before the filing date of the PCT application, disclosed a
scanner that emulates a disk drive such that a “general purpose computer identifies
the scanner as a disk drive” and controls the scanner “via standard operating system
disk drive commands without utilizing a specifically developed device driver.”
(Ard, Abstract, 1:15–16.)
I. Mandatory notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)).
REAL PARTY IN INTEREST: The real party-in-interest of Petitioner is Apple
Inc. (“Apple”).
RELATED MATTERS: The ’746 patent is the subject of the following civil
actions.
Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6-15-cv-01095
(E.D. Tex.); Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al., Case
No. 6-15-cv-01099 (E.D. Tex.); Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. ZTE
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 3 -
Corporation et al., Case No. 6-15-cv-01100 (E.D. Tex.); Papst Licensing GmbH &
Co., KG v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd. et al., Case No. 6:15-cv-01102 (E.D. Tex.);
Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al., Case No. 6-
15-cv-01111 (E.D. Tex.); Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. Huawei
Technologies Co., Ltd. et al, Case No. 6:15-cv-01115 (E.D. Tex.); and In Re Papst
Licensing GmbH & Co., KG Patent Litigation, MDL No. 1880 (Misc. Action No.
07-493) relating to Nos. 07-cv-1118, 07-cv-1222, 07-cv-2086, 07-cv-2088, 08-cv-
865, 08-cv-985, 08-cv-1406, and 09-cv-530.
The ’746 patent is also the subject of the following Inter Partes Review
proceedings: Inter Partes Review by Canon Inc., IPR2016-01211 filed June 17,
2016; Inter Partes Review by Canon Inc., IPR2016-01224 filed June 17, 2016; Inter
Partes Review by JVC Kenwood Corporation, IPR2016-01213 filed June 17, 2016;
Inter Partes Review by Panasonic Corporation, IPR2016-01223 filed June 17, 2016;
Inter Partes Review by Olympus Corporation., IPR2016-01206 filed June 16, 2016;
and Inter Partes Review by Fujifilm Corporation, IPR2016-01200 filed June 14,
2016.
Additionally, Apple is filing additional petitions against claims of the ’746
patent.
No other matters related to the ’746 patent are known to the Petitioner.
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 4 -
LEAD AND BACKUP COUNSEL: Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) and
42.10(a), Petitioner appoints Lori A. Gordon (Reg. No. 50,633) as its lead counsel
and Steven W. Peters (Reg. No. 73,193) as its back-up counsel, and Yasser
Mourtada (Reg. No. 61,056) as its additional back-up counsel, all at the address:
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX, 1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Washington,
D.C., 20005, phone number (202) 371-2600 and facsimile (202) 371-2540.
SERVICE INFORMATION: Petitioner consents to electronic service by email at
the email addresses: [email protected], [email protected], and
II. Grounds for standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)).
The undersigned and Apple certify the ʼ746 patent is available for inter partes
review. Apple certifies it is not barred or estopped from requesting this inter partes
review on the grounds identified herein. The assignee of the ’746 patent, Papst, filed
a complaint against Apple alleging infringement of the ’746 patent on November 30,
2015. (Ex. 1020.) The present petition is being filed within one year of service of
Petitioner.
III. Identification of challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)).
A. Citation of prior art.
The ’746 patent claims priority through a series of applications to U.S. Patent
No. 6,470,399 which is the national stage of international application
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 5 -
PCT/EP98/01187, filed on March 3, 1998. The ’746 patent further claims priority to
a German application, filed on March 4, 1997. Apple demonstrates in Section IV.B
that none of the challenged claims are entitled to priority benefit of the German
application.1
Each of the following prior art documents applied in the grounds of
unpatentability were published prior to the PCT application date.
U.S. Patent No. 5,915,106 to Ard (Ex. 1046) is prior art under at least 35
U.S.C. §102(e) because it was filed on March 20, 1997.
The SCSI Bus and IDE Interface—Protocols, Applications and
Programming, by Friedhelm Schmidt (Ex. 1007), is prior art under at least 35
U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 102(b) because it was published in 1995. (See Ex. 1024.)
U.S. Patent No. 5,489,772 to Webb et al. (Ex. 1048), is prior art under at
least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), 102(b), and 102(e) because it was filed on November 14,
1994, and issued February 6, 1996.
1 Apple does not acquiesce that the ’746 patent is entitled to benefit of the
PCT application or any earlier filed continuation or divisional applications.
However, these priority determinations are not necessary for the purposes of the
present petition.
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 6 -
U.S. Patent No. 4,698,131 to Araghi et al. (Ex. 1026) is prior art under at
least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), 102(b), and 102(e) because it issued on October 6, 1987.
U.S. Patent No. 5,300,767 to Steinle et al. (Ex. 1056) is prior art under at
least 35 U.S.C. §§102(a), 102(b), and 102(e) because it issued on April 5, 1994.
U.S. Patent No. 5,706,216 to Reisch (Ex. 1028) is prior art under at least 35
U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 102(e) because it was filed on July 28, 1995.
B. Statutory grounds for the challenge.
Apple requests review of claims 1, 4, 6–8, 10, 11, 14, 20, 21, 23, 30, 34, and
35 on the following grounds:
References Basis Claims Challenged
Ard, Schmidt, and Webb § 103 1, 6–8, 14, 20, 21, 30, 34
Ard, Schmidt, Webb, and Araghi § 103 4, 11
Ard, Schmidt, Webb, and Steinle § 103 10, 35
Ard, Schmidt, Webb, and Reisch § 103 23
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 7 -
IV. The ’746 patent.
A. Overview.
The ’746 patent describes an interface device that enables communication
between a host device and a data transmit/receive device from which data is
acquired. (See ’746 patent, 1:20–24.) The patent acknowledges that such interface
devices were known. However, the patent alleges that these existing interfaces
traded high data transfer rates for host-device independence. (Id., 3:28–31.) For
example, in existing interfaces devices, high data transfer rates could be achieved
using host-specific interface devices; but, these interfaces were not suitable for use
with other types of host systems. (Id., 2:6–15.) In other alternative devices, host-
device independence was achieved through the use of standard interfaces; but these
interfaces required specific driver software that in turn, resulted in reduced data
transfer speed. (Id., 1:33–40.)
The ’746 patent discloses an interface device that purportedly overcomes
these limitations and “provides fast data communication between a host device with
input/output interfaces and a data transmit/receive device.” (Id., Abstract.) As
illustrated in Figure 1 reproduced below, the interface device 10 includes “[a] first
connecting device 12…attached to a host device (not shown) via a host line 11.”
(Id., 4:59–62.) The ’746 patent states “[t]he first connecting device is attached both
to a digital signal processor 13 and to a memory means 14” which, in turn, are
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 8 -
“attached to a second connecting device.” (Id., 4:62–67.) In some embodiments, the
second connecting device is “attached by means of an output line 16 to a data
transmit/receive device…from which data is to be read, i.e. acquired, and transferred
to the host device.” (Id., 4:67 to 5:4.)
The ’746 patent discloses techniques to make “the interface device appear[] to
the host device as a hard disk.” (Id., 6:2–3.) Specifically, the ’746 patent relies on a
known host system identification process: when a host device is booted, an inquiry
instruction as to devices attached to the host device is issued to the input/output
interfaces of the host device. (Id., 5:14–20.) When the interface device receives the
inquiry instruction, the interface device identifies itself, regardless of the type of
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 9 -
attached data transmit/receive device, as a customary input/output device to the host
device. (See id., 4:5–13.) Thus, the host device uses its customary driver for the
identified input/output device or a corresponding driver for a multi-purpose interface
to communicate with the interface device. (Id., 3:49–55.)
B. The challenged claims of the ’746 patent are not entitled to priority benefit of the March 1997 German application.
The ’746 patent is the national stage of international application
PCT/EP98/01187 filed on March 3, 1998. The ’746 patent further claims priority to
a German application filed on March 4, 1997. (Exhibit 1049). A certified translation
of the German application is provided as Exhibit 1050.
An international application designating the United States is entitled to
priority of a prior national application provided that the conditions of 35 U.S.C. §
120 are met. See 35 U.S.C. § 365(c). Section 120, in turn, requires the claims meet
the written description and enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112 in order to
obtain benefit of the earlier filing date. See 35 U.S.C. §§ 112 and 120. The
challenged claims of the ’746 patent are not entitled to priority benefit of the
German application because the German application does not provide written
description support for the challenged claims.
Each of the challenged claims requires the computer comprises “a
multipurpose interface.” (See ’746 patent, claim 1). Independent claim 1 further
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 10 -
specifies that the claimed analog data acquisition device is “operatively connectable
to a computer through a multipurpose interface of the computer.” Claim 1 also
recites “the processed and digitized analog data is stored in a file system of the data
storage memory as at least one file of digitized analog data.” The German
application fails to provide written description support for the claimed “multi-
purpose interface” of the computer and “stor[age] in a file system of the data
storage memory” of the analog data acquisition device.
To satisfy the written description requirement, the disclosure of the German
application must “convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of
the filing date sought, [the inventor] was in possession of the invention.” Vas-Cath
Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563–64 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Accordingly, the
written description must actually or inherently disclose the claim element.
PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Here, there is not a single reference in the written description of the German
application which suggests the inventor understood the invention to include a
“multipurpose interface” of the computer. Nor is the inclusion of a multipurpose
interface necessarily present in the German application. See Martin v. Mayer, 823
F.2d 500, 505 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (holding the written description requirement is “not a
question of whether one skilled in the art might be able to construct the patentee’s
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 11 -
device from the teachings of the disclosure…. Rather, it is a question whether the
application necessarily discloses that particular device”) (emphasis in original).
The chart below compares language from the German application and the
’746 application as filed (Exhibit 1002, pp. 223–245.) highlighting the concept of a
multipurpose interface and its associated drivers was specifically added as a new
embodiment, after the filing of the German application.
’746 Application As Filed German Application
“When the host device system with
which the interface device according to
the present invention is connected is
booted and a data transmit/receive
device is also attached to the interface
device 10,
usual BIOS routines or multi-purpose
interface programs issue an
instruction,
known by those skilled in the art as the
INQUIRY instruction,
to the input/output interfaces in the host
device.”
(Ex. 1002, p. 231, ¶23.)
“If the host device system with which
the interface device as per the present
invention is connected for which a data
sending/receiving unit is also linked to
the interface device 10, is booted,
normal BIOS routines output a
command
to each input/output interface available
in the host device
that is recognized among experts as an
“‘INQUIRY’ command.”
(Ex. 1050, p. 3.)
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 12 -
’746 Application As Filed German Application
“For persons skilled in the art it is
however obvious that the interface
device 10 is not necessarily signed on
when the computer system is powered
up
but that a special BIOS routine or a
driver for a multi-purpose interface
can also be started on the host device
during current operation of the
computer system in order to sign on or
mount the interface device 10 as an
additional hard disk.”
(Ex. 1002, p. 235, ¶32.)
“However, it is obvious for experts that
the interface device 10 is not
necessarily registered when switching
on the computer
rather than a special BIOS routine
can be started on the host device also
while the computer runs in order to
connect or “mount” the interface
device 10 as an additional hard disk.”
(Ex. 1050, p. 4.)
An important advantage of the
interface device 10 of the present
invention is that it also permits
extremely high data transfer rates by
using,
for data interchange,
the host device-own BIOS routines
which are optimized for each host
device by the host device manufacturer
“A significant advantage of the
interface device 10 of this invention
also consists of it enabling extremely
high data transfer rates and this already
by using
the host unit’s own BIOS routines,
which the manufacturer of the host unit
or BIOS system has optimized for each
host unit,
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 13 -
’746 Application As Filed German Application or BIOS system manufacturer, or by
using driver programs which are
normally optimized and included by
the manufacturers of multi-purpose
interfaces.
(Ex. 1002, p. 236, ¶34.)
for exchanging data.”
(Ex. 1050, p. 5.)
The inventor also did not recognize BIOS routines implementing SCSI
commands as a multi-purpose interface. (Zadok Decl., ¶171.) Rather, the inventor
understood such BIOS routines as providing a “classical input/output interface.” For
example, the ’746 patent includes the following disclosure not found in the German
application:
Multi-purpose interfaces comprise both an interface card
and specific driver software for the interface card. The
driver software can be designed so that it can replace the
basic input/output system (BIOS) driver routines.
Communication between the host device and the devices
attached to the multi-purpose interface then essentially
takes place by means of the specific driver software for the
multi-purpose interface and no longer primarily by
means of BIOS routines of the host device. Recently
however drivers for multi-purpose interfaces can also
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 14 -
already be integrated in the BIOS system of the host
device, as alongside classical input/output interfaces,
multi-purpose interfaces are becoming increasingly
common in host device.
(’746 patent, 3:53–65 (emphasis added).)
Thus, the inventor understood multi-purpose interfaces as a replacement for
BIOS routines integrating classical input/output interfaces. As such, the German
application does not explicitly or inherently disclose a multi-purpose interface.
Further, the ’German application fails to provide written description support
for storing the processed and digitized analog data in a file system of the data
storage memory. The German application (and the ’746 patent itself) includes no
mention whatsoever of any file system on the interface device. Instead, “the
interface device according to the present invention simulates a hard disk with a root
directory whose entries are ‘virtual’ files,” not actual files stored in an actual file
system. (’746 patent, 5:11–14; Ex. 1050, p. 3.) The German application also
mentions a file allocation table (FAT) but distinguishes an “actual drive” which
could include a FAT, from the interface device which merely simulates one. (See
’746 patent, 5:34–58; Ex. 1050, p. 3.) For example, for “communication between a
processor and a hard disk…, the processor transfer[s] to the hard disk the numbers
of the blocks or clusters or sectors whose contents it wishes to read.” (’746 patent,
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 15 -
6:17–21; Ex. 1050, p. 4.) Conversely, in the ’746 system, “communication between
the host device and the interface device…consists of the very fast transfer of block
numbers and preferably block number ranges because a virtual ‘real-time input’ file
will not be fragmented.” (’746 patent, 6:22–27; Ex. 1050, p. 4.) Thereafter, “[i]f the
host device now wants to read the ‘real-time input’ file, it transfers a range of block
numbers to the interface device, whereupon data commences to be received via the
second connecting device and data commences to be sent to the host device via the
first connecting device.” (’746 patent, 6:27–32; Ex. 1050, p. 4.) Thus, the data is
never stored as a file in a file system on the interface device.
Because the German application does not actually or inherently disclose the
“multipurpose interface” or “file system” limitations such that one skilled in the art
would recognize such a disclosure, the challenged claims are not entitled to priority
benefit of the ’746 German application. Accordingly, the earliest possible priority
date for purposes of this inter partes review proceeding is the March 3, 1998 PCT
application date.
C. Level of ordinary skill in the art.
Based on the disclosure of the ’746 patent, a person having ordinary skill in
the art at the relevant time, would have had at least a four-year degree in electrical
engineering, computer science, computer engineering, or related field of study, or
equivalent experience, and at least two years of experience in studying or
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 16 -
developing computer interfaces or peripherals and storage related software. (Zadok
Decl., ¶28.) A POSITA would also be familiar with operating systems (e.g., MS-
DOS, Windows, Unix), their associated file systems (e.g., FAT, UFS, FFS), device
drivers for computer components and peripherals (e.g., mass storage device drivers),
and communication interfaces (e.g., SCSI, USB, PCMCIA). (Id.)
D. Claim construction.
Except for the exemplary terms set forth herein, the terms are to be given their
plain and ordinary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art and
consistent with the disclosure. 2 Papst asserted patents in the family of the ’746
patent in several district court litigations. In addition, claim construction of certain
terms in related U.S. patent 6,470,399 was the subject of an appeal to the Federal
Circuit. In re Papst Licensing Digital Camera Patent Litigation, 778 F.3d 1255
(Fed. Cir. 2015). The Federal Circuit addressed the construction of five terms:
interface device, second connecting device, data transmit/receive device, virtual
files, and input/output device customary in a host device. Of these five terms,
2 Petitioner reserves the right to present different constructions in another
forum where a different claim construction standard applies.
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 17 -
Petitioner proposes3 to construe the term “data transmit/receive device.” The other
terms do not appear in any of the claims challenged in this Petition. The District
Court and Federal Circuit's claim construction analysis for this term is provided
below.
Claim term District Court CAFC
“data transmit/receive device”
“a device that is capable of either (a) transmitting data to or (b) transmitting data to and receiving data from the host device when connected to the host device by the interface device.” (Ex. 1016, p. 11.)
“need not be capable of communicating ‘when connected to the host device by the interface device.’” (Ex. 1016, p. 12.)
“data transmit/receive device” [claim 7]
Apple proposes to construe the term “data transmit/receive device” as “a
device capable of transmitting or receiving data.” This construction clarifies the
term is not limited to devices that both transmit and receive data—only one is
necessary under the broadest reasonable interpretation. This construction is
consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the term because the use of the “/”
3 Petitioner’s proposed claim constructions do not constitute an admission that
the claims are valid under 35 U.S.C. §112, and Petitioner reserves the right to
challenge the validity of the claims under §112 in other venues.
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 18 -
indicates alternatives. (See Ex. 1019, Websters, p. 2125 (defining “virgule” as “a
short oblique stroke (/) between two words indicating that whichever is appropriate
may be chosen to complete the sense of the text in which they occur”).) The
construction is also 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.” (’746 patent,
5:2–4.) Moreover, the portion of the district court’s interpretation under Phillips v.
AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) that the device “is capable of either (a)
transmitting data to or (b) transmitting data to and receiving data from the host
device” still stands after the Federal Circuit’s decision. (Ex. 1016, p. 11 (“the
parties’ dispute focuses on the ‘when connected’ portion of the court’s
construction”)).
V. Ground 1: The combination of Ard, Schmidt, and Webb renders claims 1, 6–8, 14, 20, 21, 30, and 34 obvious.4
A. Overview of Ard.
Ard identifies the same problem the ’746 patent purports to address:
“Typically, because peripherals are not standardized as to an interface protocol
between the peripheral and a host computer, one of the related software packages
4 A complete listing of challenged claims, including labels, is provided as
Appendix A.
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 19 -
that must be installed with a new peripheral device is a device driver.” (Ex. 1046,
Ard, 1:29–33.) Ard states that although “the installation of device drivers for a
specific peripheral device is not a particularly difficult problem, it is complicated by
a multitude of available peripheral devices, several available computer platforms
and related operating systems.” (Ard, 1:48–52.) To solve this problem, Ard
developed “a disk drive emulator attached to a peripheral device such that the
peripheral may be operated from a host computer as a disk drive without the need of
a device driver.” (Ard, 2:48–51.)
Ard discusses an image scanner as an example to illustrate its disk drive
emulator. (See Ard, 3:13–15.) Figure 5 of Ard (reproduced below) depicts this
illustrative disk drive emulating scanner. The disk drive emulating scanner couples
to a computer via a SCSI bus 4.
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 20 -
(Ard, Figure 5.) Ard’s scanner includes optics (e.g., CCD image sensor) that
acquires and generates analog signals from a plurality of independent imaging
pixels. (Ard, 6:7–10; Zadok Decl., ¶65.) The scanner digitizes the analog signals
resulting from the operation of the optics and stores the digitized signals as a file in
an image memory of the scanner. (Ard, 7:40–44.) The general purpose computer
interacts via SCSI bus 4 with the scanner “as if it is a disk drive” using “standard
disk drive commands” to read the file. (Ard, 2:60–61, 5:19–30, Figure 3.)
The system of Ard simplifies the installation of a peripheral device. The
installation process only requires a user to attach the disk drive emulating scanner to
the bus, turn the scanner on, and turn the computer on. (Ard, Figure 10, 8:51–54.)
Without any action by the user, the scanner automatically identifies itself as a disk
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 21 -
drive to the computer: “[w]hen attached to [the] SCSI bus... the disk drive emulating
scanner will be identified by [the] host computer as a disk drive, because the disk
drive emulator 41 provides electronic signals identical to those of a standard disk
drive.” (Ard, 8:54–58.) No additional steps are required to locate and install an
appropriate device driver on the computer. (Ard, 8:63–67.) Ard stresses its
installation “is far simpler than installation of a current industry standard peripheral
such as scanner 5 because additional steps are required for the current industry
standard including the location and installation of an appropriate device driver.”
(Ard, 8:63–67.)
B. Overview of Schmidt.
Schmidt provides details of the SCSI bus discussed in Ard “[a]lmost all
modern computers including PCs, workstations and mainframes are equipped with a
SCSI interface.” (Ex. 1007, Schmidt, End Cover.) Figure 9.1 of Schmidt,
reproduced below, illustrates “[a] simple SCSI configuration” where a host adapter
in a computer sends SCSI commands over a SCSI bus to a disk drive. (Schmidt, p.
80.)
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 22 -
One of the set of mandatory commands supported by a SCSI device is an
INQUIRY command that “requests that information regarding parameters of the
target and its attached peripheral device(s) be sent to the initiator.” (Schmidt, p. 88;
Zadok Decl., ¶68.) In response, a SCSI device provides, among other parameters, its
device class, which can include the disk drive class. (See Schmidt, p. 133, Table
12.1; see also p. 132.)
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 23 -
C. Overview of Webb.
Webb discloses details of the conversion of light to a digital signal in an
optical scanner such as the disk driver emulating scanner of Ard. (Zadok Decl., ¶
69.) Webb recognizes “various types of photosensor devices may be used in optical
scanners, [but] a commonly used sensor is the charge coupled device or CCD.” (Ex.
1048, Webb, 1:38–40.) Webb describes the operation of a CCD as “well known,”
stating “a CCD may comprise a large number of individual cells or ‘pixels,’ each of
which collects or builds-up an electrical charge in response to exposure to light.”
(Webb, 1:40–43.) The “CCD also includes an analog shift register to convert the
simultaneous or parallel data from the CCD cells into a sequential or serial data
stream.” (Webb, 1:51–55.) In Webb, “[t]he sequentially arranged charges from the
CCD cells may then be converted, one-by-one, into a digital signal by a suitable
analog-to-digital converter.” (Webb, 1:64–67.) Webb illustrates this “data sampling
and conversion circuit” in Figure 1 (reproduced below). (Webb, 3:57–59.)
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 24 -
D. The combination renders claim 1 obvious.
1. The combination discloses the “analog data acquisition device” recited in the preamble of claim 1 [1P].
The preamble of independent claim 1 recites the following two components:
[1P.1] An analog data acquisition device operatively
connectable to a computer through a multipurpose
interface of the computer,
[1P.2] the computer having [a] an operating system
programmed so that, when the computer [b] receives a
signal from the device through said multipurpose interface
of the computer indicative of a class of devices, the
computer [c] automatically activates a device driver
corresponding to the class of devices for allowing the
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 25 -
transfer of data between the device and the operating
system of the computer.
As set forth below, the combination of Ard, Schmidt, and Webb teaches or
suggests each of these components.
a) “analog data acquisition device”
Ard’s disk drive emulating scanner 6 is “[a]n analog data acquisition
device.” Scanner 6 acquires analog data via its “scanner optics 45, which includes,
for example, a Charge Coupled Device (CCD).” (Ard, 6:7–10; Zadok Decl., ¶71.)
Figure 3 of Ard has been annotated to highlight the mapping of the claim limitations
to the system. (Zadok Decl., ¶¶71–72.)
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 26 -
Ard’s scanner 6 is “operatively connectable to a computer” (general purpose
computer 2) through the SCSI card 17 via the SCSI bus 4. (Zadok Decl., ¶73.) Ard
does not describe the details of the SCSI bus or SCSI interface. Schmidt provides an
in-depth discussion of SCSI. A SCSI interface such as SCSI card 17 in the computer
of Ard is a “multi-purpose interface” because it is designed for use with multiple
devices that can have different functions from each other: “[t]he SCSI interface is a
device independent I/O bus, allowing a variety of devices to be linked to a computer
system using a single bus.” (Schmidt, p. 79; Zadok Decl., ¶73.) Thus, the
combination of Ard, Schmidt and Webb teaches an “analog data acquisition device
operatively connectable to a computer through a multipurpose interface of the
computer.”
b) Computer architecture/operation component
As Ard annotated Figure 3 illustrates, the general purpose computer 2
includes an operating system 7, thereby disclosing “the computer having an
operating system” [1P.2a]. (See Ard, 5:31–25; Zadok Decl., ¶74.)
The combination of Ard, Schmidt, and Webb teaches “the computer receives
a signal from the device through said multipurpose interface of the computer
indicative of a class of devices.” In Ard, “[w]hen attached to a SCSI bus…the disk
drive emulating scanner will be identified by a host computer as a disk drive,
because the disk drive emulator 41 provides electronic signals identical to those of a
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 27 -
standard disk drive.” (Ard, 8:54–58.) These signals communicated from the scanner
are “indicative of a class of devices”—the class of disk drives. (Zadok Decl., ¶74.)
Schmidt provides details of the signals used by SCSI disk drives, such as
Ard’s disk drive emulating scanner, to identify themselves as disk drives. In SCSI,
“[t]here are a number of commands that are common to all device types” and the
implementation of these commands “is mandatory.” (Schmidt, p. 138.) “INQUIRY”
is among these mandatory commands. (See Schmidt, p. 138, Table 12.10 (INQUIRY
command as Type “M”); p. 137, Table 12.8 (Type M commands as “Mandatory”
commands that “must be implemented”).) The SCSI INQUIRY command “can be
used to learn…the device type,” which is also called the “device class” or
“peripheral device type.” (Schmidt, p. 138; see also Table 12.12, pp. 139–40.)
Therefore, Ard’s process of misidentifying the scanner as a hard disk includes
receiving a SCSI INQUIRY from the general purpose computer.
Schmidt describes a device’s response to the INQUIRY command. (Schmidt,
pp. 139–41.) In response to an INQUIRY command, a SCSI device provides a
response including a five-bit “device class” or “peripheral device type.” (Schmidt,
pp. 139–40; see also p. 132 (“Table 12.1 shows an example of the data returned
from an INQUIRY command”).) As shown in Table 12.1, reproduced below, one
supported device class in SCSI is the “hard disk” class. (Schmidt, p. 133, Table
12.1.)
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 28 -
Ard’s scanner “emulates a disk drive” (Ard, Title) and “provides electronic
signals identical to those of a standard disk drive.” (Ard, 8:54–58.) Accordingly, it
would have been obvious to a POSITA that the general purpose computer 2 (“the
computer”) would receive a response to a SCSI INQUIRY command from the
scanner 6 indicating it is part of the disk drive class. (Zadok Decl., ¶77.) And, this
response would be provided over the SCSI bus through SCSI interface 17 (the
“multi-purpose interface”) of the general purpose computer. This response
constitutes the claimed “signal from the device through said multipurpose interface
of the computer indicative of a class of devices” [1P.2b]. (Id.)
The combination of Ard, Schmidt, and Webb also teaches or suggests that
when the general purpose computer receives the signal “the computer automatically
activates a device driver corresponding to the class of devices for allowing the
transfer of data between the device and the operating system of the computer.” As a
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 29 -
result of receiving the electronic signals provided by the scanner, the Ard disk drive
emulating scanner “will be identified by a host computer as a disk drive.” (Ard,
8:54–58.)
As a result of this identification, a POSITA would recognize the host
“automatically activates a device driver corresponding to the class of devices” (hard
disks). Ard stresses its installation process “is far simpler than installation of a
current industry standard peripheral. (Ard, 8:63–67.) The result of the installation
process of Ard is the activation of the SCSI device driver for the hard disk class.
(Zadok Decl., ¶79.) Ard uses the SCSI driver to “allow[] the transfer of data”:
“image data resulting from operation of the scanner optics 45 is directed by disk
drive emulator 41 to the memory 47 where the image data is stored as a file
accessible to the general purpose computer 2.” (Ard, 7:36–44.) Ard’s scanner
transfers the image filed to the computer: “Once saved as a file, the image data is
accessible to any application capable of reading image data.” (Ard, 7:57–58.)
Specifically, the image data is read by “opening [the] file” using “standard disk
drive commands” like “Open File.” (Ard, Figure 8, step 109, 5:25–30.) “The Open
File command directs the operating system to read a file stored on a storage device
and provide the data contained therein to the software application invoking the
command.” (Ard, 5:34–37.) And, this transfer is between the scanner and the
operating system of the general purpose computer: “the scanner parameters setup
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 30 -
program 11 and the graphics application 9 communicate with the disk drive
emulating scanner 6 via the SCSI driver 13, the operating system 7….” (Ard, 5:25–
31.)
2. The combination discloses the analog data acquisition device architectural limitations.
Independent claim 1 recites three architectural elements of the analog data
acquisition device: [1A] (1) a program memory, [1B] (2) an analog signal
acquisition channel for receiving a signal from an analog source, and [1C] (3) a
processor operatively interfaced with the multipurpose interface of the computer,
the program memory and a data storage memory when the analog data acquisition
device is operational. The combination teaches or suggests each of these
architectural elements.
a) “program memory” [1A]
As shown in Figure 5 (reproduced below), the disk driver scanner includes a
memory 47 having a setup program storage area 47A and a firmware storage area
47B. Setup program storage area 47A stores a “scanners parameters setup program”
through which scanner parameters and scanner commands can be entered. (Ard,
5:41–46, 5:58–59.) Firmware storage area 47B stores “a set of firmware
instructions” used in operating the scanner optics 45 of scanner 6. (Ard, 6:10–14.)
Thus, both storage areas 47A and 47B store “programs” and correspond to the
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 31 -
recited “program memory.” (Zadok Decl., ¶83.)
b) “an analog signal acquisition channel for receiving a signal from an analog source” [1B]
The scanner optics of Ard’s scanner include “a Charge Coupled Device
(CCD).” (Ard, 6:7–10.) A POSITA would have understood a CCD is an “analog
source.” (Zadok Decl., ¶85.) Figure 1 of Webb, annotated below, illustrates “a
schematic diagram of a data sampling and conversion circuit for…a CCD” such as
included in Ard’s scanner optics. (Webb, 3:56–58.)
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 32 -
Webb describes the “well-known” structure of a CCD:
As is well-known, CCD 14 includes n charge transfer
buckets Q1, Q2, Q3, through Qn, which sequentially
transfer the charges that were simultaneously collected
from each of the individual pixels in the CCD. A charge-
to-voltage converter 18 connected to the last charge
transfer bucket Q1 of CCD 14 converts the charge stored in
the last bucket Q1 into a voltage, which voltage is then
converted into a digital signal by an analog to digital
(A/D) converter 22.
(Webb, 4:6–14.) Because the input of the A/D converter 22 is analog, a POSITA
would have recognized the CCD is an “analog source.” (Zadok Decl., ¶85.) A
POSITA would further understand the path between the row of the CCD array 14
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 33 -
and the A/D converter 22 is “an analog signal acquisition channel for receiving a
signal from an analog source” because the analog data from the row of the CCD
array traverses this path before being received by the A/D converter which produces
the digital image data. (Id.)
c) The “processor” limitation [1C]
The combination of Ard, Schmidt, and Webb teaches or suggests the analog
data acquisition device includes “a processor operatively interfaced with the
multipurpose interface of the computer, the program memory, and a data storage
memory when the analog data acquisition device is operational” as recited in claim
1.
Ard’s disk drive emulator 41 receives and processes commands from
computer 2, and therefore constitutes the “processor.” In a first example, disk drive
emulator 41 processes an Open File command for the scanner parameters setup
program by performing a retrieval and a transfer: “the disk drive emulator 41
retrieves the scanner parameters setup program 11 from setup program storage area
47A and transfers the scanner parameters setup program 11 via the SCSI bus 4 to
the general purpose computer 2 for execution.” (Ard, 5:60–66.) In another example,
in response to a “Save File” from computer 2, the disk drive emulator 41 “saves the
scanner parameters 33 to a file in the memory 47” by retrieving the scanner
parameters 33 from the scanner parameters setup program 11. (Ard, 6:42–43; see
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 34 -
also 5:66–6:3.) Then, upon receiving “a File Open command from the SCSI bus 4
directed toward opening [the] file stored in the memory 47 containing the scanner
parameters 33,” the disk drive emulator 41 performs that process of “retriev[ing] the
file, and transfer[ing] the scanner parameters 33 contained therein to the scanner
control block 43.” (Ard, 6:49–54.) The scanner is operated in accordance with the
scanner parameters 33, and “the image data resulting from operation of the scanner
optics 45 is directed by disk drive emulator 41 to the memory 47 where the image
data is stored as a file accessible to the general purpose computer 2.” (Ard, 6:54–56,
7:41–44.) Thus, disk drive emulator 41 is a “processor” of disk drive emulating
scanner 6.
Figure 5 illustrates disk drive emulator 41 (“processor”) operatively
interfaces with the SCSI card 17 (“multipurpose interface of the computer”), storage
areas 47A and 47B (“program memory”), and the file storage area of memory 47
(“data storage memory”).
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 35 -
For example, the “disk drive emulator 41 receives Open File or Save File
commands sent from the general purpose computer 2 over the SCSI bus 4” which
connects scanner 6 to the SCSI card 17 of computer 2 (“multipurpose interface of
the computer”). Also, disk drive emulator 41 operatively interfaces with storage area
47A to retrieve the scanner parameters setup program 11, and with memory 47 to
store image data as a file in memory 47. (Zadok Decl., ¶91.)
In addition to storing “programs” in storage areas 47A and 47B, memory 47
stores image data files resulting from operating scanner 6. For example, Ard
discloses “image data resulting from operation of the disk drive emulating scanner 6
is directed to and saved as a file” residing “in the memory 47.” (Ard, 7:55–57, 7:62–
64.) Accordingly, memory 47 includes the recited “data storage memory.” (Zadok
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 36 -
Decl., ¶92.) And, Ard’s processor is “operatively interfaced with…a data storage
memory.” (Id.)
It would have been obvious to a POSITA the processor of Ard is “operatively
interfaced…when the analog data acquisition device is operational” because such
interfacing—which allows the acquisition, processing, saving, and transferring of
data—is part of what makes the measurement device operational. (Zadok Decl.,
¶93.) Indeed, the installation process of Ard requires the scanner and computer be
attached to the SCSI bus and turned on. (Ard, Figure 10.) Ard never discloses—or
has any reason to disclose—non-operational configurations. (Zadok Decl., ¶93; see,
e.g., Ard, 7:19–22 (“the disk drive emulator 41 operates the disk drive emulating
scanner 6 based on the parameters written to disk drive emulator 41 and
corresponding to the File Open command”) (emphasis added).)
3. The combination discloses the “data generation process” limitations [1D].
Independent claim 1 includes three data generation and processing [1D]
components:
[1D.1] wherein the processor is configured and
programmed to implement a data generation process by
which analog data is acquired from the analog signal
acquisition channel,
[1D.2] the analog data is processed and digitized, and
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 37 -
[1D.3] the processed and digitized analog data is stored in
a file system of the data storage memory as at least one
file of digitized analog data.
The combination teaches or suggests each of these data generation and
processing components.
a) “data generation process” [1D.1]
Ard discloses a “data generation process by which analog data is acquired
from the analog signal acquisition channel.” As established above, the combination
of Ard, Schmidt, and Webb discloses the scanner acquires analog image data from
the analog-to-digital converter via an “analog signal acquisition channel.” (Zadok
Decl., ¶95.) The process of scanning an image therefore constitutes the recited “data
generation process.” (Id.)
Ard teaches that “the disk drive emulator 41 operates the disk drive emulating
scanner 6 based on the parameters written to disk drive emulator 41 and
corresponding to the File Open command in step 67.” (Ard, 7:19–22.) The
parameters therefore “configure[]” the disk drive emulator 41 to implement the
scanning process. (Zadok Decl., ¶96.) Moreover, based on Ard’s disclosure the disk
drive emulator 41 “operates the…scanner,” and the understanding that the disk drive
emulator is a processor, it would have been obvious to a POSITA the disk drive
emulator 41 (“processor”) is “configured and programmed to implement” the
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 38 -
scanning process (“data generation process”). (Id.)
b) “analog data is processed and digitized” [1D.2]
The combination of Ard, Schmidt, and Webb teaches the “analog data is
processed and digitized” in the data acquisition process. Specifically, the analog
image data is collected into “charge transfer buckets…which sequentially transfer
the charges that were simultaneously collected from each of the individual pixels in
the CCD.” (Webb, 4:6–9.) The signal is then converted from a charge to a voltage
by “charge-to-voltage converter 18.” (Webb, 4:9–12.) The resulting analog voltage
signal passed through a hold circuit 20 “to act as a buffer.” (See Webb, 4:19–22.)
Accordingly, the “analog data is processed.”
The analog data obtained from the CCD is then passed to the A-to-D
converter for digitization. (See Webb, Figure 1, 4:12–14.) This converter would
digitize the analog data according to its conventional purposes. (Zadok Decl., ¶97.)
Thus, the “analog data is processed and digitized.”
c) “file system” [1D.3]
Image data corresponding to digitized analog data results from the scanning
operation. (Ard, 7:22–23.) Specifically, Ard states “image data resulting from
operation of the scanner optics 45 is directed by disk drive emulator 41 to the
memory 47 where the image data is stored as a file accessible to the general purpose
computer 2.” (Ard, 7:41–44.) It would have been obvious to a POSITA to store the
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 39 -
resulting file “in a file system” because file storage and retrieval was the main
purpose of file systems. (Zadok Decl., ¶98.) Furthermore, memory 47 constitutes
“data storage memory,” as shown above in Section 2, because it stores data. (See
Ard, 7:41–44.)
4. The combination discloses claim limitation [1E].
Independent claim 1 further includes three device recognition limitations:
e) [1E.1] wherein when the analog acquisition device is
operatively interfaced with the multipurpose interface of
the computer, the processor executes at least one
instruction set stored in the program memory and
[1E.2] thereby automatically causes at least one
parameter indicative of the class of devices to be sent to
the computer through the multipurpose interface of the
computer,
[1E.3] independent of the analog source, wherein the
analog data acquisition device is not within the class of
devices.
The combination teaches or suggests each of these device recognition limitations.
a) “parameter indicative of the class of devices” [1E.2]
The combination of Ard and Schmidt teaches or suggests that when the
scanner of Ard is operatively interfaced with the SCSI card 17 of the computer, the
disk drive emulator (“processor”) “automatically causes at least one parameter
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 40 -
indicative of the class of devices to be sent to the computer.” The system of Ard
simplifies the installation of a peripheral device. Specifically, as illustrated in Figure
10 below, the installation process only requires three actions by the user: attaching
the scanner 6 to computer 2 via SCSI bus 4, turning on the scanner 6, and turning on
computer 2. (Ard, Figure 10, 8:51–54.) The attaching of scanner 6 to computer 2 via
SCSU bus 4 operatively interfaces the scanner (“analog acquisition device”) with
the SCSI card 17 (“multipurpose interface of the computer”).
As discussed above relative to the preamble, Ard discloses that, “[w]hen
attached to a SCSI bus…the disk drive emulating scanner will be identified by a
host computer as a disk drive, because the disk drive emulator 41 provides
electronic signals identical to those of a standard disk drive.” (Ard, 8:54–58.) A
POSITA would recognize the electronic signals of Ard include “at least one
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 41 -
parameter indicative of the class of devices”—the class of disk drives. (Zadok Decl.,
¶101.)
Schmidt discloses the signals used by SCSI disk drives to identify themselves
as disk drives. In SCSI, “[t]here are a number of commands that are common to all
device types” and the implementation of these commands “is mandatory.” (Schmidt,
p. 138.) “INQUIRY” is among these mandatory commands. (See Schmidt, p. 138,
Table 12.10 (INQUIRY command as Type “M”); p. 137, Table 12.8 (Type M
commands as “Mandatory” commands that “must be implemented”).) The SCSI
INQUIRY command “can be used to learn…the device type,” which is also called
the “device class” or “peripheral device type.” (Schmidt, p. 138; see also Table
12.12, pp. 139–40.) Therefore, part of Ard’s process of misidentifying the scanner
as a hard disk would be to receive a SCSI INQUIRY from the general purpose
computer. (Zadok Decl., ¶102.) Schmidt supports this understanding, explaining that
the host SCSI adapter sends SCSI commands to devices such as Ard’s scanner. (See
Schmidt, p. 80, Figure 9.1.)
Schmidt provides detail about a device’s response to the INQUIRY
command. (Schmidt, pp. 139–41.) In response to an INQUIRY command, a SCSI
device provides a response including a five-bit “device class” or “peripheral device
type.” (Schmidt, pp. 139–40; see also p. 132 (“Table 12.1 shows an example of the
data returned from an INQUIRY command”).) Table 12.1, reproduced below,
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 42 -
shows one supported device class in SCSI is the “hard disk” class. (Schmidt, p. 133,
Table 12.1.)
Ard discloses that its scanner “emulates a disk drive” (Ard, Title) and
“provides electronic signals identical to those of a standard disk drive.” (Ard, 8:54–
58.) Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a POSITA that the scanner would
send a response to a SCSI INQUIRY command from the scanner 6 indicating the
scanner 6 is part of the disk drive class. (Zadok Decl., ¶104.) And, as discussed
above, the disk drive emulator would include a SCSI controller to interface with the
general purpose computer using SCSI commands. (See Ard, Figure 5; Schmidt,
Figure 9.1.) Thus, the disk drive emulator would “automatically cause” the response
to the SCSI INQUIRY command indicating the class of devices, and therefore
“automatically causes at least one parameter indicative of the class of devices to be
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 43 -
sent to the computer through the multipurpose interface of the computer.” (Zadok
Decl., ¶104.)
b) “the processor executes at least one instruction set” [1E.1]
As noted above, the disk drive emulator 41 (“the processor”) of scanner 6 is
involved in the process that “automatically causes at least one parameter indicative
of the class of devices to be sent to the computer.” Specifically, disk drive emulator
sends the “electronic signals identical to those of a standard disk drive.” (Ard, 8:57–
58.) Ard does not explicitly disclose “the processor executes at least one instruction
set stored in the program memory” to cause the “at least one parameter” to be sent
from scanner 6 to computer 2 during Ard’s installation process. However, a
POSITA would have appreciated that disk drive emulator 41 “executes at least one
instruction set” to cause the electronic signals to be sent to the host computer.
(Zadok Decl., ¶105.) Additionally, a POSITA would have further found it obvious
to store the “at least one instruction” in “program memory” such as setup program
storage area 47A or firmware storage area 47B because storing processor
instructions in a memory was a well-known implementation as of the PCT date.
(Zadok Decl., ¶105.)
c) “not within the class of devices” [1E.3].
In the combination, Ard’s scanner identifies itself as a hard disk despite the
inclusion of a specific SCSI device class for scanners, as shown above in Figure
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 44 -
12.1 of Schmidt. Accordingly, the “parameter” sent by the combination of Ard and
Schmidt would be “independent of the analog source.” Additionally, the scanner
(“analog acquisition device”) “is not within the class of devices” (hard disk drives).
(Zadok Decl., ¶107.)
5. The combination discloses claim element [1F].
Independent claim 1 further includes three file transfer limitations
[1F.1] wherein the processor is further configured and
programmed to execute at least one other instruction set
stored in the program memory to
[1F.2] thereby allow the at least one file of digitized
analog data acquired from the analog signal acquisition
channel to be transferred to the computer using the device
driver corresponding to said class of devices
[1F.3] so that the analog data acquisition device appears
to the computer as if it were a device of the class of
devices.
The combination teaches or suggests each of these device recognition limitations.
a) file transfer process [1F.2]
Ard discloses a file transfer process in which “at least one file of digitized
analog data acquired from the analog acquisition channel [is] transferred to the
computer using the device driver corresponding to said class of devices.” As
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 45 -
discussed above, scanner 6 sends electronic signals misidentifying itself as a hard
disk to computer 2 during installation. (Ard, 8:54–58.)
Subsequently, scanner 6 can be operated to scan an image and generate image
data, which is saved as a file in memory 47 of Ard’s scanner: “image data resulting
from operation of the scanner optics 45 is directed by disk drive emulator 41 to the
memory 47 where the image data is stored as a file accessible to the general purpose
computer 2.” (Ard, 7:36–44.) Ard’s scanner transfers the image file to the computer
“using the device driver corresponding to said class of devices”: “Once saved as a
file, the image data is accessible to any application capable of reading image data.”
(Ard, 7:57–58.) Specifically, the image data is read by “opening [the] file” using
“standard disk drive commands” like “Open File.” (Ard, Figure 8, step 109, 5:25–
30.) “The Open File command directs the operating system to read a file stored on a
storage device and provide the data contained therein to the software application
invoking the command.” (Ard, 5:34–37.) This command is received and handled by
the disk drive emulator (the recited “processor”). (Ard, 2:64–67 (“The disk drive
emulator translates Open File and Save File commands received from the host
computer”).) Thus, Ard discloses “the processor is further configured…to thereby
allow the at least one file of digitized analog data acquired from the analog signal
acquisition channel to be transferred to the computer.” (Zadok Decl., ¶110.)
Furthermore, the transfer is performed “using the device driver corresponding to
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 46 -
said class of devices”—the SCSI driver 13. (Ard, 5:25–30 (“the graphics application
9 communicate[s] with the disk drive emulating scanner 6 via the SCSI driver
13…”); see also Figure 3.)
b) “at least one other instruction set” [1F.1]
Ard does not explicitly disclose “the processor is…programmed to execute at
least one other instruction set stored in the program memory” to allow the file
transfer. As shown above, a POSITA would have appreciated that disk drive
emulator 41 “executes at least one instruction set stored in the program memory” to
cause the file transfer to the host computer. (Zadok Decl., ¶111.) A POSITA would
have further found it obvious to store the “at least one instruction” in “program
memory” such as setup program storage area 47A or firmware storage area 47B
because storing processor instructions in a memory was a well-known
implementation as of the ’746 PCT application date. (Id.)
c) appearance of the device as part of the class of devices [1F.3]
The file transfer process discussed in the previous section results in “the
analog data acquisition device appear[ing] to the computer as if it were a device of
the class of devices.” (Zadok Decl., ¶112.) Specifically, the operation of disk drive
emulator 41 makes the disk drive emulating scanner 6 appear as a disk drive
“because the disk drive emulator 41 provides electronic signals identical to those of
a standard disk drive.” (Ard, 8:54–58; Zadok Decl., ¶112; see also Ard, Figure 5,
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 47 -
2:59–61 (“Because the peripheral device has an attached disk drive emulator, the
host computer interacts with the peripheral device as if it is a disk drive”).)
6. The combination discloses claim limitation [1G].
Claim 1 requires that the processor causes the file transfer to occur “without
requiring any user-loaded file transfer enabling software to be loaded on or
installed in the computer at any time” [1G.4]. To transfer a file from Ard’s disk
drive emulating scanner 6, computer 2 uses the standard “Open File” disk drive
command. (Ard, Figure 8, step 109, 5:25–30, 5:31–37; Zadok Decl., ¶113.) “The
Open File command directs the operating system to read a file stored on a storage
device and provide the data contained therein to the software application invoking
the command.” (Ard, 5:34–37.)
Further, “any application capable of reading image data” can access the file
stored on scanner 6 using the “Open File” command. (Ard, 7:57–59, Figure 8.) As
of the ’746 PCT application date (March 1998), Ard disclosed “[a]ny application
capable of reading image data” included applications that did not require installation
on the computer of any “user-loaded file transfer enabling software.” (Zadok Decl.,
¶114.) Indeed, from at least the 1980s, computer systems shipped with
manufacturer-installed graphics applications. (Id.) These applications supported the
“Open File” command described in Ard. (Id.) For example, the Microsoft Paint
graphics program was included with Microsoft Windows in the 1980s. (Id.)
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 48 -
Similarly, MacPaint was included with Apple O/S from 1988. (Id, ¶¶114–115; see
also Ex. 1057.) Both Microsoft Paint and MacPaint supported the “Open File”
command. (Zadok Decl., ¶¶114–115.) Thus, the file transfer operation in Ard does
not require “any user-loaded file transfer enabling software to be loaded on or
installed in the computer at any time.” (Id., ¶116.)
Further, Ard discloses that files on scanner 6 can be accessed “via a link to an
icon displayed on a Program Manager.” (Ard, 6:67–7:1.) Program Manager is the
name of the graphical user interface shell of Windows 3.x operating systems.
(Zadok Decl., ¶¶117–118.) Thus, in Ard, the “Open File” command can be invoked
from a software application as well as directly from operating system software. (Id.,
¶119.) It would have been obvious to a POSITA, in light of Ard’s teachings, to use
an operating system program like Program Manager to access the data image file on
scanner 6 because Ard teaches that the scanner setup parameters program, another
file stored in scanner 6, can be accessed in this fashion. (Id.) The Program Manager
was conventionally used to access files stored on storage devices. (Id., ¶¶117–119.)
Under this additional file access approach, file transfer from scanner 6 also does not
require “any user-loaded file transfer enabling software to be loaded on or installed
in the computer at any time.” (Id., ¶119.)
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 49 -
E. The combination renders claim 6 obvious.
Ard teaches or suggests “the processor is adapted to be interfaced with the
multipurpose interface of an external computing device by means of a cable.” Ard’s
scanner 6 interfaces with SCSI card 17 (“multipurpose interface”) of computer 2
(“an external computing device”) via a SCSI bus 4. (Ard, Figure 3.) Ard discloses
that connection of scanner 6 to computer 2 occurs by means of a “connecting cable.”
(Ard 4:33–35; Zadok Decl., ¶120.) Further, cables were a conventional means for
connecting SCSI peripherals such as Ard’s scanner to a host computer. (Zadok
Decl., ¶120.) For example, the cover of Schmidt, which is titled “The SCSI Bus and
IDE Interface,” illustrates a number of cables. (Schmidt, Cover.)
Figure 5 of Ard further illustrates the SCSI bus 4 interacts directly with the
disk drive emulator 41 (“processor”). (Ard, Figure 5.) Thus, the combination of
Ard, Schmidt, and Webb teaches or suggests “the processor is adapted to be
interfaced with the multipurpose interface of an external computing device by means
of a cable.” (Zadok Decl., ¶120.)
F. The combination renders claim 7 obvious.
The combination teaches or suggests “the analog source comprises a data
transmit/receive device.” Ard’s CCD (“analog source”) comprises a data
transmit/receive device because it is a device that transmits data. (Zadok Decl.,
¶121.) Ard does not provide details of its CCD. Webb provides these details.
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 50 -
Describing the “well-known” operation of a CCD, Webb states that “charge transfer
buckets…sequentially transfer the charges that were simultaneously collected from
each of the individual pixels in the CCD,” the charge is converted to a voltage which
“is then converted into a digital signal by an analog to digital (A/D) converter.”
(Webb, 4:6–14.) It therefore would have been obvious to a POSITA that a CCD
“comprises a data transmit/receive device.” (Zadok Decl., ¶121.)
G. The combination renders claim 8 obvious.
The combination teaches or suggests “the analog source is designed for one
of one-way and two-way communication with the host device.”
Ard’s CCD (“analog source”) is designed for one-way communication.
(Zadok Decl., ¶123.) Webb discloses it “is well-known[] [that] CCD 14 includes n
charge transfer buckets Q1, Q2, Q3, through Qn, which sequentially transfer the
charges that were simultaneously collected from each of the individual pixels in the
CCD.” (Webb, 4:6–9.) After converting the charge to a voltage, the “voltage is then
converted into a digital signal by an analog to digital (A/D) converter 22.” (Webb,
4:9–14.) That is, the flow of analog data is from the CCD to the A/D converter in
Figure 1, reproduced below. (Zadok Decl., ¶123.)
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 51 -
H. The combination renders claim 14 obvious.
The combination teaches or suggests “the analog source includes at least first
and second transducers both of which are designed to transmit data.” Ard discloses
that scanner optics 45 includes a CCD, as shown above for claims 1, 7, and 8. A
POSITA would have understood that, “[a]s is well-known, a CCD may comprise a
large number of individual cells or ‘pixels,’ each of which collects or builds-up an
electrical charge in response to exposure to light.” (Webb, 1:40–43.) Each CCD
pixel constitutes a transducer designed to transmit analog data to its corresponding
transfer buckets. (Zadok Decl., ¶124 (citing Webb, 4:6–9) (“As is well-known, CCD
14 includes 11 charge transfer buckets Q1, Q2, Q3, through Q, which sequentially
transfer the charges that were simultaneously collected from each of the individual
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 52 -
pixels in the CCD.”).) Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA that Ard’s
CCD would include multiple CCD pixels (“at least first and second transducers”)
that “are designed to transmit data” to an transfer bucket and then to an A/D
converter. (Zadok Decl., ¶124.)
I. The combination renders claim 20 obvious.
The combination teaches or suggests “the processor is configured to initiate a
process by which the at least one file of digitized analog data is directly transferred
to an input/output device.” As shown above for claim 1, the combination of Ard,
Schmidt, and Webb discloses “wherein the processor is configured and
programmed to implement a data generation process by which analog data is
acquired from the analog signal acquisition channel, the analog data is processed
and digitized, and the processed and digitized analog data is stored in a file system
of the data storage memory as at least one file of digitized analog data.” Ard
discloses its memory 47 “may be implemented using any desired semiconductor
memory and/or as a disk drive.” (Ard, 7:38–40.) A disk drive is an “input/output
device” as recited in claim 20 of the ’746 patent. (Zadok Decl., ¶126.) Accordingly,
Ard discloses “a process by which the at least one file of digitized analog data is
directly transferred to an input/output device.” (Id.)
Claim 20 does not require the memory and input/output device be distinct
components of the analog data acquisition device. Nevertheless, even if it had such a
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 53 -
requirement, the claim would be obvious over the combination of Ard and Schmidt.
Ard discloses “image data resulting from operation of the disk drive emulating
scanner 6 is directed to and saved as a file.” (Ard, 7:55–57.) In one embodiment,
“the image data is directed to a file on the disk drive 23.” (Ard, 7:60–62.) This
embodiment is illustrated in Figure 7, which illustrates “a disk drive 23 [that] is
utilized to store image data generated from scan operations of the disk drive
emulating scanner 6.” (Ard, 7:26–28.) The disk drive 23 can also be “housed within
the disk drive emulating scanner 6.” (Ard, 7:33–35.)
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 54 -
The above analysis for claim 1 relied on Ard’s “alternative embodiment”
where the file is stored in a large memory to save storage files. (Ard, 7:62–64.) It
would have been obvious to a POSITA to combine that embodiment with the hard
disk embodiment illustrated in Figure 7 to provide the advantages of both
embodiments: large storage for files stored in the hard drive and faster access for
files stored in the memory. (Zadok Decl., ¶128.) Ard expressly shows the scanner
includes memory 47 even in the hard drive embodiment. (Ard, Figure 7.) Ard states
image data can be stored in memory 47 if there is “enough storage in memory 47.”
(Ard, 7:36–40.) It therefore would have been obvious to a POSITA to store image
data files in memory 47 until there was no longer “enough storage in memory 47”
(Ard, 7:36–40), at which point older image data files in memory 47 would be moved
to hard disk 23 for longer term storage. (Zadok Decl., ¶128.) Such a combination
discloses “a process by which the at least one file of digitized analog data is directly
transferred to an input/output device.” (Id.) Note that “the at least one file of
digitized analog data” must be “stored in a file system of the data storage memory”
per claim 1, and thus such storage cannot be precluded by the “directly transferred”
limitation of claim 20.
In either embodiment—whether the memory 47 is implemented as a hard
disk, or hard disk 23 is provided in addition to memory 47—it would have been
obvious to a POSITA for “the processor [to be] configured to initiate [the] process”
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 55 -
described above. (Zadok Decl., ¶129.) For the first embodiment, Ard teaches “image
data resulting from operation of the scanner optics 45 is directed by disk drive
emulator 41 to the memory 47 where the image data is stored as a file accessible to
the general purpose computer 2.” (Ard, 7:40–44.) Ard provides a nearly identical
disclosure for the second embodiment: “image data resulting from that operation is
directed by the disk drive emulator 41 to the disk drive 23 for storage in a file.”
(Ard, 7:28–31.) In either case, the disk drive emulator 41 (the recited “processor”)
directs the image data to storage. (Zadok Decl., ¶129.)
J. The combination renders claim 21 obvious.
The combination teaches or suggests that “the processor is configured to
allow a mode of operation of the analog data acquisition device other than the
transfer of at least some of the at least one file of digitized analog data to the
multipurpose interface to be controlled by means of an external personal computer.”
Ard discloses that the general purpose computer 2 (i.e., “an external personal
computer”) can control an upgrade of the contents of setup program storage area
47A. (See Ard, 6:21–25.) Specifically, “the setup program storage area 47A is
constructed from flash memory.” (Ard, 6:20–21.) Such a design allows “the contents
of the memory (i.e., the scanner parameters setup program 11, or applicable API)
[to] be upgraded via the general purpose computer 2.” (Ard, 6:21–25.) This upgrade
is “a mode of operation of the analog data acquisition device other than the transfer
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 56 -
of at least some of the at least one file of digitized analog data to the multipurpose
interface” because no portion of the digitized analog data file would be transferred
during such an upgrade. (Zadok Decl., ¶130.) It would have been obvious to a
POSITA that “the processor is configured to allow” this mode of operation because
the disk drive emulator (the recited “processor”) is situated between the SCSI
interface to the computer and the memory. (See Ard, Figure 5.)
K. The combination renders claim 30 obvious.
The combination teaches or suggests that “the device driver is installed with
the operating system such that communication between the computer and the analog
data acquisition device takes place by means of a device driver program which is
matched to the multi-purpose interface of the computer rendering the analog data
acquisition device host device independent.” The SCSI driver 13 of computer 2 is a
component of operating system 7. (See Ard, Figure 3 below.)
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 57 -
Ard suggests that the SCSI driver is “installed with the operating system.” (Zadok
Decl., ¶¶131–133.) As discussed above, Ard’s installation process merely requires a
user to attach the scanner to the SCSI bus and turn on the computer and scanner. No
additional user actions are required. And, Ard specifically eschews installation of a
driver, stating that its system “solves the problem in the prior art relating to locating
and installing an appropriate driver for a peripheral device.” (Ard, 5:19–21.)
In Ard, “the scanner parameters setup program 11 and the graphics
application 9 communicate with the disk drive emulating scanner 6 via the SCSI
driver 13…using standard disk drive commands Open File and Save File” (Ard,
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 58 -
5:25–30 (emphasis added)) and therefore “communication between the computer
and the analog data acquisition device takes place by means of” SCSI driver 13.
(Zadok Decl., ¶134.) To the extent that the recited “device driver program” is
construed to be distinct from the driver itself, the ’746 patent teaches that “driver
programs [] are normally optimized and included by the manufacturers of multi-
purpose interfaces” (’746 patent, 7:56–58), and therefore it would have been
obvious to include such a program along with SCSI driver 13 and the SCSI
interface. (Zadok Decl., ¶134.) Moreover, the SCSI driver 13 and associated “driver
program” would be “matched to the multi-purpose interface of the computer”
because they provide an interface and controller for SCSI card 17. (Id.) Because
“[b]oth Open File and Save File commands are standardized commands that can be
invoked by software applications executing in a computer environment based on any
standardized operating system” (Ard, 5:31–34), the configuration “render[s] the
analog data acquisition device host device independent.” (Zadok Decl., ¶134 (citing
Schmidt, p. 84 (“the goal of a device independent software interface was reached
with SCSI-2”).)
L. The combination renders independent claim 34 obvious.
Independent claim 34 shares overlapping claim limitations with independent
claim 1. The following section highlights differences between the independent
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 59 -
claims and demonstrates that the combination renders independent claim 34
obvious.
1. The combination discloses “[a] method for analog data acquisition and interfacing to a host device wherein the host device includes a device driver” as recited in the preamble of claim 34 [34P].
As shown above for claim limitations [1P] and [1D], the combination of Ard
and Schmidt teaches “[a]n analog data acquisition device operatively connectable
to a computer through a multipurpose interface of the computer” where the analog
data acquisition device implements a “process by which analog data is acquired,”
thus also teaching a “method for analog data acquisition and interfacing to a host
device” [34P]. (See Ard, 6:7–10, 7:19–22; Schmidt p. 79.) Further, as discussed
above for limitation [1P] that requires “the computer automatically actives a device
driver,” Ard’s computer includes a SCSI driver (“device driver”). (Ard, 8:54–58.)
Thus, the combination also teaches the “host device includes a device driver.”
2. The combination discloses the “interfacing” step of claim 34 [34A].
Claim 34 further recites the following architectural limitation:
[34A] operatively interfacing a data acquisition device,
including a processor and a memory, with a multi-purpose
interface of the host device.
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 60 -
This limitation is substantially similar to a portion of limitation [1P] that recites “an
analog data acquisition device operatively connectable to a computer through a
multipurpose interface of the computer.” Thus, for the reasons discussed in Section
V(D)(1), the combination also teaches “operatively interfacing a data acquisition
device…with a multi-purpose interface of the host device” [34A]. (See Ard, Figure
3; Schmidt, p. 79.) And, as established above for claim limitations [1A] and [1C],
the analog acquisition device comprises “a program memory” and “a processor.”
(See Ard, Figure 5.) Accordingly, the combination of Ard, Schmidt, and Webb
discloses “operatively interfacing a data acquisition device, including a processor
and a memory, with a multi-purpose interface of the host device.”
3. The combination discloses the “acquiring” step of claim 34 [34B].
Claim 34 further recites the following acquisition and processing limitation:
[34B] acquiring analog data from an analog source,
processing and digitizing the analog data, and storing the
processed and digitized analog data in the memory as
digitized analog data under control of the processor.
The acquisition and processing limitation of claim 34 is substantially the
same as limitation [1D] that recites: “wherein the processor is configured and
programmed to implement a data generation process by which analog data is
acquired from the analog signal acquisition channel, the analog data is processed
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 61 -
and digitized, and the processed and digitized analog data is stored in a file system
of the data storage memory as at least one file of digitized analog data.” For the
reasons discussed in Section V(D)(3), the combination of Ard, Schmidt, and Webb
also teaches or suggests “acquiring analog data from an analog source, processing
and digitizing the analog data, and storing the processed and digitized analog data
in the memory as digitized analog data under control of the processor.” (See Webb,
Figure 1, 4:6–22; Ard, Figure 5.)
4. The combination discloses the “sending” step of claim 34 [34C].
Although worded slightly differently, the subject matter of claim limitation
[34C] is substantively similar to limitation [1E], discussed above in Section
V(D)(4). The following table highlights the similarities between the claims:
Claim limitation [1E] Claim limitation [34C]
…the processor executes at least one
instruction set stored in the program
memory and thereby automatically
causes at least one parameter
indicative of the class of devices to be
sent to the computer through the
multipurpose interface of the
computer, independent of the analog
source, wherein the analog data
automatically sending under control of
the processor at least one parameter to
the multi-purpose interface of the host
device, the at least one parameter
identifying the analog data acquisition
device as a digital device instead of as an
analog data acquisition device,
regardless of the analog source
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 62 -
acquisition device is not within the class
of devices
As explained above in relation to claim 1, the combination automatically sends a
response to an INQUIRY command indicative of and identifying itself as the hard
disk class in the SCSI standard. A POSITA would have understood that hard disks
are “digital device[s].” Accordingly, the combination of Ard, Schmidt, and Webb
teaches or suggests claim limitation [34C]. (Zadok Decl., ¶142.)
5. The combination discloses the “transferring” step of claim 34 [34D].
Although worded slightly differently, the subject matter of claim limitation
[34D] is substantively similar to limitation [1F], discussed above in Section
V(D)(5). The following table highlights the similarities between the claims:
Claim limitations [1F] and [1G] Claim limitation [34D]
wherein the processor is further
configured and programmed to execute
at least one other instruction set stored in
the program memory to thereby allow
the at least one file of digitized analog
data acquired from the analog signal
acquisition channel to be transferred
to the computer using the device
driver corresponding to said class of
devices so that the analog data
automatically transferring data from
the analog source to the host device in
response to a digital data read command
from the host device, in a manner that
causes the analog data acquisition device
to appear to be a digital device instead of
as an analog data acquisition device,
while using the device driver to perform
the automatic transfer of the acquired
digitized analog data to the host device
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 63 -
acquisition device appears to the
computer as if it were a device of the
class of devices;
whereby there is no requirement for any
user-loaded file transfer enabling
software to be loaded on or installed in
the computer in addition to the operating
system
without requiring any user-loaded file
transfer enabling software to be loaded
on or installed in the host device
Limitation [34D] differs from [1F] in that the data in [34D] is not limited to a file,
but the data transfer is automatic. However, [34D] does not preclude a data file, and
therefore the above analysis [1F] applies to [34D]. Furthermore, as explained for
limitation [1F], Ard discloses that “the processor is further configured…to thereby
allow the at least one file of digitized analog data acquired from the analog signal
acquisition channel to be transferred to the computer.” This transfer is
“automatic[]…in response to a digital data read command from the host device” as
recited in limitation [34D]: “upon receiving a File Open command directed toward
the opening of a file thus saved, the disk drive emulating scanner performs a scan in
accordance with the saved parameters and transfers image data resulting therefrom
to the general purpose computer as if the file were being opened.” (Ard, 6:43–48.)
Accordingly, the combination of Ard, Schmidt, and Webb teaches or suggests claim
limitation [34D]. (Zadok Decl., ¶143.)
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 64 -
VI. Ground 2: The combination of Ard, Schmidt, Webb, and Araghi renders claims 4 and 11 obvious.
A. The combination renders claim 4 obvious.
The combination teaches or suggests that “the analog data acquisition device
is designed so that the analog source is detachable.” As discussed in above, Ard’s
scanner 6 includes a CCD image sensor (“analog source”). The CCD image sensor
is part of scanner optics 45 of scanner 20 and is thus “attached” to components of
scanner 6. (Ard, Figure 5, 6:7–8; Zadok Decl., ¶146.)
Ard does not explicitly disclose that scanner 6 is configured such that the
CCD image sensor, or a portion thereof, is “detachable” from scanner 6. However,
in a related field of endeavor, Araghi teaches a CCD image sensor array “composed
of a plurality of small sensor arrays…butted together end to end.” (Araghi, 2:45–48;
see also 1:13–20, 1:38–42.) The small arrays “comprise Charge Coupled Device or
CCD or NMOS type arrays.” (Araghi, 2:55–60.) The arrays “are fabricated…for
easy repairability.” (Araghi, 2:55–60.) Specifically, an array can be detached by
applying “local heating…to the array to free the defective array from surface 8 of
substrate 7 and from neighboring arrays 5b and 5d.” (Araghi, 4:54–61.)
A POSITA would have found it obvious to implement the sensor array in
Ard’s CCD image sensor using the same fabrication techniques disclosed by Araghi
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 65 -
so that the sensor array can be easily detached and replaced when defective,
increasing the useful lifetime of Ard’s scanner 6. (Zadok Decl., ¶148.)
B. The combination renders claim 11 obvious.
The combination teaches or suggests that “the processor allows for a plurality
of different data transmit devices to be attached thereto and detached therefrom.”
Figure 7 of Ard below illustrates an embodiment where the disk drive emulator 41
connects to a disk drive 23 via SCSI bus 4.
Disk drive 23 is a “data transmit receive device” because it both transmits and
receives data to the disk drive emulator as illustrated by the bidirectional arrow
between the disk drive 23 and the disk drive emulator 41. (Zadok Decl., ¶150.) For
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 66 -
example, “[w]hen the scanner optics 45 are operated in accordance with the scanner
parameters 33, image data resulting from that operation is directed by the disk drive
emulator 41 to the disk drive 23 for storage in a file.” (Ard, 7:28–31.) In that case,
the disk drive receives image data from disk drive emulator 41. (Zadok Decl., ¶150.)
Conversely, “the image data can be read from the disk drive 23 like any other file
stored on a disk drive” (Ard, 7:32–33), in which case the disk drive transmits image
data to the disk drive emulator 41. (Zadok Decl., ¶150.)
It would have been obvious to a POSITA that disk drive 23 could be attached
or detached. (Zadok Decl., ¶151.) As shown above for claim 6, the use of cables to
connect SCSI devices was conventional before the earliest possible priority date of
the ’746 patent. Schmidt discloses that “[t]he SCSI bus is from 8 to 32 bits wide”
and that “[a] simple 50-pin ribbon cable can be used for the 8-bit bus.” (Schmidt, p.
80.) Even the cover of Schmidt, which is titled “The SCSI Bus and IDE Interface,”
illustrates a number of cables. (Schmidt, Cover.) A POSITA would have understood
that a SCSI cable allows for a peripheral to be attached or detached from the bus.
(Zadok Decl., ¶151.) Accordingly, the disk drive emulator 41 allows the disk drive
23 (a “data transmit device[]”) “to be attached thereto and detached therefrom.”
(Zadok Decl., ¶151.)
Disk drive emulator 41 is also connected to scanner optics 45, which include
the CCD elements. (See Ard, Figure 7; Zadok Decl., ¶152.) As shown above relative
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 67 -
to claim 4, the combination discloses that “the analog data acquisition device is
designed so that the analog source is detachable” because Araghi discloses
detachable CCD elements. Moreover, the discussion relative to claim 7
demonstrates that Ard’s CCD is a data transmit device. Accordingly, the disk drive
emulator 41 allows the CCD “to be attached thereto and detached therefrom.”
(Zadok Decl., ¶152.)
Because both disk drive 23 and the CCD are “data transmit devices” that are
connected to the disk drive emulator 41, the combination of Ard, Schmidt, Webb,
and Araghi discloses “wherein the processor allows for a plurality of different data
transmit devices to be attached thereto and detached therefrom” as recited in claim
11, and this claim is therefore obvious in view of this combination.
VII. Ground 3: The combination of Ard, Schmidt, Webb, and Steinle renders claims 10 and 35 obvious.
A. The combination renders claim 10 obvious.
The combination teaches or suggests “a plurality of independent analog
signal acquisition channels, each of the plurality of channels operatively coupled to
the processor for operatively coupling to one of a plurality of analog sources such
that analog data is simultaneously acquired from at least two of the plurality of
channels, is digitized and is coupled into the processor and is processed by the
processor.”
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 68 -
As discussed above relative to claims 1, 7, and 8, Ard’s scanner optics
include a CCD, which a POSITA would understand to include an “analog signal
acquisition channel for receiving a signal from an analog source.” (Zadok Decl.,
¶155.)
The combination of Ard and Webb does not disclose the details of the CCD
or that a CCD can have multiple CCD arrays. Steinle discloses that a scanner can
comprise multiple CCD arrays to produce different color measurements in a color
scanner. (Zadok Decl., ¶¶155–156.) Steinle states, in its background section, that
“[o]ptical scanners operate by imaging an object and then separating the imaging
light into its spectral components, typically red, green, and blue.” (Ex. 1056,
Steinle, 1:15–17.) The “[s]eparate color component images are sensed by different
optical sensor arrays which each generate a signal representative of the associated
color component image which is sensed.” (Steinle, 1:17–20.) Specifically, “[t]hree-
line CCD units which have different color filters deposited directly on the linear
CCD arrays are known in the art and are commercially available.” (Steinle, 2:22–
24.) Based on these disclosures, it would have been obvious to a POSITA to
implement the CCD of the combined system of Ard and Webb as a three-line CCD
unit, each capturing light from a separate portion of the visible light spectrum (e.g.,
red, green, blue). (Zadok Decl., ¶156.) Because Webb discloses that a CCD line is
paired with an A/D converter (see Webb, Figure 1), it would have been obvious to
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 69 -
design the combined system such that signals from a three-line CCD would be
processed separately through different A/D circuits. (Id.) In such a system, the
channels connecting the arrays to the A/D circuits constitute “a plurality of
independent analog signal acquisition channels” as recited in claim 10. (Id.)
Steinle further discloses that “a three-line CCD (charge coupled device)
photosensor unit [] is used to simultaneously sense red, green and blue imaging
light from the scanned object.” (Steinle, 1:47–50.) It would have been obvious,
therefore, that in the combined system the signals from the multiple lines would be
“simultaneously acquired from…the plurality of channels.” (Zadok Decl., ¶157.)
In the combination of Ard, Schmidt, Webb, and Steinle, the plurality of
channels are part of the scanner optics, which are “operatively coupled to the” disk
drive emulator 41 via scanner control block. This combination is illustrated in the
annotated figure below, which combines Ard Figure 5 with Webb Figure 1 and
Steinle Figure 2.
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 70 -
(Zadok Decl., ¶¶157–158.) This coupling is “for cooperatively coupling to one of a
plurality of analog sources”—the three CCD arrays because the data from the
CCDs is “digitized” into image data, which “is transferred from the scanner via the
disk drive emulator” (Ard, Abstract), and therefore “is coupled into the processor
and is processed by the processor” as recited in claim 10. (Zadok Decl., ¶158.)
B. The combination renders claim 35 obvious.
Claim 35 is substantively similar to claim 10, discussed above in the previous
section. The following table highlights the similarities between the claims:
Claim 10 Claim 35
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 71 -
The analog data acquisition device of
claim 1 further comprising a plurality of
independent analog signal acquisition
channels, each of the plurality of
channels operatively coupled to the
processor for operatively coupling to one
of a plurality of analog sources such that
analog data is simultaneously acquired
from at least two of the plurality of
channels, is digitized and is coupled
into the processor and is processed by
the processor.
The method of claim 34, further
comprising simultaneously acquiring the
analog data from each respective analog
channel of a plurality of respective
independent acquisition channels under
control of the processor and acquiring
analog data from the analog source time
independent of transferring the acquired
analog data to the host device.
As shown above for claim 10, the combination teaches or suggests “a plurality of
independent analog signal acquisition channels” and that “analog data is
simultaneously acquired from at least two of the plurality of channels.” Thus, the
combination also teaches or suggests “simultaneously acquiring the analog data
from each respective analog channel of a plurality of respective independent
acquisition channels.” (Zadok Decl., ¶160.) As discussed in Section V(D)(3) for
limitation [1D], the combination of Ard, Schmidt, and Webb teaches or suggests
that “the processor is configured and programmed to implement a data generation
process by which analog data is acquired from the analog signal acquisition
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 72 -
channel,” and therefore it would have been obvious for the acquisition in claim 35
to be “under control of the processor.” (Id., ¶161.)
Ard further discloses “acquiring analog data from the analog source time
independent of transferring the acquired analog data to the host device” because, as
shown above for limitation [1D], the disk drive emulating scanner 6 creates a file
from the image data and stores it until it receives a request to read the file from the
general purpose computer 2. (See Ard, Figure 8, 7:55–59.)
VIII. Ground 4: The combination of Ard, Schmidt, Webb, and Reisch renders claim 23 obvious.
The combination teaches or suggests that “the analog data is processed by
being subject to a fast Fourier transform.” Neither Ard, Schmidt, nor Webb
explicitly discloses that a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) is applied onto the digital
image file resulting from operating scanner 6 (“the digitized analog data”).
However, in a related field of endeavor, Reisch discloses that “[i]mage processing
can occur in either the spatial domain or the frequency domain.” (Ex. 1028, Reisch,
1:14–15.) “Spatial image data points may be transformed to frequency space using
transformations such as Fourier transform or discrete cosine transforms (DCT).”
(Reisch, 1:38–40.) Further, such transformations can be used for image compression
like JPEG. (See, e.g., Reisch, 1:58–67.)
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
- 73 -
A POSITA would have found it obvious to modify Ard, Schmidt, and Webb
according to Reisch to allow for frequency domain image processing techniques,
including image compression, to be performed on Ard’s digital image file. (Zadok
Decl., ¶167.) For example, the techniques can be applied to provide the digital
image file in different image formats, such as JPEG as taught by Reisch or TIF as
taught by Ard. (Reisch, 1:58–67; Zadok Decl., ¶¶164–168.) A POSITA would also
have found it obvious to provide an FFT implementation in Ard’s scanner 20 to
support frequency domain image processing techniques. (Zadok Decl., ¶167.) As
noted by Reisch, “[s]patial image data points may be transformed to frequency
space using transformations such as Fourier transform or discrete cosine transforms
(DCT).” (Reisch, 1:38–40.) The DCT is a reduced version of a Discrete Fourier
Transform (DFT) that includes only the real components of the DFT. (Zadok Decl.,
¶166.) Thus, an FFT can be used to derive both a DFT and a DCT. (Id., ¶¶163, 166)
Accordingly, by implementing an FFT, both a DFT and a DCT transformation can
be performed efficiently using the same algorithm/circuitry. (Id., ¶¶166–168.) A
POSITA would have been motivated to employ such an implementation to support
the frequency domain processing techniques. (Id., ¶168.)
IX. Conclusion.
For the reasons provided above, inter partes review of the challenged claims
is requested.
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
Respectfully submitted,
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & Fox P.L.L.C.
Lori A. Gordon Registration No. 50,633 Attorney for Petitioner
Date: October 11, 2016
1100 New York Avenue, N. W. Washington, D.C. 20005-3934 (202) 371-2600
-74-
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
APPENDIX A - LISTING OF CHALLENGED CLAIMS
1. [1P.1] An analog data acquisition device operatively connectable to a
computer through a multipurpose interface of the computer,
[1P.2] the computer having
I1P.2a1 an operating system programmed so that, when the computer
I1P.2b1 receives a signal from the device through said multipurpose interface
of the computer indicative of a class of devices,
[1P.2c] the computer automatically activates a device driver corresponding to
the class of devices for allowing the transfer of data between the device and the
operating system of the computer,
[1P.3] the analog data acquisition device comprising:
[A] a) a program memory;
[I BI b) an analog signal acquisition channel for receiving a signal from an
analog source;
[1C] c) a processor operatively interfaced with the multipurpose interface of
the computer, the program memory, and a data storage memory when the analog
data acquisition device is operational;
[11).11 d) wherein the processor is configured and programmed to implement
a data generation process by which analog data is acquired from the analog signal
acquisition channel,
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
[1D.21 the analog data is processed and digitized, and
[1D.31 the processed and digitized analog data is stored in a file system of the
data storage memory as at least one file of digitized analog data;
[1E.1] e) wherein when the analog acquisition device is operatively interfaced
with the multipurpose interface of the computer, the processor executes at least one
instruction set stored in the program memory and
[1E.21 thereby automatically causes at least one parameter indicative of the
class of devices to be sent to the computer through the multipurpose interface of the
computer,
[1E.31 independent of the analog source, wherein the analog data acquisition
device is not within the class of devices; and
[1F.1] f) wherein the processor is further configured and programmed to
execute at least one other instruction set stored in the program memory to
[1F.21 thereby allow the at least one file of digitized analog data acquired
from the analog signal acquisition channel to be transferred to the computer using
the device driver corresponding to said class of devices
[1F.31 so that the analog data acquisition device appears to the computer as if
it were a device of the class of devices;
Petition for Inter Panes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
II 1 F.4 1 whereby there is no requirement for any user-loaded file transfer
enabling software to be loaded on or installed in the computer in addition to the
operating system.
4. The analog data acquisition device of claim 1, wherein the analog data
acquisition device is designed so that the analog source is detachable.
6. The analog data acquisition device of claim 1, wherein the processor is
adapted to be interfaced with the multi-purpose interface of an external computing
device by means of a cable.
7. The analog data acquisition device of claim 1, wherein the analog source
comprises a data transmit/receive device.
8. The analog data acquisition device of claim 7, wherein the analog source is
designed for one of one-way and two-way communication with the host device.
10. The analog data acquisition device of claim 1 further comprising a
plurality of independent analog signal acquisition channels, each of the plurality of
channels operatively coupled to the processor for operatively coupling to one of a
plurality of analog sources such that analog data is simultaneously acquired from at
least two of the plurality of channels, is digitized and is coupled into the processor
and is processed by the processor.
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
11. The analog data acquisition device of claim 1, wherein the processor
allows for a plurality of different data transmit devices to be attached thereto and
detached therefrom.
14. The analog data acquisition device of claim 1, wherein the analog source
includes at least first and second transducers both of which are designed to transmit
data.
20. The analog data acquisition device of claim 1, wherein the processor is
configured to initiate a process by which the at least one file of digitized analog data
is directly transferred to an input/output device.
21. The analog data acquisition device of claim 20, wherein the processor is
configured to allow a mode of operation of the analog data acquisition device other
than the transfer of at least some of the at least one file of digitized analog data to
the multipurpose interface to be controlled by means of an external personal
computer.
23. The analog data acquisition device of claim 1, wherein the analog data is
processed by being subject to a fast Fourier transform.
30. The analog data acquisition device of claim 1 wherein the device driver is
installed with the operating system such that communication between the computer
and the analog data acquisition device takes place by means of a device driver
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
program which is matched to the multi-purpose interface of the computer rendering
the analog data acquisition device host device independent.
34. [34P] A method for analog data acquisition and interfacing to a host
device wherein the host device includes a device driver, comprising:
1134A1 operatively interfacing a data acquisition device, including a processor
and a memory, with a multi-purpose interface of the host device;
[34B] acquiring analog data from an analog source, processing and digitizing
the analog data, and storing the processed and digitized analog data in the memory
as digitized analog data under control of the processor;
134CJ automatically sending under control of the processor at least one
parameter to the multi-purpose interface of the host device, the at least one
parameter identifying the analog data acquisition device as a digital device instead
of as an analog data acquisition device, regardless of the analog source; and
134D1 automatically transferring data from the analog source to the host
device in response to a digital data read command from the host device, in a manner
that causes the analog data acquisition device to appear to be a digital device instead
of as an analog data acquisition device, while using the device driver to perform the
automatic transfer of the acquired digitized analog data to the host device
[34D.11 without requiring any user-loaded file transfer enabling software to
be loaded on or installed in the host device.
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
35. The method of claim 34, further comprising simultaneously acquiring the
analog data from each respective analog channel of a plurality of respective
independent acquisition channels under control of the processor and acquiring
analog data from the analog source time independent of transferring the acquired
analog data to the host device.
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE (37 C.F.R. 42.6(e), 42.105(a))
The undersigned hereby certifies that on October 11, 2016, true and correct
copies of the foregoing PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S.
PATENT NO. 8,504,746, the accompanying Power of Attorney, and all associated
exhibits were served in their entirety on the following parties via FedExfi:
Schmeister, Olsen & Watts 2500 Westchester Avenue, Suite 210
Purchase, NY 10577 PAIR Correspondence Address for US.P.N. 8,504, 746
Christopher V. Goodpastor Andrew G. DiNovo
DiNovo Price Eliwanger & Hardy LLP 7000 N. MoPac Expressway, Suite 350
Austin, Texas 78731
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & Fox P.L.L.C.
L 1 A. Gor on, Reg. No. 50,633 Attorney for Petitioner
Date: October 11, 2016
1100 New York Avenue, N. W. Washington, D.C.20005-3934 (202) 371-2600
Petition for Inter Panes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH TYPE-VOLUME LIMITATION, TYPEFACE REQUIREMENTS, AND TYPE STYLE REQUIREMENTS
1. This Petition complies with the type-volume limitation of 14,000
words, comprising 13,961 words, excluding the parts exempted by 37 C.F.R.
§ 42.24(a).
2. This Petition complies with the general format requirements of 37
C.F.R. § 42.6(a) and has been prepared using Microsoftfi Word 2010 in 14 point
Times New Roman.
Respectfully submitted,
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & Fox P.L.L.C.
LJ4 i A. Gor n Registration No. 50,633 Attorney for Petitioner