IPR2016-01225
`
`Petitioners’
`Demonstrative Exhibits
`(combined hearing September 13-14, 2017)
`
`Panasonic Corporation, et al., Petitioners
`v.
`Papst Licensing GMBH & CO. KG, Patent Owner
`
`IPR2016-01225 (U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144)
`
`1
`
`Panasonic Corp., et al., Ex. 1316, P. 1 of 28
`
`
`
`Petitioners’
`Demonstrative Exhibits
`(combined hearing September 13-14, 2017)
`
`Panasonic Corporation, et al., Petitioners
`v.
`Papst Licensing GMBH & CO. KG, Patent Owner
`
`IPR2016-01225 (U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144)
`
`1
`
`Panasonic Corp., et al., Ex. 1316, P. 1 of 28
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01225 (U.S. Pat. No. 8,966,144)
`
`IPR2016-01225
`
`Title: Analog Data Generating and
`Processing Device Having a Multi-
`Use Automatic Processor.
`
`Challenged Claims: 1-36, 38-56, 58-
`65, 67-74, and 77-87 (Claims 1, 84,
`and 86 are independent)
`
`Trial instituted based on McNeill in
`combination with SCSI Specification
`and Admitted Prior Art.
`
`2
`
`Ex. 1301
`
`Panasonic Corp., et al., Ex. 1316, P. 2 of 28
`
`
`
`Like the ’144 Patent, McNeill Discloses an
`Interface Device
`
`IPR2016-01225
`
`“This invention comprises a SCSI emulation device and system for providing
`access to non-SCSI devices or SCSI devices on a non-local SCSI bus via a common
`SCSI bus thereby providing a practical and economic system for achieving access
`to a multiplicity of peripherals in a SCSI environment.” Ex. 1303, col. 3:17-22
`
`Petition at 26-27; Ex. 1306, ¶¶ 85-94.
`
`3
`
`Panasonic Corp., et al., Ex. 1316, P. 3 of 28
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01225
`
`McNeill’s Interface Device
`
`SCSI (I/O) Interface
`
`SCSI bus
`
`Interface Device
`
`Non-SCSI peripheral
`device
`
`“There are many device types which can be
`connected to a SCSI bus such as printers, scanners,
`optical devices and processor devices. In the future,
`there likely will be many more.” Ex. 1303, Col. 2:48-51
`
`Petition at 22-23; Reply at
`1; Ex. 1306, ¶¶ 42-44.
`
`4
`
`Panasonic Corp., et al., Ex. 1316, P. 4 of 28
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01225
`There is General Agreement on Level of
`Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`• A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged
`invention “would have had at least a four-year degree in electrical
`engineering, computer science, or related field of study, or equivalent
`experience, and at least two [years of] experience in studying or
`developing computer interfaces or peripherals.” Ex. 1306 ¶ 39.
`
`•
`
`Such an artisan also would have been “familiar with operating
`systems (e.g., MS-DOS, Windows, Unix) and their associated file
`systems (e.g., a [file allocation table (“FAT”)] file system), device
`drivers for computer components and peripherals (e.g., mass storage
`device drivers), and communication interfaces (e.g., SCSI and PCMCIA
`interfaces).” Id.
`
`5
`
`Panasonic Corp., et al., Ex. 1316, P. 5 of 28
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01225
`There is General Agreement on Level of
`Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`• Patent Owner contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have
`at least three years of experience, or, alternatively, five or more years
`of experience without a bachelor’s degree. Prelim. Resp. 21.
`
`•
`
`The Board concluded that “[w]e do not observe any meaningful
`differences between the parties’ definition of a person of ordinary
`skill in the art.” Institution Decision at 19.
`
`6
`
`Panasonic Corp., et al., Ex. 1316, P. 6 of 28
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01225
`
`No Dispute That Petitioners’ Expert Is Qualified
`• Ph.D in Computer Science (Univ. of Texas)
`• Professor of Computer Science at Univ. of
`Virginia for 32 years
`• Research focuses on parallel and
`distributed systems and networking
`• Consults for Department of Defense,
`among others, on network architecture
`
`7
`
`Panasonic Corp., et al., Ex. 1316, P. 7 of 28
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01225
`Disputed Issue #1: “the processed analog data is
`stored in the data storage memory as at least
`one file of digitized analog data”
`PO asserts that McNeill does not disclose “storing data from a
`sensor on McNeill’s mag disk” PO Response at 25.
`
`PO makes two arguments, both of which lack merit and are
`contradicted by its expert:
`[1a] “[I]n order for the target to present itself as two
`peripheral devices to the initiator as proposed, the target
`would have to occupy two SCSI IDs” PO Response at 29.
`
`[1b] Saving image data as files to the mag disk in McNeill
`would worsen its performance for no benefit PO Response at 31.
`
`8
`
`Panasonic Corp., et al., Ex. 1316, P. 8 of 28
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01225
`Disputed Issue #1: “the processed analog data is
`stored in the data storage memory as at least
`one file of digitized analog data”
`
`[1a] “[I]n order for the target to present itself as two
`peripheral devices to the initiator as proposed, the target
`would have to occupy two SCSI IDs” PO Response at 29.
`
`9
`
`Panasonic Corp., et al., Ex. 1316, P. 9 of 28
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01225
`Petitioners Proposed Two Ways of Saving
`Scanner Image Data to the Mag Disk that Would
`Have Been Obvious to POSITA in view of McNeill
`• The first is to prepare a single SCSI ID for the mag disk and
`scan a document and store the scanned image in the mag
`disk without using the initiator. Petition at 27-28, 31-32, 36, 56, 70;
`Ex. 1306 at ¶¶ 86-87.
`
`• The second is to prepare two SCSI IDs for a scanner and
`the mag disk and scan a document and store the scanned
`image in the mag disk through SCSI scanner commands
`from the initiator. Petition at 28-29, 31-32, 52, 58, 71-72; Ex. 1306 at ¶¶
`88-92.
`
`• Both ways are technically correct as Gafford admitted.
`Ex. 1315 [Gafford Tr.] at 89:14-90:13; 94:11-17.
`
`10
`
`Panasonic Corp., et al., Ex. 1316, P. 10 of 28
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01225
`
`Using a Single SCSI ID
`
`“A scanner might be attached to a parallel port of a computer and controlled manually,
`by a user pressing a button on a scanner, or by software on the target machine.”
`
`Petition at 27-28.
`
`11
`
`Panasonic Corp., et al., Ex. 1316, P. 11 of 28
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01225
`
`PO’s Expert Admits That McNeill Can Be
`Configured Using A Single SCSI ID
`A. [I]f [the scanner] were connected through a – some
`other sort of port, then it would have to obey whatever
`the rules are for that port, such as a serial port or
`whatever – whatever it is connected with.
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`Q. So if I had a non-SCSI scanner attached to the target
`computer, then I wouldn’t need to identify more than one
`device [ID] in terms of the SCSI protocol?
`
`A. On the target’s own SCSI bus, no, because [the scanner]
`wouldn’t be on that bus. Ex. 1315 at 89:14-90:13.
`
`12
`
`Panasonic Corp., et al., Ex. 1316, P. 12 of 28
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01225
`
`McNeill Can Emulate Two SCSI Devices
`
`“The initiator could both control the scanner using commands from the SCANNER
`SCSI command set and also access the mag disk as if it were a SCSI device.”
`
`Petition at 28-29.
`
`Reply at 13-16.
`
`13
`
`Panasonic Corp., et al., Ex. 1316, P. 13 of 28
`
`
`
`PO’s Expert Admits That McNeill Can Emulate
`Two SCSI Devices
`
`IPR2016-01225
`
`• “[T]here is nothing in McNeill that says his emulator
`could not address two devices connected at the same
`time to the target computer that represent themselves
`as SCSI devices” Ex. 1315 at 94:11-17.
`
`• “[McNeill] says you can write an emulator for anything.”
`Ex. 1315 at 86:18-87:9
`
`14
`
`Panasonic Corp., et al., Ex. 1316, P. 14 of 28
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01225
`
`A POSITA Would Have Understood that McNeill
`Can Emulate Two SCSI Devices
`• “Target emulation routines (device drivers) could be written
`to support various types of devices…” Ex. 1303 [McNeill] at col. 7:37-
`8:6.
`
`• “[A]n initiator can address up to eight peripheral devices (i.e.,
`Logical Units, LUNs) that are connected to a target.” Ex. 1303
`[McNeill] at col. 2:14-15; see also col. 2:48-57 (accessing mag disk and printer at
`the same time).
`
`• McNeill states that the purpose of his invention is “providing a
`practical and economic system for achieving access to a
`multiplicity of peripherals in a SCSI environment.” Ex. 1303
`[McNeill] at col. 3:17-22
`
`See also Petition at 28-29, 31-32, 52, 58, 71-72; Ex. 1306 at ¶¶ 88-92.
`
`15
`
`Panasonic Corp., et al., Ex. 1316, P. 15 of 28
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01225
`PO’s Expert Admits That A POSITA Would Have
`Known How to Configure McNeill to Emulate
`Two SCSI Devices
`
`“[A]t the time of the Tasler patents in 1997, it was known that
`you could attach more than one SCSI adapter to a computer”
`Ex. 1315 at 90:21-91:9
`
`“[Y]ou can certainly have a SCSI adapter per device, per different
`device on the target, which all – would both connect to bus 12,
`which would then – each would provide an emulation of the
`particular kind of device.” Ex. 1315 at 94:17-25
`
`16
`
`Panasonic Corp., et al., Ex. 1316, P. 16 of 28
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01225
`Petitioner’s Expert Showed How A POSITA
`Would Have Known How to Configure McNeill to
`Emulate Two SCSI Devices
`
`Reply at 13-16.
`
`17
`
`Panasonic Corp., et al., Ex. 1316, P. 17 of 28
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01225
`Disputed Issue #1: “the processed analog data is
`stored in the data storage memory as at least
`one file of digitized analog data”
`
`[1b] Saving image data as files to the mag disk in McNeill
`would worsen its performance for no benefit. PO Response at 31.
`
`18
`
`Panasonic Corp., et al., Ex. 1316, P. 18 of 28
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01225
`PO’s Expert Explained that saving image data as
`files to the mag disk is necessary, not
`undesirable
`“Scanners typically can’t buffer anything. They are lucky
`if they can buffer two or three lines. Scanners are -- in
`fact, a typical cheap scanner doesn’t even try to buffer a
`whole page. It moves its head and stores just enough
`data to deal with the communication interface speed,
`and it’s up to the app on the attached computer to pull
`that data in and store it to a drive. So scanners are
`always storing on a drive. They are not depending on
`their own buffer storing anything. That’s just not how
`scanners are used.”
`
`Ex. 1315 [Gafford Tr.] at 100:1-16 (emphasis added).
`
`19
`
`Panasonic Corp., et al., Ex. 1316, P. 19 of 28
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01225
`McNeill discloses “the processed analog data is
`stored in the data storage memory as at least
`one file of digitized analog data”
`
`• McNeill’s initiator computer can access and read data files
`on the magnetic hard disk of the target computer, as if it
`were a SCSI hard drive. Petition at 31-32 (citing Ex. 1303, 3:17– 22, 4:47–
`50, 8:23–29)
`
`•
`
`It would have been obvious to a POSITA to save the
`scanner’s image data on the hard disk as digitized files, so
`that the initiator computer can access and read the digitized
`image files. Petition at 31-32 (citing Ex. 1303, 5:36–58, Fig. 4; Ex. 1306 ¶
`103)
`
`20
`
`Panasonic Corp., et al., Ex. 1316, P. 20 of 28
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01225
`
`Disputed Issue #2: “without requiring any end
`user to interact with the computer to set up a
`file system in the ADGPD at any time”
`
`PO asserts that McNeill does not disclose “a file system on
`McNeill’s target that can support storage and transfer of a file
`as claimed.”
`PO Response at 25.
`
`21
`
`Panasonic Corp., et al., Ex. 1316, P. 21 of 28
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01225
`McNeill discloses OS2 and DOS operating
`systems
`Both experts agree that McNeill discloses operating
`systems, which were known to include file systems
`
`McNeill discloses that the target computer can be an IBM
`computer running OS2 or DOS operating systems.
`
`Ex. 1303 at col. 4:11-17, 7:31-33, 37-col. 8:3; Ex. 1315 [Gafford Tr.] at 100:17-
`101:10 (McNeill discloses OS2 operating system); Ex. 1314 [Reynolds Tr.] at
`78:3-23 (same); Ex. 1315 [Gafford Tr.] at 101:11-14 (McNeill discloses DOS
`operating system); Ex. 1313 at ¶ 8 (McNeill discloses OS2 and DOS operating
`systems, which, at the time of the filing date of the ‘144 patent, came with filing
`systems).
`
`22
`
`Panasonic Corp., et al., Ex. 1316, P. 22 of 28
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01225
`
`OS2 and DOS had file systems and, as such,
`McNeill discloses a file system
`• Ex. 1306 at ¶ 39 (“a person of ordinary skill would also be familiar with
`operating systems (e.g., MS-DOS, Windows, Unix) and their associated file
`systems (e.g., a FAT file system)”)
`
`• Ex. 1315 [Gafford Tr.] at 102:22-103:1 (agreeing that “DOS operating
`system contains a file system”)
`
`• Ex. 1309 [MS-DOS Encyclopedia] at 51 (“A traditional microcomputer
`operating system…provides additional features such as a file system….”)
`
`• Ex. 3001 [Microsoft Computer Dictionary] at 3-4 (“[t]he FAT file system is
`used by MS-DOS to organize and manage files” and “that the operating
`system places information about the stored file in the FAT so that MS-DOS
`can retrieve the file later when requested.”)
`
`23
`
`Panasonic Corp., et al., Ex. 1316, P. 23 of 28
`
`
`
`Disputed Issue #3: “the processor adapted to be
`involved in a data generation process”
`
`IPR2016-01225
`
`PO asserts that Petitioners fail to show that “the processing
`and conversion of analog data is performed by…the processor
`of the ADGPD, as required by the claims.”
`PO Response at 44.
`
`24
`
`Panasonic Corp., et al., Ex. 1316, P. 24 of 28
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01225
`“the processor adapted to be involved in a data
`generation process”
`• No dispute that the processor is not required to generate the
`analog data. PO Response at 15-16, 43-44; Petition at 31-32.
`
`• PO asserts that the processor should be construed to require
`that it be involved in converting the analog data.
`
`• PO points to no evidence to support this construction.
`
`• As the Board pointed out, the specification states, at most,
`that the processor reads the generated data, and transfers
`the data to the host, but it does not describe how the
`processor is involved directly in generating or converting the
`data. Institution Decision at 13; Ex. 1301, col. 5:3–7.
`25
`
`Panasonic Corp., et al., Ex. 1316, P. 25 of 28
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01225
`
`The Board declined to adopt PO’s construction
`“[W]e are not persuaded that the processor of the ADGPD is required to be
`involved directly in generating and converting the analog data...Patent
`Owner does not identify where the Specification discloses the processor is
`involved directly in generating the analog data. The Specification, at most,
`discloses that the processor reads the generated data, and transfers the data
`to the host, but it does not describe how the processor is involved directly in
`generating or converting the data. Id. at 5:3–7 (“a data transmit/receive
`device . . . From which data is to be read, i.e. acquired, and transferred to the
`host device”).
`
`“In light of the foregoing, we decline to construe ‘the processor is adapted to
`be involved in a data generation process’ to require the processor to be
`involved directly in generating or converting the data, as suggested by Patent
`Owner.”
`
`Institution Decision at 13 (emphasis added).
`
`26
`
`Panasonic Corp., et al., Ex. 1316, P. 26 of 28
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01225
`McNeill discloses that the processor is adapted
`to be involved in a data generation process
`
`• McNeill discloses that the target computer is capable of
`providing access to multiple SCSI or non-SCSI peripherals
`by emulating a SCSI device. Ex. 1303, Col. 3:17-22, 4:47-50, Col. 5:36-
`58, 8:23-29; Figs. 2, 4.
`
`• A POSITA would have understood that a processor can
`control analog as well as digital devices, i.e., that the target
`could execute emulation code for controlling and/or
`acquiring data from analog devices including, for example,
`a scanner or microphone. Ex. 1306, ¶¶ 100-101.
`
`27
`
`Panasonic Corp., et al., Ex. 1316, P. 27 of 28
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01225
`
`Conclusion
`
`Challenged Claims 1-36, 38-56, 58-65, 67-74, and 77-87 are
`unpatentable and should be canceled.
`
`28
`
`Panasonic Corp., et al., Ex. 1316, P. 28 of 28
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
