UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO.

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO."

Transcription

1 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) Fax: (202) 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

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS - i - I. Mandatory notices (37 C.F.R. 42.8(a)(1)) II. Grounds for standing (37 C.F.R (a))... 4 III. Identification of challenge (37 C.F.R (b)) A. Citation of prior art B. Statutory grounds for the challenge IV. The 746 patent A. Overview of the 746 patent B. Level of ordinary skill in the art C. Claim construction V. Ground 1: The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt renders claims 1, 4, 6 8, 10, 11, 20, 21, 30, 34, 35 obvious A. Overview of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt B. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt renders claim 1 obvious The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt discloses the analog data acquisition device recited in the preamble of claim 1 [1P] a) analog data acquisition device [1P.1] b) Computer architecture/operation component [1P.2] The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt discloses the analog data acquisition device architectural limitations a) program memory [1A] b) an analog signal acquisition channel for receiving a signal from an analog source [1B] c) The processor limitation [1C] The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt discloses the data generation process of claim element [1D] a) Data generation process [1D.1] b) Analog data is processed and digitized [1D.2] c) File system [1D.3] The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt discloses claim limitation [1E]

3 a) the processor executes at least one instruction set [1E.1] b) automatically causes at least one parameter indicative of the class of devices to be sent [1E.2] c) not within the class of devices [1E.3] The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt discloses claim element [1F] a) at least one other instruction set [1F.1] b) File transfer using the device driver [1F.2] c) Appearance of the device as part of the class of devices [1F.3] The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt discloses claim limitation [1G] C. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt, renders claim 4 obvious D. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt renders claim 6 obvious. 39 E. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt renders claim 7 obvious. 40 F. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt renders claim 8 obvious. 42 G. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt renders claim 10 obvious H. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt, renders claim 11 obvious I. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt renders claim 20 obvious J. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt renders claim 21 obvious K. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt renders claim 30 obvious L. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt renders independent claim 34 obvious The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt 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] ii -

4 2. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt discloses the interfacing step [34A] The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt discloses the acquiring step of claim 34 [34B] The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt discloses the sending step of claim 34 [34C] The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt discloses the transferring step of claim 34 [34D] M. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt renders claim 35 obvious VI. Ground 2: The combination of Pucci, Kepley, Schmidt, and Shinosky renders claim 14 obvious VII. Ground 3: The combination of Pucci, Kepley, Schmidt, and Wilson renders claim 23 obvious VIII. The proposed grounds are not redundant to previously filed petitions IX. Conclusion iii -

5 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases: In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 778 F.3d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2015)... 9 In re Papst Licensing Digital Camera Patent Litigation, 778 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2015)... 9 Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)... 9, 12 Statutes: 35 U.S.C. 102(a)... 4, 5 35 U.S.C. 102(b)... 4, 5 35 U.S.C. 102(e) U.S.C Regulations: 37 C.F.R (b) iv -

6 EXHIBIT LIST - v - 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 1004 Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Erez Zadok Intentionally Left Blank 1007 The SCSI Bus and IDE Interface Protocols, Applications and Programming, by Schmidt, First Edition, Addison-Wesley, 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 X , American National Standard for Information Systems (ANSI) Operating System Concepts, by Silberschatz et al., Fourth Edition Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Third Edition, Microsoft Press, Intentionally Left Blank 1016 In re Papst Licensing Digital Camera Patent Litigation, 778 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2015) Intentionally Left Blank 1019 Webster s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, Random House, Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. Apple Inc., Case No cv (E.D. Tex.), Complaint filed November 30, Intentionally Left Blank 1024 Declaration of Scott Bennett Intentionally Left Blank 1031 Plug-and-Play SCSI Specification, Version 1.0, dated March 30, 1994 ( PNP SCSI ) Intentionally Left Blank 1041 Pucci, M., Configurable Data Manipulation in an Attached Multiprocessor, 1991

7 Ex. No. Description 1042 U.S. Patent No. 4,790,003 to Kepley et al., titled Message Service System Network 1043 Intentionally Left Blank 1044 U.S. Patent No. 5,353,374 to Wilson et al., titled Low Bit Rate Voice Transmission for Use in a Noisy Environment 1045 U.S. Patent No. 4,065,644 to Shinosky, Jr., titled Electro-Optical and Electronic Switching Systems Intentionally Left Blank 1052 Declaration of Michele Nelson, USENIX - vi -

8 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 challenged claims recite an analog data acquisition device and associated method for acquiring analog data and communicating with a host computer. The device performs well-known routine 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 causes 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 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 years before the earliest possible priority date of the 746 patent. For example, nearly six years before the earliest possible priority date of the 746 patent, Pucci (Ex. 1041) described a multiprocessor tasking system, named ION, that connected to workstations using a SCSI disk interface and that appear[ed] to the workstation as a large, high speed disk device. (Pucci, p. 217.) As such, the - 1 -

9 workstation was provided with a peripheral that it knows how to deal with. (Pucci, p. 220). Apple demonstrates below that a reasonable likelihood exists that all challenged claims of the 746 patent are unpatentable. 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 ). actions. RELATED MATTERS: The 746 patent is the subject of the following civil Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. Apple Inc., Case No cv (E.D. Tex.); Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al., Case No cv (E.D. Tex.); Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. ZTE Corporation et al., Case No cv (E.D. Tex.); Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd. et al., Case No. 6:15-cv (E.D. Tex.); Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al., Case No cv (E.D. Tex.); Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. et al, Case No. 6:15-cv (E.D. Tex.); and In Re Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG Patent Litigation, MDL No (Misc. Action No ) 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

10 The 746 patent is also the subject of the following Inter Partes Review proceedings: Inter Partes Review by Canon Inc., IPR filed June 17, 2016; Inter Partes Review by Canon Inc., IPR filed June 17, 2016; Inter Partes Review by JVC Kenwood Corporation, IPR filed June 17, 2016; Inter Partes Review by Panasonic Corporation, IPR filed June 17, 2016; Inter Partes Review by Olympus Corporation., IPR filed June 16, 2016; and Inter Partes Review by Fujifilm Corporation, IPR filed June 14, patent. Apple is concurrently filing additional petitions against claims of the 746 No other matters related to the 746 patent are known to the Petitioner. 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, 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) and facsimile (202) SERVICE INFORMATION: Petitioner consents to electronic service by at the addresses: and - 3 -

11 II. Grounds for standing (37 C.F.R (a)). The undersigned and Apple certify that the ʼ746 patent is available for inter partes review. Apple certifies that 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, (Ex ) The present petition is being filed within one year of service of Petitioner. III. Identification of challenge (37 C.F.R (b)). A. Citation of prior art. In support of the grounds of unpatentability cited above, Apple cites the following prior art references: Configurable Data Manipulation in an Attached Multiprocessor, by Marc F. Pucci (Ex. 1041) is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. 102(a) and 102(b) because it was published in (See Ex ) 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 (See Ex ) U.S. Patent No. 4,790,003 to Kepley et al., titled Message Service System Network (Ex. 1042) is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. 102(a) and 102(b) because it issued on December 6,

12 U.S. Patent No. 4,065,644 to Shinosky et al., titled Electro-Optical and Electronic Switching Systems (Ex. 1045) is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C 102(a) and 102(b) because it issued on December 27, U.S. Patent No. 5,353,374 to Wilson et al., titled Low Bit Rate Voice Transmission for Use in a Noisy Environment (Ex. 1044) is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. 102(a), 102(b), and 102(e) because it issued on October 4, 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 Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt 103 1, 4, 6 8, 10, 11, 20, 21, 30, 34, 35 Pucci, Kepley, Schmidt, and Shinosky Pucci, Kepley, Schmidt, and Wilson

13 IV. The 746 patent. A. Overview of the 746 patent. 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 Ex. 1001, 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. ( 746 patent, 2:6 15.) Other devices achieved host-device independence 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. ( 746 patent, 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) a second connecting device attached by means of an output line 16 to a data transmit/receive - 6 -

14 device from which data is to be read, i.e. acquired, and transferred to the host device. ( 746 patent, 4:67 to 5:4.) The 746 patent discloses techniques to make the interface device appear[] to the host device as a hard disk. ( 746 patent, 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 attached data transmit/receive device, as a customary input/output device to the host device. (See 746 patent, 4:5 13.) Thus, the host device uses its customary driver for the identified input/output device or a corresponding driver for - 7 -

15 a multipurpose interface to communicate with the interface device. ( 746 patent, 3:49 55.) B. Level of ordinary skill in the art. Based on the disclosure of the 746 patent, a person having ordinary skill in the art ( POSITA ) 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 developing computer interfaces or peripherals and storage related software. (Zadok Decl., 28.) A person of ordinary skill in the art 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, PCMCIA). (Zadok Decl., 28.) - 8 -

16 C. Claim construction. In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R (b); In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 778 F.3d 1271, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2015). 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. 1 Papst asserted patents in the family of the 746 patent sharing a common specification with 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 Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit from the United States Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:07-mc RMC). In re Papst Licensing Digital Camera Patent Litigation, 778 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The Federal Circuit construed the following terms under the Phillips standard: 1 Apple reserves the right to present different constructions in another forum where a different claim construction standard applies. Apple s proposed constructions do not constitute an admission that the claims are valid under 35 U.S.C Therefore, Apple reserves the right to challenge the patentability of any claim under 35 U.S.C. 112 in other forums

17 Claim term District Court Construction CAFC Ruling interface device may not be a permanent part of either the data transmit/receive device or the host device/computer. (Ex. 1016, p. 8.) is not limited to a device that is physically separate and apart from, and not permanently attached to, a data device (or a host computer). (Ex. 1016, p. 8.) second connecting device a physical plug or socket for permitting a user readily to attach and detach the interface device with a plurality of dissimilar data transmit/receive devices. (Ex. 1016, p. 10.) does not require a physical plug, socket, or other structure that permits a user to readily attach and detach something else. (Ex. 1016, p. 11.) 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.) virtual files files that appear to be but are not physically stored; rather they are constructed or derived from existing data when their contents are requested by an application program so that they appear to exist as files from the point of view of the host device. (Ex. 1016, p. 13.) not limited to a file whose content is stored off the interface device, though it includes such files. (Ex. 1016, p. 14.)

18 Claim term District Court Construction CAFC Ruling input/output device customary in a host device data input/output device that was normally present within the chassis of most commercially available computers at the time of the invention. (Ex. 1016, p. 16.) not limited to a device normally present within the chassis of a computer. (Ex. 1016, p. 16 (emphasis in original).) Of these five terms, Apple proposes to construe the term data transmit/receive device. The other terms construed by the Federal Circuit do not appear in any of the claims challenged in this Petition. 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 that the term is not limited to devices that both transmit and receive data only one is necessary. This construction is consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the term because the use of the / indicates alternatives. (See Ex. 1019, Websters, p (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, 5:56 60.) Moreover, the portion of the district court s

19 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. 17 ( the parties dispute focuses on the when connected portion of the court s construction ).) V. Ground 1: The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt renders claims 1, 4, 6 8, 10, 11, 20, 21, 30, 34, 35 obvious. 2 A. Overview of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt. Pucci, like the 746 patent, recognized workstations that exploit the rapidly advancing state-of-the-art in processor technology can often be a bane to developers of applications that utilize dedicated special purpose hardware or that impose strict access requirements on conventional hardware. (Pucci, p. 218.) Pucci addressed the problems of these systems through the ION Data Engine a multiprocessor tasking system that provides data manipulation services for collections of workstations or other conventional computers. (Pucci, p. 217.) Pucci s ION Engine appears to [a] workstation as a large, high speed disk device. (Pucci, p. 217.) The [s]oftware running within the ION system mimics the behavior of a conventional device, providing the workstation with a peripheral that 2 A complete listing of challenged claims is provided as Appendix A. For ease of discussion, labels have been added to individual claim limitations

20 it knows how to deal with. (Pucci, p. 220.) In addition, the ION node includes a plurality of analog-to-digital converters that receive analog data from an I/O device. (See Pucci, p. 220, Figure 1.) ION temporarily stores the output data from the A-to- D converters in memory before transfer to the workstation upon request. (Pucci, pp ) However, Pucci does not explicitly disclose that the converted data is stored as a file on the ION node. Kepley discloses a voice mail system that stores a digitally encoded and compressed voice mail message as a file. (Ex. 1042, Kepley, Abstract, claim 1.) A POSITA would have found it obvious to combine Pucci s ION system with Kepley s voic system. Pucci provides an explicit motivation explaining that an application of the ION node is a platform for analog to digital (A-to-D) services for a voice messaging application of a prototype programmable telephone switch system called GARDEN. (Pucci, p. 231.) But, Pucci does not provide details of the voice messaging application. A POSITA would have looked to Kepley for those details because Kepley describes a voice mail messaging system and application. (Zadok Decl., 66.) The file storage of Kepley allows the voice mail message service system to perform voice mail message transfer... as a computer-to-computer data file transfer operation over high speed data lines to other message service systems. (Kepley, Abstract.) A POSITA would have found it obvious to store the digitized A-to-D

21 converted data as a file in Pucci s voice messaging service application to enable computer-to-computer data file transfer between the ION-enabled voice messaging service system and other messaging service systems as taught by Kepley. (Zadok Decl., 67.) Further, the modification would have involved a simple substitution of one known element (Kepley s analog voice message processing) for another (Pucci s analog voice message processing) to obtain predictable results. KSR Int l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, (2007). Digital storage of voice message data, in the form of a file or otherwise, was well known in the art as taught by Pucci and Kepley. Further, Pucci discloses that the ION node may include a file system. (Pucci, p. 222) Thus, substitution of Kepley s analog voice message processing (which includes storage of the digitized voice message as a file) for Pucci s analog voice message processing (which includes digital conversion but lacks file storage) could have been readily implemented by a POSITA using Pucci s file system. (Zadok Decl., ) The results of such substitution would have been predictable because the digitized voice message data would have been stored like any other file in Pucci s file system. (Zadok Decl., 69.) Pucci stresses that the ION node mimics a hard disk device to attached workstations and uses the SCSI protocol to communicate with the workstations. (Pucci, pp. 217, 220, Figure 1.) However, Pucci does not explicitly disclose the details of the recognition process. Schmidt provides a detailed discussion of the

22 device recognition process. A POSITA would have combined Pucci and Kepley with Schmidt for a number of reasons. First, Pucci discloses that the ION node connects to the workstation via a SCSI bus. (Pucci, p. 217.) A POSITA would have looked to a reference, like Schmidt, to provide details of the SCSI interface. (Zadok Decl., 73.) Schmidt shows that it was well known at the earliest possible priority date of the 746 patent that SCSI bus initialization between a host computer and a peripheral device involved the peripheral device identifying its device class and type to the host computer. (Zadok Decl., 72.) B. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt renders claim 1 obvious. 1. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt discloses the analog data acquisition device recited in the preamble of claim 1 [1P]. The preamble of claim 1 recites: [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 transfer of data between the device and the operating system of the computer.

23 As set forth below, the combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt teaches or suggests each of these components. a) analog data acquisition device [1P.1]. Pucci s ION node is an analog data acquisition device. The ION node includes a plurality of analog-to-digital converters for acquiring analog data. (See Pucci, Figure 1.) Although Figure 1 of Pucci illustrates that the A-to-D converters are external to the ION node, Pucci suggests that they are part of the ION node (Zadok Decl., 75): For example, ION supports an analog to digital (A-to-D) conversion application that provides voice messaging service for a prototype telephone switch. The bulk of the application resides in a conventional workstation, while the peripheral devices are located within ION. The application s interface to the A-to-D converters is implemented as an action defined on a set of 5 disk block addresses, each corresponding to 1 of the 5 analog channels. (Pucci, p. 221 (emphasis added).) In an exemplary application described in Pucci, each of the analog-to-digital converters provides an analog to digital (A-to-D) conversion application that provides voice messaging service for a telephone switch. (Pucci, p. 221). Further, it would have been obvious to a POSITA that the A- to-d converters were part of Pucci s analog data acquisition device. (Zadok Decl.,

24 75.) The ION node therefore acquires analog data from a telephone switch and constitutes an analog data acquisition device. (Zadok Decl., 76.) The ION node is also operatively connectable to a computer through a multipurpose interface of the computer. An ION node is a back-end system, connecting to a workstation via the Small Computer Systems Interface (SCSI) disk interface. (Pucci, p. 217.) Schmidt provides further detail on SCSI systems, disclosing that [a] computer system is connected to the SCSI bus through a host adapter. (Schmidt, p. 79.) Figure 9.1 of Schmidt, reproduced below, illustrates this configuration. A SCSI interface is a multi-purpose interface because it is designed for use with multiple devices that can have different function 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.) Thus, the SCSI host adapter constitutes a multi-purpose interface. (Zadok Decl., 78.) Based on these

25 disclosures of Pucci and Schmidt, it would have been obvious to a POSITA for the workstations in Pucci include a SCSI host adapter the multi-purpose interface of the host device. (Zadok Decl., 78.) Annotated Figure 1 of Pucci, below, illustrates the combined system with host adapter. b) Computer architecture/operation component [1P.2]. Pucci discloses that since the hardware dependent A-to-D code remains within ION, no driver changes to the host s operating system are necessary upon workstation upgrade. (Pucci, p. 231.) A POSITA would have understood from this disclosure that the workstation has an operating system, and that the operating system contains the necessary driver for interfacing with the ION node. (Zadok Decl., 85.) Accordingly, the combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt suggests the computer having an operating system [1P.2.a]. (Zadok Decl., 85.) The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt discloses that the computer receives a signal from the device through said multipurpose interface of the computer indicative of a class of devices [1P.2.b]. Pucci discloses that ION

26 appears to the workstation as a large, high speed disk device. (Pucci, p. 217, Abstract.) 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.) Among these mandatory commands is the INQUIRY command. (See Schmidt, p. 138, Table (showing the INQUIRY command as Type M ); p. 137, Table 12.8 (showing 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 ) Therefore, as part of Pucci s process of misidentifying the ION device as a hard disk, the ION node would first receive a SCSI INQUIRY from the workstation. (Zadok Decl., 81.) Schmidt supports this understanding, explaining that the host SCSI adapter in the host device sends SCSI commands to devices over the SCSI bus. (See Schmidt, p. 80, Figure 9.1.) Schmidt provides detail about the response of a device, such as Pucci s ION node, to the INQUIRY command. (Schmidt, pp ) In response to an INQUIRY command, a SCSI device provides a response including a five-bit device class or peripheral device type. (Schmidt, pp ; see also p. 132 ( Table 12.1 shows an example of the data returned from an INQUIRY

27 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.) Pucci discloses that [e]ach workstation views its ION connection as though it were a large conventional disk drive. (Pucci, p. 220.) Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a POSITA that the workstation ( the computer ) would receive a response to a SCSI INQUIRY command from the ION node indicating that the ION node is part of the disk drive class. (Zadok Decl., 83.) And, the response would be received through the SCSI host adapter of the workstation. This response is the claimed signal from the device through said multipurpose interface of the computer indicative of a class of devices. (Zadok Decl., 83.) The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt also suggests that when the 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 [1P.2.c]. First, it would have been

28 obvious to a POSITA to activate[] a device driver in the workstation because such drivers enable communication between operating systems and peripheral devices. (Zadok Decl., 84 (citing Silberschatz, p. 6).) Second, Pucci states that since the hardware dependent A-to-D code remains within ION, no driver changes to the host s operating system are necessary upon workstation upgrade. (Pucci, p. 231.) Furthermore, Schmidt teaches that the SCSI interface makes it possible to write device drivers for a device without knowing device specific details. (Schmidt, p. 79.) Thus, the workstation can use the same SCSI hard disk driver that it would use for communication with any other SCSI hard disk. (Zadok Decl., 84.) Because such drivers were built into operating systems at the time of invention, the driver activation would be automatic and not require any user intervention. (Zadok Decl., 84.) Based on these disclosures, it would have been obvious to a POSITA that the workstation activates a SCSI hard disk driver ( a device driver corresponding to the class of devices ) as part of the automatic process of recognizing the ION node as a hard disk. (Zadok Decl., 84.) The combined system would use the SCSI hard disk driver to allow[] the transfer of data between the ION node and the operating system of the workstation. (Zadok Decl., 85.) In its voic embodiment, Pucci devotes a task to interfac[ing] to the SCSI bus and return[ing] data to the workstation when requested. (Pucci, p. 232.) The workstation starts the data transfer by read[ing] the

29 A-to-D start address for an appropriate channel, [which] activat[es] the device. (Pucci, p. 232.) The workstation then retrieves data by reading the data block address for that channel. (Pucci, p. 232.) Thus, a POSITA would understand that the workstation utilizes the SCSI driver for transfer of data. (Zadok Decl., 85.) 2. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt 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 multipurpose interface of the computer, the program memory and a data storage memory when the analog data acquisition device is operational. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt teaches or suggests each of these architectural elements. a) program memory [1A]. Pucci discloses that [s]oftware run[s] within the ION system... (Pucci, p. 220.) Specifically, a variety of applications can be managed by tasks running within the ION system. (Pucci, p. 221.) All ION tasks are memory resident and execute with their own flow of control. (Pucci, p. 223.) Accordingly, a POSITA would recognize Pucci s tasks as programs that are stored in program memory. (Zadok Decl., 88.) Thus, Pucci teaches a program memory. (Zadok Decl., )

30 b) an analog signal acquisition channel for receiving a signal from an analog source [1B]. In one of the applications described by Pucci, the ION node supports an analog to digital (A-to-D) conversion application that provides voice messaging service for a prototype telephone switch. (Pucci, p. 221.) Figure F from the Zadok Declaration (reproduced below) illustrates a system combining Pucci s ION node with an exemplary switch described by Kepley that implements the voice messaging service A-to-D conversion application. (Zadok Decl., 97, see also ) As shown, the ION node is connected through its application hardware interfaces to multiple A-to-D converters. (Pucci, Figure 1, Figure 2; Kepley, Figure 1; Zadok Decl., 94.) The input to each A-to-D converter provides a respective analog channel for receiving analog voice messages from the telephone switch (i.e.,

31 the analog source ). (Pucci, p. 221, Zadok Decl., 96.) ( The application s interface to the A-to-D converters is implemented as an action defined on a set of 5 disk block addresses, each corresponding to 1 of the 5 analog channels. ) Thus, the combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt discloses an analog signal acquisition channel for receiving a signal from an analog source [1B]. (Zadok Decl., 98.) c) The processor limitation [1C]. Claim 1 further recites 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 [1C]. The set of single board computers (SBCs) in Pucci s ION node includes an Application CPU (e.g., to run application code) and CPUs on the interface SBCs. (See Pucci, Figure 2.) These CPUs form a processor of the ION node. (Zadok Decl., 99.) As shown in Pucci s annotated Figure 2 above, the Application CPU is operatively interfaced with the SCSI host controller of the workstations ( the multipurpose interface of the computer ) via a VME backplane and the SCSI bus. The Application CPU is operatively interfaced with the local ION storage and large buffer memory, which constitute the recited data storage memory. (See Pucci, p. 222, Figure 2 ( Additional disk interfaces are used to control local node storage, which may consist of file system data. Large buffer memory, on the order of hundreds of megabytes, is used as a cache for physical device data. ).) Thus, Pucci teaches that

32 the processor [is] operatively interfaced with the multipurpose interface of the computer and a data storage memory. (Zadok Decl., 99.) The Application CPU is also operatively interfaced with the program memory. As shown above, Pucci teaches a program memory in which application tasks are stored. A POSITA would appreciate that the Application CPU, which executes the application tasks, would be operatively interfaced. with the program memory storing the application tasks, in order to execute the tasks. (Zadok Decl., 100.) It would have been obvious to a POSITA that the processor 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 ION node operational. (Zadok Decl., 101.) The disclosure of interfacing to permit acquiring, processing, saving, and transferring teaches or suggests that the measurement device is operational, as Pucci never discloses or has any reason to disclose non-operational configurations. (Zadok Decl., 101.) 3. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt discloses the data generation process of claim element [1D]. Claim 1 further recites three data generation and processing components: [1D.1] wherein the processor is configured and programmed to implement a data generation process by

33 which analog data is acquired from the analog signal acquisition channel, [1D.2] the analog data is processed and digitized, and [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 of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt teaches or suggests each of these components. a) Data generation process [1D.1]. As discussed above, analog data is acquired from the A-to-D converters through application tasks that reside within the ION node. The Application CPU (part of the recited processor ) is configured and programmed to implement [the] data generation process. As discussed above, analog data is acquired from the A- to-d converters through application tasks that reside within the ION node. (See Pucci, p. 232) These application tasks are executed by the Application CPU. (Zadok Decl., 103.) The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt teaches a data generation process by which analog data is acquired from the analog signal acquisition channel. As shown above, Pucci discloses that the ION node supports an analog to digital (A-to-D) conversion application that provides voice messaging service for a prototype telephone switch. (Pucci, p. 221.) The process starts when [t]he part of

34 the application that runs on the workstation requests converted data in response to a start/stop signal from other system hardware, which indicates the beginning and end of a recording session. Upon start, the workstation reads the A-to-D start address for an appropriate channel, activating the device. (Pucci, p. 232 (emphasis added).) Reading data from an A-to-D converter such as the A-to-D converters of Pucci includes acquiring analog data through the analog acquisition channel of the A-to-D converter. (Zadok Decl., 105.) b) Analog data is processed and digitized [1D.2]. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt teaches that the analog data is processed and digitized [1D.2]. As discussed above, Pucci teaches or suggests that analog data is acquired from the analog acquisition channel. The A-to-D converters of Pucci convert the analog data to digitized data. (Pucci, p. 232 ( The part of the application that runs on the workstation requests converted data in response to a start/stop signal... ).) The data is also processed. (Zadok Decl., 106.) For example, an application task that resides within the ION node is activated by periodic interrupts from the hardware and extracts the raw data from the converter, placing it into a queue for temporary storage. (Pucci, p. 231.) Another task that resides with the ION node perform[s] data compression on the input stream by translat[ing] 16-bit linear data into 8-bit mu law data. (Pucci, p. 231) As noted above, a POSITA would appreciate that these application tasks

35 execute on the Application CPU (part of the recited processor ) of the ION node. (Zadok Decl., 106.) c) File system [1D.3]. Pucci further teaches that 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.2c]. Specifically, Pucci discloses that an application task extracts the raw data from the converter, placing it into a queue for temporary storage. (Pucci, p. 231.) As the [l]arge buffer memory... is used as a cache for physical device data, (Pucci, p. 222), a POSITA would understand placing the data in temporary storage as storing the data in the large buffer memory (part of the recited data storage memory ) of the ION node. (Zadok Decl., 107.) Pucci does not explicitly disclose the format for storage of its digital voice data. However, storage of data as a file was well-known prior to Pucci and the earliest possible priority date of the 746 patent. (Zadok Decl., 108.) Pucci suggests that the processed digitized data is stored as a file describing that data can be stored as traditional file system data in the ION node. (Pucci, p. 221.) Kepley explicitly describes a voice mail system that stores a digitally encoded and compressed voice mail message as a file. (Kepley, Abstract, claim 1.) A POSITA would have found it obvious to combine Pucci s ION system and Kepley s voic system. (Zadok Decl., ) Pucci provides an explicit

36 motivation explaining that one exemplary application of the ION node is a platform for analog to digital (A-to-D) services for a voice messaging application of a prototype programmable telephone switch system called GARDEN. (Pucci, p. 231.) But, Pucci does not provide details of the voice messaging application. A POSITA would have looked to Kepley for those details because Kepley describes a voice mail messaging system and application similar to Pucci. (Zadok Decl., 110.) The file storage of Kepley allows the voice mail message service system to perform voice mail message transfer... as a computer-to-computer data file transfer operation over high speed data lines to other message service systems. (Kepley, Abstract.) Therefore, a POSITA would have found it obvious to store the digitized A-to-D converted data as a file in Pucci s voice messaging service application to enable computer-to-computer data file transfer between the ION-enabled voice messaging service system and other messaging service systems as taught by Kepley. (Zadok Decl., 111.) As explained by Kepley: Since the voice mail message is a data file, the computerto-computer file transfer mechanism insures the integrity of the data comprising the voice mail message. The transmission of the digitally encoded, compressed voice mail message over high speed digital facilities also is timewise efficient compared to transmitting the analog version of the voice mail message. One additional benefit of this arrangement is the ability to transmit the message

37 sender s name in text form along with the voice mail message. (Kepley, 15:59 to 16:4.) Further, the modification would have involved a simple substitution of one known element (Kepley s voice message processing) for another (Pucci s voice message processing) to obtain predictable results. (Zadok Decl., 113.) Digital storage of voice message data, in the form of a file or otherwise, was well known in the art as taught by Pucci and Kepley. (Zadok Decl., 113.) Further, Pucci discloses that data can be stored within an ION node as traditional file system data. (Pucci, p. 221.) For example, Pucci discloses that the local ION storage (part of the recited data storage memory ) may consist of file system data. (Pucci, p. 222.) Thus, substitution of Kepley s analog voice message processing (which includes storage of the digitized voice message as a file) for Pucci s analog voice message processing (which includes digital conversion but lacks explicit disclosure of file storage) could have been readily implemented by a POSITA using Pucci s file system. (Zadok Decl., 113.) The results of such substitution would have been predictable because the digitized voice message data would have been stored like any other file in Pucci s file system. (Zadok Decl., 113.) Accordingly, the combination of Pucci and Kepley teaches the processed and digitized analog data is stored in the data storage memory as at least one file of digitized analog data. (Zadok Decl., 113.)

38 The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt discloses claim limitation [1E]. Independent claim 1 further includes three device recognition limitations: [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 of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt teaches or suggests each of these limitations. a) the processor executes at least one instruction set [1E.1]. As further shown below, the CPU on an SBC (part of the recited processor ) is involved in the automatically caus[ing] at least one parameter indicative of the class of devices to be sent to the computer by sending the response to the INQUIRY command to the workstation. (Zadok Decl., 116.) Pucci does not explicitly disclose that the processor executes at least one instruction set stored in the program memory to cause the at least one parameter to be sent from the ION

39 node to the workstation. However, a POSITA would have found it obvious to implement the CPU as a programmable device that executes at least one instruction set stored in the program memory to cause the INQUIRY response to be sent to the workstation. (Zadok Decl., ) Additionally, a POSITA would have further found it obvious to store the at least one instruction in the program memory of the combined system because storing processor instructions in a memory was a well-known implementation as of the earliest possible priority date of the 746 patent. (Zadok Decl., 118.) b) automatically causes at least one parameter indicative of the class of devices to be sent [1E.2]. In Pucci, [e]ach workstation views its ION connection as though it were a large conventional disk drive. (Pucci, p. 220.) As shown above, relative to the preamble limitation [1P.2], such recognition would be accomplished using a SCSI INQUIRY command from the workstation to the ION node and a corresponding response misidentifying the ION node as a member of the disk drive class. (Zadok Decl., 119.) The response from the ION node is the recited the computer receives a signal from the device through said multipurpose interface of the computer indicative of a class of devices of preamble [1P.2] but also meets the limitation of at least one parameter indicative of the class of devices to be sent to the computer through the multipurpose interface of the computer [1E.2]. (Zadok Decl., 119.) (See also Schmidt, pp. 80, 133, ; Pucci, pp. 217, 220.) And, this

40 communication occurs when the analog acquisition device is operatively interfaced with the multipurpose interface of the computer because the SCSI INQUIRY command and response require communication between the ION node and the workstation over the SCSI bus. (Zadok Decl., 122.) Additionally, the SCSI initialization process disclosed in Schmidt is automatic. When a host computer having a SCSI bus is turned on, SCSI bus initialization occurs automatically. (Zadok Decl., 123.) Specifically, the host computer s SCSI controller automatically issues the INQUIRY command to discover any SCSI peripheral devices attached to the SCSI bus. (Zadok Decl., 123.) No user action, beyond powering the host computer, is required to initiate the SCSI initialization process. (Zadok Decl., 123.) Thus, the combination of Pucci, Kepley and Schmidt teach or suggests automatically causing at least one parameter indicative of the class of devices to be sent to the computer through the multipurpose interface of the computer. c) not within the class of devices [1E.3]. The analog source of the combined system is, for example, a telephone switch which is a type of communication device. As shown above in Table 12.1 of Schmidt, the class of [c]ommunication devices is a class of SCSI device separate from the disk drive class identified by the ION node in the combined system. Accordingly, the parameter sent by the combination of Pucci, Kepley, and

41 Schmidt would be independent of the analog source. (Zadok Decl., 124.) Furthermore, the ION node ( analog acquisition device ) is not a hard disk and therefore is not within the class of devices identified by the parameter. (Zadok Decl., 125.) 5. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt 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 of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt teaches or suggests each of these limitations. a) at least one other instruction set [1F.1]. A POSITA would understand that Pucci s Application CPU (part of the processor ) is configured and programmed to execute the file transfer instruction

42 set. (Zadok Decl., 127.) As discussed in the next section, a task of the portion of the A-to-D application (voic application) residing on the ION node is to interface[] to the SCSI bus and return[] data to the workstation when requested. (Pucci, p. 232.) A POSITA would appreciate that this application task would execute on the Application CPU. (Zadok Decl., 127.) Further, file transfer would use the SBC that interfaces the ION node to the workstation via SCSI. (See Pucci, Figure 2.) A POSITA would therefore appreciate that the SBC CPU (part of the recited processor ) would also be involved in the file transfer. (Zadok Decl., 127.) Pucci does not explicitly disclose that the processor execute[s] at least one other instruction set stored in the program memory to cause the at least one file to be transferred from the ION node to the workstation. However, a POSITA would have appreciated that the application CPU executes at least one instruction during execution of the application task and that the SBC CPU would execute[] at least one instruction to control the SCSI interface chip in performing file transfer from the ION node. (Zadok Decl., 128.) Additionally, a POSITA would have further found it obvious to store the at least one instruction in program memory because storing processor instructions in a memory was a well-known implementation as of the earliest possible priority date of the 746 patent. (Zadok Decl., 128; see also Pucci, p. 223 ( All ION tasks are memory resident and execute with their own flow of control. ).) An example of such programmed transfer of data

43 from the ION node to a host workstation over SCSI is shown in Figure 4. (Pucci, p. 229.) b) File transfer using the device driver [1F.2]. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt discloses a file transfer process in which the at least one file of digitized analog data acquired from the analog signal acquisition channel [is] transferred to the computer using the device driver corresponding to said class of devices [1F.2]. As discussed above, the combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt teaches that 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. (Zadok Decl., 129.) In Pucci, the workstation can request the digitized analog data from the ION node: [t]he part of the application that runs on the workstation requests converted data in response to a start/stop signal from other system hardware, which indicates the beginning and end of a recording session. (Pucci, p. 232.) A task of the A-to-D application (voic application) residing on the ION node interfaces to the SCSI bus and returns [the] data to the workstation when requested. (Pucci, p. 232.) In the combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt, the digitized data is stored as a file in the data storage memory of the ION node. (Zadok Decl., 130.) The workstation interacts with the ION node as a conventional disk drive that it knows how to deal with. (Pucci, p. 220) Accordingly, a POSITA would have found it

44 obvious to have the workstation read the digitized data file from the ION node in the same way it would read a file from a conventional disk drive. (Zadok Decl., 130.) Pucci discloses that data can be stored within an ION node as traditional file system data and that the workstation retrieves data by reading the data block address for the respective A to D channel. (Pucci, pp. 221, 232.) Thus, the workstation needs to only mount the ION node s file system to be able to read files from the ION node. (Zadok Decl., 130.) Further, the workstation handles the ION node like a conventional disk drive. Thus, a standard SCSI hard disk driver can be used to read the file from the ION node. (Zadok Decl., 131.) Accordingly, the file would be transferred to the workstation using the device driver corresponding to said class of devices. c) Appearance of the device as part of the class of devices [1F.3]. As shown in the previous section, the ION node acts like a hard disk in response to the file transfer request, such that the analog data acquisition device appears to the computer as if it were a device of the class of devices. (See Pucci, p. 217 ( ION appears to the workstation as a large, high speed disk device ); Zadok Decl., 132.) 6. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt discloses claim limitation [1G]. Claim 1 further recites whereby there is no requirement for any user-loaded file transfer enabling software to be loaded on or installed in the computer in

45 addition to the operating system. As discussed above, the workstation interacts with the ION node like a conventional disk drive. As such, a file can be read from the ION node in the same way as it would be read from the conventional disk drive. (Zadok Decl., 133.) That is, the system of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt accomplishes file transfer using existing SCSI hard disk drivers. (Zadok Decl., 133.) Pucci stresses that its ION system uses existing device drivers: A workstation sees ION as though it were physically a local disk drive... Software running within the ION system mimics the behavior of a conventional device, providing the workstation with a peripheral that it knows how to deal with. (Pucci, p. 220.) In Pucci, the workstation reads data from the ION node as if it were a conventional disk drive, using the standard SCSI interface: [t]he controlling program within the workstation merely reads from one of these designated disk block ad- dresses to obtain the converted data (lseek0 followed by read0 in the Unix domain). (Pucci, p. 221.) Thus, no file transfer enabling software needs to be loaded or installed by the user in the workstation of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt. (Zadok Decl., 133.) C. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt, renders claim 4 obvious. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt teaches or suggests that the analog data acquisition device is designed so that the analog source is detachable. As shown above for claim 1, the telephone switch provides analog data to ION for

46 A-to-D conversion and is at least one analog source. A POSITA would appreciated that the telephone switch system ( the analog source ) can be detachable from the ION node, for example by using a telephone cable. (Zadok Decl., 135.) The ION system is designed to be used with a variety of applications (e.g., audio mix application, voice messaging application, etc.). (Pucci, pp ) Designing the ION system such that application hardware can be attached and detached therefrom furthers this intended use of the ION node. (Zadok Decl., 135.) D. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt renders claim 6 obvious. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt teaches or suggests that the processor is adapted to be interfaced with the multipurpose interface of an external computing device by means of a cable. Pucci s ION node interfaces with one or more workstations via a SCSI bus. (See, e.g., Pucci, Figure 2, p. 225 ( Exchange data with the workstation across the SCSI bus ).) 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.) A POSITA would have also understood that cables were a conventional means for connecting SCSI peripherals such as the ION node to a workstation. (Zadok Decl., ) For example, the cover of Schmidt, which is titled The SCSI Bus and IDE Interface, illustrates a number of cables. (Schmidt, Cover.) Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA that the processor of the combined system is adapted to be interfaced with the

47 multipurpose interface of an external computing device by means of a cable. (Zadok Decl., ) E. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt renders claim 7 obvious. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt teaches or suggests that the analog source comprises a data transmit/receive device. As discussed above relative to claim 1, Pucci describes an exemplary analog to digital (A-to-D) conversion application that provides voice messaging service for a prototype telephone switch. (Pucci, p. 221.) In this application, the telephone switch is a data transmit/receive device because it transmits data to the ION node. (Zadok Decl., ) Pucci does not provide details of the switch, but Kepley discloses such details. Figure 1 of Kepley (reproduced in part below) illustrates a message service system having a voice mail service system 110 is connected to a telephone switching system 100 via voice mail service access lines

48 For the reasons discussed above in Section V.A, a POSITA would have found it obvious to combine Kepley s switch with Pucci s ION node as shown in the following figure. (Zadok Decl., 139.)

49 A POSITA would have therefore understood that the telephone switch in the combined system is a data transmit/receive device because it transmits and receives voice communication data. (See, e.g., Kepley, 5:15 22; Zadok Decl., 139.) F. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt renders claim 8 obvious. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt teaches or suggests that the analog source is designed for one of one-way and two-way communication with the host device. The telephone switch in the combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt is designed for one-way communication with the workstation. (Zadok Decl., 141.) Specifically, the switch transmits voice mail messages to the ION node, which digitizes them and stores them as files that can be communicated to the workstation. (Zadok Decl., 141.) Thus, the telephone switch is designed for at least one-way communication. G. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt renders claim 10 obvious. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt teaches or suggests [10A] a plurality of independent analog signal acquisition channels, [10B] 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, [10C] is digitized and [10D] is coupled into the processor and is processed by the processor

50 As discussed in Section V(B)(2)(b), an A-to-D converter in the combined system of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt teaches an analog signal acquisition channel for receiving a signal from an analog source. (Zadok Decl., 142.) The ION node, through its application hardware interface, connects to multiple A-to-D converters. (Pucci, Figure 1, Figure 2; Zadok Decl., 142.) Each A-to-D converter provides a respective analog channel for receiving analog voice messages. (Pucci, p. 221, Zadok Decl., 142.) ( The application s interface to the A-to-D converters is implemented as an action defined on a set of 5 disk block addresses, each corresponding to 1 of the 5 analog channels. ) On the workstation, an A-to-D conversion application (voic application) for the voice message service controls acquisition of the analog voice message data from the analog channels by activating the A-to-D converters. (Pucci, pp. 221, 223; Zadok Decl., 142.) ( The bulk of the application resides in a conventional workstation, while the peripheral devices are located within ION. ) Each A-to-D converter is read independently of the others. (Zadok Decl. 143.) Specifically, [t]he part of the application that runs on the workstation requests converted data in response to a start/stop signal from other system hardware, which indicates the beginning and end of a recording session. Upon start, the workstation reads the A-to-D start address for an appropriate channel, activating the device. (Pucci, p. 232 (emphasis added).) Thus, Pucci teaches a

51 plurality of independent analog acquisition channels [10A]. (Zadok Decl., 143.) Pucci does not explicitly disclose that analog data is simultaneously acquired from at least two of the plurality of channels. However, it would have been obvious to a POSITA to simultaneously acquire data from two A-to-D converter channels in Pucci. (Zadok Decl., 144.) Pucci discloses that a workstation may have multiple connections to the ION node, and both connections can transfer acquired data to the workstation. (Pucci, p. 232 ( if only a single connection to ION is required, the application can be designed to suspend on data availability, while using a polling mechanism if multiple connections are necessary ); Zadok Decl., 144.) By utilizing the logical unit structure of SCSI, furthermore, Pucci discloses that there can be 8 independent channels into ION. (Pucci, p. 233.) The provision of these independent channels between the workstation and the ION node in Pucci s voic embodiment suggests that the workstation can receive data from multiple A-to-D converters at the same time. (Zadok Decl., 145.) Each connection would appear to the workstation as a separate hard disk, allowing for multiple simultaneous read/write commands to be issued to the ION node. (Zadok Decl., 145.) Such commands are used for A-to-D conversion in the voic embodiment (see Pucci, p. 221), and each A-to-D converter corresponds to a different disk block address. (Pucci, p. 221.) Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a POSITA to use multiple SCSI connections to simultaneously acquire data from at least two A-to-D

52 converters. (Zadok Decl., 145.) As shown above for claim limitation [1D], acquired analog data is processed and digitized. The A-to-D converters of Pucci digitize the data. (See Pucci, p. 232.) In addition, the processing includes performing data compression on the input stream by translat[ing] 16-bit linear data into 8-bit mu law data. (Pucci, p. 231.) This processing is performed by a generic system utility or task that is part of the A-to-D application [that] resides within ION. (Pucci, p. 231.) It therefore would have been obvious for the Application CPU (part of the recited processor ) to perform the compression. (Zadok Decl., 146.) Thus, the combination teaches or suggests that the analog data is digitized and is coupled into the processor and is processed by the processor. For this digitization and processing to occur, the processor must be operatively coupled to the analog channels, which themselves must be operatively coupled to respective analog sources. (Zadok Decl., 146.) Thus, the combination teaches or suggests each of the plurality of channels operatively coupled to the processor for operatively coupling to one of a plurality of analog sources. H. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt, renders claim 11 obvious. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt teaches or suggests that the processor allows for a plurality of different data transmit devices to be attached thereto and detached therefrom. As discussed above in Section V(C) and (E), the

53 ION node attaches and detaches from a telephone switch (a data transmit device). However, the ION node can attach and detach from other data transmit devices. Figure 1 of Pucci (reproduced below) illustrates that the ION node is connected to ION disks in addition to A-to-D converters. Each ION disk is a data transmit device because it transmits data to the ION node as any disk drive would do. (Zadok Decl., 148.) It would have been obvious to a POSITA that the ION disks could be attached or detached. (Zadok Decl., 149.) The ION disks could be SCSI disks. (Zadok Decl., 149.) As discussed above in Section V(D) 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,

54 illustrates a number of cables. (Schmidt, Cover.) A POSITA would have understood that a SCSI cable allows for a peripheral, such as an ION disk, to be attached or detached from the bus. (Zadok Decl., 149.) Accordingly, the ION processor allows an ION disk (a data transmit device[] ) to be attached thereto and detached therefrom. (Zadok Decl., 149.) Because both the ION disk and the telephone switch are data transmit devices that are connected to the ION node, the combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt discloses wherein the processor allows for a plurality of different data transmit devices to be attached thereto and detached therefrom. (Zadok Decl., ) I. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt renders claim 20 obvious. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt teaches or suggests that 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 in Section V(B)(3) for claim 1, the combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt 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. Additionally, the processor of

55 Pucci executes instructions that allow the at least one file of digitized analog data acquired from the analog signal acquisition channel [is] transferred to the computer as discussed in Section V(B)(5) above. And, the transfer is direct the application executing on the ION node interfaces to the SCSI bus and returns data to the workstation when requested. (Pucci, p. 232.) The combination of Pucci, Kepley and Schmidt does not explicitly disclose where the file data is stored on the workstation once transferred. However, a POSITA would recognize that the workstation would write the file data to a memory device (e.g., RAM) of the workstation, from which the file data can be accessed by the voice messaging service application running on the workstation. (Pucci, p. 221; Zadok Decl., 152.) Because the workstation s memory device is a read/write device, it is an input/output device. (Zadok Decl., 152.) Thus, combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt teaches that the at least one file... is directly transferred to an input/output device. (Zadok Decl., 152.) J. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt renders claim 21 obvious. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt 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. Pucci discloses that the workstation ( external computer ) can

56 control data acquisition tasks ( an aspect of operation other than the transfer of digitized analog data ) of the ION node. For example, Pucci s Figure 5, below, illustrates a sequence of instructions prepared by the workstation to configure the data acquisition tasks. (Pucci, p. 229.) These tasks run[] within the ION system, and thus a POSITA would appreciate that the processor of the ION node is configured to allow this mode of operation. (Pucci, p. 220; Zadok Decl., 153.) K. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt renders claim 30 obvious. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt 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. Pucci discloses that with its design, no driver changes to the host s operating system are necessary upon workstation upgrade. (Pucci, p. 231.) The disclosure

57 that no changes are required suggests that the SCSI hard disk driver was installed with the operating system of the workstation. (Zadok Decl., 154.) In Pucci s voic embodiment, [t]he controlling program within the workstation merely reads from one of [the] designated disk block addresses to obtain the converted data (lseek() followed by read() in the Unix domain). (Pucci, p. 220.) The controlling program on the workstation is the recited device driver program. Communication, specifically data transfer, between the ION node and the workstation takes place by means of this program, which is defined in terms of standard disk read and write accesses. Therefore, the controlling program is matched to the SCSI adapter ( multi-purpose interface ) of the workstation. (Zadok Decl., 155.) Thus, 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. Pucci also discloses that the application remains portable across workstation changes, operating system releases, and to a large degree, complete operating system changes (e.g., Unix to VMS). (Pucci, p. 221.) This disclosure, in addition to Pucci s teaching that its ION backplane-based environment is portable in its entirety across workstation changes (Pucci, p. 219) suggest that the analog data acquisition device [is] host device independent. (Zadok Decl., 155.)

58 L. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt renders independent claim 34 obvious. Independent claim 34 shares overlapping claim limitations with independent claim 1. The following section highlights differences between the independent claims and demonstrates that the combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt renders independent claim 34 obvious. 1. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt 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 Pucci, Kepley, 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, the combination also teaches a method for analog data acquisition and interfacing to a host device [34P]. (See Pucci, pp. 217, 221; Schmidt, p. 79.) Further as discussed above for limitation [1P.2.c] that recites the computer automatically activates a device driver, the workstation of Pucci includes a SCSI device driver. (See Pucci, p.231; Schmidt, p. 79.) Thus, the combination teaches that the host device includes a device driver. (Zadok Decl., 156.) 2. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt discloses the interfacing step [34A]. Claim 34 further recites the following architectural limitation:

59 [34A] operatively interfacing a data acquisition device, including a processor and a memory, with a multi-purpose interface of the host device. 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(B)(1), the combination also teaches operatively interfacing a data acquisition device with a multi-purpose interface of the host device. (See Pucci, p. 217; Schmidt, p. 79; Zadok Decl., 157.) And, as established above for claim limitations [1A] and [1C], the analog acquisition device comprises a program memory and a processor. Accordingly, the combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt discloses the operatively interfacing a data acquisition device, including a processor and a memory, with a multi-purpose interface of the host device. (See Pucci, pp ; Zadok Decl., 157.) 3. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt 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

60 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, and the processed and digitized analog data is stored in a file system as at least the file of the digitized analog data. For the reasons discussed in Section V(B)(3), the combination also teaches and 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 Pucci, pp. 221, 222, 231, 232; Kepley, Abstract, 15:59 to 16:4; Zadok Decl., ) 4. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt 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(B)(4). The following table highlights the similarities between the claims: Claim limitation [1E] 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 Claim limitation [34C] 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

61 multipurpose interface of the computer, independent of the analog source, wherein the analog data acquisition device is not within the class of devices analog data acquisition device, regardless of the analog source As explained above in relation to claim 1, the combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt sends a response to an INQUIRY command indicative of the hard disk class in the SCSI standard. A POSITA would have understood that hard disks are digital device[s]. (Zadok Decl., 162.) Accordingly, the combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt teaches or suggests claim limitation [34C]. 5. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt 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(B)(5). The following table highlights the similarities between the claims: Claim limitations [1F] and [1G] 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 Claim limitation [34D] 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,

62 to the computer using the device driver corresponding to said class of devices so that the analog data acquisition device appears to the computer as if it were a device of the class of devices; while using the device driver to perform the automatic transfer of the acquired digitized analog data to the host device 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], the combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt 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. (Zadok Decl., ) This transfer is automatic[] in response to a digital data read command from the host device as recited in limitation [34D]: The application s interface to the A-to-D converters is implemented as an action defined on a set of 5 disk block addresses, each

63 corresponding to 1 of the 5 analog channels. The controlling program within the workstation merely reads from one of these designated disk block addresses to obtain the converted data (lseek() followed by read() in the Unix domain). (Pucci, p. 221; Zadok Decl., 164.) M. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt renders claim 35 obvious. Claim 35 is substantively similar to claim 10, discussed above in Section V(G). The following table highlights the similarities between the claims: Claim 10 Claim 35 The analog data acquisition device of The method of claim 34, further claim 1 further comprising a plurality of comprising simultaneously acquiring the independent analog signal acquisition analog data from each respective analog 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. 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 of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt teaches or suggests a plurality of independent analog signal acquisition channels

64 and that analog data is simultaneously acquired from at least two of the plurality of channels. Thus, the combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt also teaches or suggests simultaneously acquiring the analog data from each respective analog channel of a plurality of respective independent acquisition channels. (Zadok Decl., 166.) As discussed in Section V(B)(3) for limitation [1D], the combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt 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 channel, and therefore it would have been obvious for the acquisition in claim 35 to be under control of the processor. (Zadok Decl., 166.) The combined system further discloses acquiring analog data from the analog source time independent of transferring the acquired analog data to the host device because the system uses [l]arge buffer memory and local node storage to cache [] physical device data. (Pucci, p. 222.) Such caching decouples the time of acquisition from the time of transfer. (Zadok Decl., 167.) VI. Ground 2: The combination of Pucci, Kepley, Schmidt, and Shinosky renders claim 14 obvious. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, Schmidt, and Shinosky teaches or suggests that the analog source includes at least first and second transducers both of which are designed to transmit data. Pucci suggests first and second transducers that directly connect to the A-to-D converters of the ION system. (See, e.g., Pucci,

65 pp. 217 (disclosing capture and digitization of high quality stereo audio ) and 229 (disclosing an application used to mix a stereo source of analog data into a single stream ).) These audio applications each include a transducer. As shown above relative to claim 1, the analog source in the combined system of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt is a telephone switch. A POSITA would have understood that a telephone switch connects to a telephone, which includes a transducer to convert an audio signal into an electronic signal. (See, e.g., Kepley, Figure 1.) In addition, a POSITA would have understood that a telephone switch had other types of transducers. Shinosky discloses an exemplary implementation of a telephone switch having first and second transducers that transmit analog data. (Zadok Decl., 168.) Shinosky describes [a] switching system, specifically useful as a telephone central switching system, to establish a number of simultaneous but independent communication links between selected lines. (Shinosky, Abstract.) Figure 1 of Shinosky (reproduced below) illustrates the switching system focusing on a single input

66 The input signal in Shinosky s switch is converted to a varying voltage in an electrical conductor by the transducing unit 1-E and applied to the z-axis input of the [CRT]. (Shinosky, 9:27 31.) The signal causes the emission of light due to the operation of the cathode ray tube (CRT). (Shinosky, 9:30 37.) As Shinosky states, the signal which was emitted by the generic source 1-F has now become an intensity modulated light signal. (Shinosky, 9:39 41.) The modulated light signal is direct[ed] at a specific chosen photosensor in the array. (Shinosky, 9:65 67.) A POSITA would recognize that a photosensor is a transducer that converts a light signal to an electrical signal. (Zadok Decl., 169 (citing Microsoft Dictionary, pp ).) For example, Figure 1 of Shinosky illustrates that the output of a

67 photosensor is amplified by amplifier 3-C and output to a speaker 3-D. (See Shinosky, 9:56 60.) Figure 6 of Shinosky (reproduced in part below) illustrates a switching system that includes an array of the photosensors discussed above and those includes at least first and second transducers both of which are designed to transmit data. (Zadok Decl., 171.) Figure 6, for example, illustrates two photosensors in the array transmitting data to respective telephones. (See Shinosky, Figure 6; Zadok Decl., )

68 Although Pucci nor Kepley disclose a switch, neither provides details regarding the implementation of their respective telephone switches, therefore a POSITA would have looked to the prior art to provide such details, including Shinosky. (Zadok Decl., 172.) A POSITA would have been motivated to use Shinosky s switch as part of Kepley s telephone switching system because Shinosky s switch is wireless and switchless (Shinosky, 6:42 44), resulting in a significant reduction in component requirements, and a consequent reduction in cost (Shinosky, 28:44 47; Zadok Decl., 172.) The combination would have yielded the predictable result of an operable telephone switching system for routing calls. (Zadok Decl., 172.) VII. Ground 3: The combination of Pucci, Kepley, Schmidt, and Wilson renders claim 23 obvious. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, Schmidt and Wilson teaches or suggests the analog data is processed by being subject to a fast Fourier transform. As discussed above in Section V(B)(3)(b), the combined system of Pucci, Kepley and Schmidt teaches that the analog data is processed. Specifically, Pucci discloses that mu-law data compression is applied on the digitized analog data: The second task is a generic system utility that translates 16-bit linear data into 8-bit mu-law data, as required by this particular application. It is essentially performing data compression on the input stream. (Pucci, p. 231.) The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt does not explicitly disclose that the analog data is processed

69 by being subject to a fast Fourier transform. However, in a related field of endeavor, Wilson discloses a low bit rate voice encoding technique that provides intelligible speech at low signal-to-noise ratios. (Wilson, 2:28 30.) Like Pucci, Wilson discloses applying mu-law data compression on the digitized data in a telephone application: [t]he resulting high quality signal at the output of the A/D 14 has a bit rate of 96 kbits per second. In a telephone application the 12 bits is reduced to 8 bits by A law or Mu-law companding, which encodes the voice signal by using a simple non-linearity. (Wilson, 3:38 42.) To achieve further compression, Wilson teaches applying information coding using a transform coder, or an adaptive transform coder. (Wilson, 4:8 9, 4:20 21.) For this approach, the signal is transformed using a fast Fourier transform or other transform, typically a transform that can be executed using a fast algorithm. (Wilson, 4:21 28.) A POSITA would have found it obvious to use a transform coder as taught in Wilson in Pucci s ION node to achieve additional compression of the digitized voice signal. (Zadok Decl., 175.) Wilson teaches that transform coding produces a 4:1 or 8:1 compression of the voice signal and that the resulting encoder output, when using the transform coder, is 1 kbits per second to 2 kbits per second of high quality voice signal. (Wilson, 4:28 33.) A POSITA would have recognized the advantages achieved by further compressing the digitized voice signal using Wilson s transform coding, including lower storage requirements and faster transmission. (Zadok Decl., 176.)

70 Additionally, the combination would have been a combination of known prior art elements (mu-law compression, transform coding) according to known methods (mu-law compression followed by transform coding) to yield predictable results (a compressed data signal). (Zadok Decl., 176.) Accordingly, the combination of Pucci, Kepley, Schmidt, and Wilson teaches that the analog data is, when the analog data generation process takes place, processed by being subject to a fast Fourier transform. (Zadok Decl., 176.) VIII. The proposed grounds are not redundant to previously filed petitions. Petitioner s proposed grounds against the 746 patent based on Pucci are not redundant to grounds previously proposed by other Petitioners based on Aytac, Murata, Kawaguchi, Yamamoto, and McNeill. First, none of those grounds relies on Schmidt as a secondary reference. Second, all of the previously proposed grounds are based on patent literature. Furthermore, the Murata and McNeill grounds are either anticipatory or rely on admitted prior art or the knowledge of a POSITA. Pucci is a printed publication describing a node that emulates a large hard disk to a number of workstations to act as, for example, a digital voice mail system, but provides almost no detail on how the workstation recognizes it as a hard disk, focusing instead on data transfer. Aytac discloses a system that interfaces with a telecommunications network for storing messages while the computer is offline. Kawaguchi discloses a method to make a device appear as a hard disk in order to

71 Petition for Inter Panes Review of convert peripheral communication signals to and from the SCSI interface. One of these signals comes from an AID converter, but Kawaguchi provides limited information about the source of that data. Murata is a U.S. patent disclosing a diskemulating scanner that interfaces a light-sensing CCDcontained within the scannerto a computer, but provides few details on the recognition process. Yamamoto discloses a standalone digital camera. IX. Conclusion For the reasons provided above, inter partes review of claims 1, 4, 6-8, 10, 11, 14, 20, 21, 23, 30, 34, and 35 of is requested. Respectfully submitted, STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & Fox P.L.L.C. Date: October 11,2016 Lo * A. Registration No. 50,633 Attorney for Petitioner 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C (202)

72 APPENDIX A - LISTING OF CHALLENGED CLAIMS 1. 1P.11 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 II 1 P.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, I1P.31 the analog data acquisition device comprising: [1A] a) a program memory; [1B] 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; [1D.1] 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,

73 [1D.21 the analog data is processed and digitized, and [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; [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 II 1 E.2 11 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; 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;

74 U.S. Patent No. 8,504, 746 I1F.411 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.

75 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

76 program which is matched to the multi-purpose interface of the computer rendering the analog data acquisition device host device independent P A method for analog data acquisition and interfacing to a host device wherein the host device includes a device driver, comprising: 134A1 operatively interfacing a data acquisition device, including a processor and a memory, with a multi-purpose interface of the host device; 134B1 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; [34C] 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 [34D] 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.1] without requiring any user-loaded file transfer enabling software to be loaded on or installed in the host device.

77 Petition for Inter Panes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,504, 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.

78 CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE (37 C.F.R. 42.6(e), (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 PAIR Correspondence Address for US.P.N 8,504,746 Christopher V. Goodpastor Andrew G. DiNovo DiNovo Price Ellwanger & Hardy LLP 7000 N. MoPac Expressway, Suite 350 Austin, Texas STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & Fox P.L.L.C. Date: October 11, New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C (202) Lor(i Reg. No. 50,633 Attorney for Petitioner

79 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 13,126 words, excluding the parts exempted by 37 C.F.R (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. Lori A. Gordon Registration No. 50,633 Attorney for Petitioner

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 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

More information

PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,301,833 IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,301,833 IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE In the Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,301,833 Trial No.: Not Yet Assigned Issued: October 30, 2012 Filed: September 29, 2008 Inventors: Chi-She

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. APPLE INC. Petitioner,

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. APPLE INC. Petitioner, UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Paper No. 1 BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD APPLE INC. Petitioner, v. VIRNETX, INC. AND SCIENCE APPLICATION INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Patent Owner Title:

More information

Paper 13 Tel: Entered: January 16, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Paper 13 Tel: Entered: January 16, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trials@uspto.gov Paper 13 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: January 16, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD DELL INC. Petitioner v. ACCELERON, LLC Patent Owner

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. Filed on behalf of SanDisk Corporation By: Lori A. Gordon Robert E. Sokohl Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC 1100 New York Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. Tel: (202) 371-2600 Fax: (202) 371-2540 UNITED

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, Petitioner

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, Petitioner Paper No. Filed on behalf of Hewlett-Packard Company By: Stuart P. Meyer, Reg. No. 33,426 Jennifer R. Bush, Reg. No. 50,784 Fenwick & West LLP 801 California Street Mountain View, CA 94041 Tel: (650) 988-8500

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE. Filing Date: Nov. 27, 2002 CONTROL PLANE SECURITY AND TRAFFIC FLOW MANAGEMENT

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE. Filing Date: Nov. 27, 2002 CONTROL PLANE SECURITY AND TRAFFIC FLOW MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE In re Patent of: Smethurst et al. U.S. Patent No.: 7,224,668 Issue Date: May 29, 2007 Atty Docket No.: 40963-0006IP1 Appl. Serial No.: 10/307,154 Filing

More information

Paper 7 Tel: Entered: January 14, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Paper 7 Tel: Entered: January 14, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trials@uspto.gov Paper 7 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: January 14, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD EMERSON ELECTRIC CO., Petitioner, v. SIPCO, LLC,

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. ServiceNow, Inc. Petitioner. BMC Software, Inc.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. ServiceNow, Inc. Petitioner. BMC Software, Inc. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ServiceNow, Inc. Petitioner v. BMC Software, Inc. Patent Owner Filing Date: August 30, 2000 Issue Date: May 17, 2005 TITLE:

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE In re Patent of: Finn U.S. Patent No.: 8,051,211 Issue Date: Nov. 1, 2011 Atty Docket No.: 40963-0008IP1 Appl. Serial No.: 10/282,438 PTAB Dkt. No.: IPR2015-00975

More information

Paper Date Entered: June 9, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Date Entered: June 9, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 33 571-272-7822 Date Entered: June 9, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD APPLE INC., GOOGLE INC., and MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC,

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. Texas Association of REALTORS Petitioner,

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. Texas Association of REALTORS Petitioner, UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Texas Association of REALTORS Petitioner, v. POI Search Solutions, LLC Patent Owner PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF

More information

Paper 22 Tel: Entered: January 29, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Paper 22 Tel: Entered: January 29, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trials@uspto.gov Paper 22 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: January 29, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RACKSPACE HOSTING, INC., Petitioner, v. CLOUDING

More information

Paper Entered: January 14, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: January 14, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 9 571-272-7822 Entered: January 14, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SYMANTEC CORP., Petitioner, v. FINJAN, INC., Patent Owner.

More information

Paper 10 Tel: Entered: October 10, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Paper 10 Tel: Entered: October 10, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trials@uspto.gov Paper 10 Tel: 571 272 7822 Entered: October 10, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD IRON DOME LLC, Petitioner, v. CHINOOK LICENSING

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. GOOGLE INC., Petitioner,

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. GOOGLE INC., Petitioner, NO: 426479US IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD GOOGLE INC., Petitioner, v. MOBILESTAR TECHNOLOGIES LLC, Patent Owners. Case IPR2015-00090 Patent

More information

Paper Entered: February 27, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: February 27, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 39 571-272-7822 Entered: February 27, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD DELL INC., HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, and NETAPP, INC.,

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. APPLE INC. Petitioner,

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. APPLE INC. Petitioner, UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Paper No. 1 BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD APPLE INC. Petitioner, v. VIRNETX, INC. AND SCIENCE APPLICATION INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Patent Owner Title:

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. FACEBOOK, INC., WHATSAPP INC., Petitioners

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. FACEBOOK, INC., WHATSAPP INC., Petitioners UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD FACEBOOK, INC., WHATSAPP INC., Petitioners v. UNILOC USA, INC., UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A., Patent Owners TITLE: SYSTEM AND

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. Unified Patents Inc., Petitioner v.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. Unified Patents Inc., Petitioner v. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Unified Patents Inc., Petitioner v. Hall Data Sync Technologies LLC Patent Owner IPR2015- Patent 7,685,506 PETITION FOR

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. GOOGLE INC., Petitioner,

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. GOOGLE INC., Petitioner, NO: 439226US IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD GOOGLE INC., Petitioner, v. MOBILESTAR TECHNOLOGIES LLC, Patent Owner. Case IPR2015- Patent U.S. 6,333,973

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. ESET, LLC and ESET spol s.r.o Petitioners

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. ESET, LLC and ESET spol s.r.o Petitioners Paper No. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ESET, LLC and ESET spol s.r.o Petitioners v. FINJAN, Inc. Patent Owner Patent No. 7,975,305 Issue Date: July

More information

Paper Entered: June 23, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: June 23, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 11 571 272 7822 Entered: June 23, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD FIELDCOMM GROUP, Petitioner, v. SIPCO, LLC, Patent Owner.

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD AMAZON.COM, INC., - vs. - SIMPLEAIR, INC.

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD AMAZON.COM, INC., - vs. - SIMPLEAIR, INC. Paper No. 1 IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD AMAZON.COM, INC., - vs. - Petitioner SIMPLEAIR, INC., Patent Owner Patent No. 8,572,279 Issued: October

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE In re Patent of: Jeffrey C. Hawkins, et al. U.S. Patent No.: 9,203,940 Attorney Docket No.: 39521-0049IP1 Issue Date: December 1, 2015 Appl. Serial No.:

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE. In the Inter Partes Review of: Attorney Docket No.:

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE. In the Inter Partes Review of: Attorney Docket No.: IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE In the Inter Partes Review of: Attorney Docket No.: 044029-0025 U.S. Patent No. 6,044,382 Filed: June 20, 1997 Trial Number: To Be Assigned Panel: To Be

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD AT&T MOBILITY, LLC AND CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A VERIZON WIRELESS Petitioners v. SOLOCRON MEDIA, LLC Patent Owner Case

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE In re Inter Partes Review of: ) U.S. Patent No. 8,468,174 ) Issued: June 18, 2013 ) Application No.: 13/301,448 ) Filing Date: Nov. 21, 2011 ) For: Interfacing

More information

Vivek Ganti Reg. No. 71,368; and Gregory Ourada Reg. No UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Vivek Ganti Reg. No. 71,368; and Gregory Ourada Reg. No UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE By: Vivek Ganti (vg@hkw-law.com) Reg. No. 71,368; and Gregory Ourada (go@hkw-law.com) Reg. No. 55516 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Mail Stop PATENT

More information

Paper Entered: May 1, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: May 1, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 10 571-272-7822 Entered: May 1, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ORACLE CORPORATION Petitioners, v. CLOUDING IP, LLC Patent

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. ITRON, INC., Petitioner

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. ITRON, INC., Petitioner UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ITRON, INC., Petitioner v. SMART METER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Patent Owner Case: IPR2017-01199 U.S. Patent No. 7,058,524

More information

Paper 13 Tel: Entered: July 10, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper 13 Tel: Entered: July 10, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 13 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: July 10, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD LG ELECTRONICS, INC., Petitioner, v. ADVANCED MICRO

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. TALARI NETWORKS, INC., Petitioner,

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. TALARI NETWORKS, INC., Petitioner, Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 32 571.272.7822 Filed: November 1, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD TALARI NETWORKS, INC., Petitioner, v. FATPIPE NETWORKS

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. SAS INSTITUTE, INC. Petitioner. COMPLEMENTSOFT, LLC Patent Owner

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. SAS INSTITUTE, INC. Petitioner. COMPLEMENTSOFT, LLC Patent Owner Trials@uspto.gov Paper 9 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: August 12, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SAS INSTITUTE, INC. Petitioner v. COMPLEMENTSOFT,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE In re Patent of: Howard G. Sachs U.S. Patent No.: 5,463,750 Attorney Docket No.: 39521-0009IP1 Issue Date: Oct. 31, 1995 Appl. Serial No.: 08/146,818 Filing

More information

Paper Date: February 16, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Date: February 16, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Case: 16-1901 Document: 1-2 Page: 9 Filed: 04/21/2016 (10 of 75) Trials@uspto.gov Paper 37 571-272-7822 Date: February 16, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. LG ELECTRONICS, INC. Petitioner

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. LG ELECTRONICS, INC. Petitioner UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD LG ELECTRONICS, INC. Petitioner v. ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. Patent Owner Case No.: IPR2015-00328 Patent 5,898,849

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. GOOGLE INC., Petitioner,

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. GOOGLE INC., Petitioner, NO: 426476US IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD GOOGLE INC., Petitioner, v. ROCKSTAR CONSORTIUM US LP, Patent Owner. Case IPR2015- Patent U.S. 6,128,298

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. THE MANGROVE PARTNERS MASTER FUND, LTD.

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. THE MANGROVE PARTNERS MASTER FUND, LTD. NO: IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD THE MANGROVE PARTNERS MASTER FUND, LTD. Petitioner, v. VIRNETX INC., Patent Owner. Case IPR2015- Patent U.S.

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. AVOCENT HUNTSVILLE CORP. AND LIEBERT CORP.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. AVOCENT HUNTSVILLE CORP. AND LIEBERT CORP. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD AVOCENT HUNTSVILLE CORP. AND LIEBERT CORP., Petitioners v. CYBER SWITCHING PATENTS, LLC Patent Owner Case IPR2015-01438

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. GOOGLE INC., Petitioner,

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. GOOGLE INC., Petitioner, NO: 439244US IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD GOOGLE INC., Petitioner, v. MobileStar Technologies LLC, Patent Owner. Case IPR2015- Patent U.S. 6,333,973

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. Cisco Systems, Inc., Petitioner, AIP Acquisition LLC, Patent Owner

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. Cisco Systems, Inc., Petitioner, AIP Acquisition LLC, Patent Owner UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Cisco Systems, Inc., Petitioner, v. AIP Acquisition LLC, Patent Owner PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Attorney Docket: COX-714IPR IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Inter Partes Review Case No. IPR2015- Inter Partes Review of: U.S. Patent No. 7,907,714 Issued: March 15, 2011 To: Paul G. Baniak

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case :0-cv-00-MRP -FFM Document Filed 0/0/0 Page of Page ID #:0 0 0 Frank M. Weyer, Esq. (State Bar No. 0 TECHCOASTLAW 0 Whitley Ave. Los Angeles CA 00 Telephone: (0 - Facsimile: (0-0 fweyer@techcoastlaw.com

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. KYOCERA CORPORATION, and MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC Petitioners,

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. KYOCERA CORPORATION, and MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC Petitioners, Kyocera PX 1052_1 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD KYOCERA CORPORATION, and MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC Petitioners, v. SOFTVIEW LLC, Patent Owner. SUPPLEMENTAL

More information

Case 2:16-cv Document 1 Filed 11/14/16 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1

Case 2:16-cv Document 1 Filed 11/14/16 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1 Case 2:16-cv-01268 Document 1 Filed 11/14/16 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION SMART AUTHENTICATION IP, LLC, Plaintiff, Civil

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. Oracle Corporation Petitioner,

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. Oracle Corporation Petitioner, UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Oracle Corporation Petitioner, v. Crossroads Systems, Inc. Patent Owner. IPR2015- U.S. Patent No. 7,934,041 PETITION FOR

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. HULU, LLC, NETFLIX, INC., and SPOTIFY USA INC.

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. HULU, LLC, NETFLIX, INC., and SPOTIFY USA INC. IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD HULU, LLC, NETFLIX, INC., and SPOTIFY USA INC. Petitioners v. CRFD RESEARCH, INC. Patent Owner U.S. Patent No.

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 38 Tel: 571.272.7822 Entered: June 17, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD GOOGLE INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and

More information

Paper Date Entered: September 9, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Paper Date Entered: September 9, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trials@uspto.gov Paper 18 571-272-7822 Date Entered: September 9, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS

More information

Paper Entered: April 6, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: April 6, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 17 571-272-7822 Entered: April 6, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., Petitioner, v. UNILOC USA, INC. and

More information

PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO

PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO Filed on behalf of Global Tel*Link Corporation By: Michael B. Ray, Reg. No. 33,997 Michael D. Specht, Reg. No. 54,463 Ryan C. Richardson, Reg. No. 67,254 Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. 1100

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. APPLE INC. Petitioner,

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. APPLE INC. Petitioner, Paper No. 1 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD APPLE INC. Petitioner, v. VIRNETX, INC. AND SCIENCE APPLICATION INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Patent Owner. Patent

More information

Paper 8 Tel: Entered: June 11, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper 8 Tel: Entered: June 11, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 8 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: June 11, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ARISTA NETWORKS, INC., Petitioner, v. CISCO SYSTEMS,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 35 U.S.C. 311 AND 37 C.F.R

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 35 U.S.C. 311 AND 37 C.F.R IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE In the Inter Partes Review of: Trial Number: To Be Assigned U.S. Patent No. 5,839,108 Filed: June 30, 1997 Issued: November 17, 1998 Inventor(s): Norbert

More information

Paper Entered: May 24, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: May 24, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 18 571-272-7822 Entered: May 24, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD AVAYA INC. Petitioner v. NETWORK-1 SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC.

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. MICROSOFT CORPORATION Petitioner

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. MICROSOFT CORPORATION Petitioner Filed on behalf of Petitioners By: Richard D. Mc Leod (Reg. No. 46,921) Rick.mcleod@klarquist.com Klarquist Sparkman LLP One World Trade Center, Suite 1600 121 S.W. Salmon Street Portland, Oregon 97204

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. NETFLIX, INC., Petitioner, COPY PROTECTION LLC, Patent Owner.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. NETFLIX, INC., Petitioner, COPY PROTECTION LLC, Patent Owner. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD NETFLIX, INC., Petitioner, v. COPY PROTECTION LLC, Patent Owner. IPR Case No. Not Yet Assigned Patent 7,079,649 PETITION

More information

Paper Entered: April 29, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: April 29, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 33 571-272-7822 Entered: April 29, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Petitioner, v. GLOBAL TEL*LINK

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE United States Patent No: 6,836,290 Inventors: Randall M. Chung, Ferry Gunawan, Dino D. Trotta Formerly Application No.: 09/302,090 Issue Date: December

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE. For: Datacenter Workflow Automation Scenarios Using Virtual Databases

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE. For: Datacenter Workflow Automation Scenarios Using Virtual Databases IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE In re Inter Partes Review of: ) U.S. Patent No. 8,566,361 ) Issued: October 22, 2013 ) Application No.: 13/316,263 ) Filing Date: December 9, 2011 ) For:

More information

Paper No Entered: August 4, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper No Entered: August 4, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 39 571-272-7822 Entered: August 4, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD APPLE INC., HTC CORPORATION, and HTC AMERICA, INC.,

More information

Paper No Date Entered: August 19, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Paper No Date Entered: August 19, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 8 571-272-7822 Date Entered: August 19, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD UNIVERSAL REMOTE CONTROL, INC. Petitioner v. UNIVERSAL

More information

Paper Date: January 14, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Date: January 14, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 9 571-272-7822 Date: January 14, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SYMANTEC CORP., Petitioner, v. FINJAN, INC., Patent Owner

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. TALARI NETWORKS, INC., Petitioner,

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. TALARI NETWORKS, INC., Petitioner, Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 32 571.272.7822 Filed: November 1, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD TALARI NETWORKS, INC., Petitioner, v. FATPIPE NETWORKS

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE In re Patent of: Backman et al. U.S. Pat. No.: 5,902,347 Attorney Docket No.: 00037-0002IP1 Issue Date: May 11, 1999 Appl. Serial No.: 08/835,037 Filing

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD CERNER CORPORATION, CERNER HEALTH SERVICES, INC., ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, INC., EPIC SYSTEMS CORPORATION, and

More information

Paper 17 Tel: Entered: September 5, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Paper 17 Tel: Entered: September 5, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trials@uspto.gov Paper 17 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: September 5, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD FACEBOOK, INC., Petitioner, v. SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS,

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. FedEx Corporate Services, Inc., Petitioner

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. FedEx Corporate Services, Inc., Petitioner Paper No. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD FedEx Corporate Services, Inc., Petitioner v. Catharon Intellectual Property, LLC, Patent Owner Patent No. 6,065,046

More information

Paper Entered: March 6, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: March 6, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 8 571-272-7822 Entered: March 6, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD HULU, LLC, Petitioner, v. INTERTAINER, INC., Patent Owner.

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE In the Inter Partes Review of: Trial Number: To Be Assigned U.S. Patent No. 8,237,294 Filed: January 29, 2010 Issued: August 7, 2012 Inventor(s): Naohide

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. GoPro, Inc. Petitioner, Contour, LLC Patent Owner

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. GoPro, Inc. Petitioner, Contour, LLC Patent Owner IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD GoPro, Inc. Petitioner, v. Contour, LLC Patent Owner U.S. Patent No. 8,896,694 to O Donnell et al. Issue Date:

More information

Paper Entered: July 15, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: July 15, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 14 571-272-7822 Entered: July 15, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SYMANTEC CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. RPOST COMMUNICATIONS

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. Petitioner

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. Petitioner Trials@uspto.gov 571-272-7822 Paper No. 61 Date Entered: April 24, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. Petitioner v. MOBILE

More information

Paper Entered: December 15, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: December 15, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 36 571-272-7822 Entered: December 15, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD GENBAND US LLC and GENBAND MANAGEMENT SERVICES CORP.,

More information

Paper 62 Tel: Entered: October 9, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Paper 62 Tel: Entered: October 9, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trials@uspto.gov Paper 62 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: October 9, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SIPNET EU S.R.O. Petitioner, v. STRAIGHT PATH IP

More information

Paper No Entered: January 15, 2019 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Paper No Entered: January 15, 2019 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 68 571-272-7822 Entered: January 15, 2019 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD GOOGLE LLC, Petitioner, v. SPRING VENTURES LTD.,

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. UNIFIED PATENTS INC. Petitioner

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. UNIFIED PATENTS INC. Petitioner Filed on behalf of Unified Patents Inc. By: Vincent J. Galluzzo, Reg. No. 67,830 Teresa Stanek Rea, Reg. No. 30,427 Crowell & Moring LLP 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 Tel: (202)

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD LG ELECTRONICS, INC. et al. Petitioners v. STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS INNOVATIVE COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES,

More information

Paper Date: September 9, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Date: September 9, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 32 571-272-7822 Date: September 9, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD GOOGLE, INC., Petitioner, v. WHITSERVE LLC, Patent Owner.

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE In the Inter Partes Review of: U.S. Patent No. 7,965,408 Trial Number: IPR2015-00037 Panel: To Be Assigned Filed: January 3, 2001 Issued: June 21, 2011

More information

Paper Date: January 14, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Date: January 14, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 10 571-272-7822 Date: January 14, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SYMANTEC CORP., Petitioner, v. FINJAN, INC., Patent Owner

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. ServiceNow, Inc. Petitioner. Hewlett Packard Company Patent Owner

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. ServiceNow, Inc. Petitioner. Hewlett Packard Company Patent Owner UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ServiceNow, Inc. Petitioner v. Hewlett Packard Company Patent Owner Filing Date: May 14, 2003 Issue Date: April 12, 2011

More information

Paper No Filed: May 30, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper No Filed: May 30, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 37 571.272.7822 Filed: May 30, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD EMERSON ELECTRIC CO., Petitioner, v. IP CO., LLC, Patent

More information

Case 2:05-cv DPH-MKM Document 27 Filed 06/06/2006 Page 1 of 26 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

Case 2:05-cv DPH-MKM Document 27 Filed 06/06/2006 Page 1 of 26 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN Case 2:05-cv-73068-DPH-MKM Document 27 Filed 06/06/2006 Page 1 of 26 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SYMBILITY SOLUTIONS INC., a Canadian corporation, v. XACTWARE,

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. AUTOMOTIVE DATA SOLUTIONS, INC., Petitioner,

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. AUTOMOTIVE DATA SOLUTIONS, INC., Petitioner, Trials@uspto.gov Paper 23 571-272-7822 Entered: May 13, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD AUTOMOTIVE DATA SOLUTIONS, INC., Petitioner, v. AAMP OF FLORIDA,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED LLC and MCM PORTFOLIO LLC, v. Plaintiffs, CANON INC. et al., Defendants. / No. C -0 CW ORDER GRANTING

More information

System and method for encoding and decoding data files

System and method for encoding and decoding data files ( 1 of 1 ) United States Patent 7,246,177 Anton, et al. July 17, 2007 System and method for encoding and decoding data files Abstract Distributed compression of a data file can comprise a master server

More information

Paper Entered: July 15, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: July 15, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 15 571-272-7822 Entered: July 15, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SYMANTEC CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. RPOST COMMUNICATIONS

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD In the Inter Partes Review of: ) ) Trial Number: To be assigned U.S. Patent No.: 7,126,940 ) ) Attorney Docket

More information

Case 1:14-cv UNA Document 1 Filed 01/03/14 Page 1 of 49 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

Case 1:14-cv UNA Document 1 Filed 01/03/14 Page 1 of 49 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE Case 1:14-cv-00004-UNA Document 1 Filed 01/03/14 Page 1 of 49 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE MPHJ TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENTS, LLC, v. DILLARD S, INC., Plaintiff,

More information

5/15/2015. Mangosoft v. Oracle. Case No. C JM. Plaintiff s Claim Construction Hearing Presentation. May 19, U.S.

5/15/2015. Mangosoft v. Oracle. Case No. C JM. Plaintiff s Claim Construction Hearing Presentation. May 19, U.S. Mangosoft v. Oracle Case No. C02-545-JM Plaintiff s Claim Construction Hearing Presentation May 19, 2015 1 U.S. Patent 6,148,377 2 1 U.S. Patent No. 5,918,229 3 The Invention The 377 patent, Abstract 4

More information

Paper Entered: May 19, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: May 19, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 50 571-272-7822 Entered: May 19, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD CORELOGIC, INC., Petitioner, v. BOUNDARY SOLUTIONS, INC.,

More information

Virtual Private Radio via Virtual Private Network - patent application

Virtual Private Radio via Virtual Private Network - patent application From the SelectedWorks of Marc A Sherman February, 2006 Virtual Private Radio via Virtual Private Network - patent application Marc A Sherman Available at: https://works.bepress.com/marc_sherman/2/ UNITED

More information

Paper Entered: February 6, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: February 6, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 29 571-272-7822 Entered: February 6, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD UNIFIED PATENTS INC., Petitioner, v. HARRY HESLOP AND

More information

Paper 73 Tel: Entered: May 23, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper 73 Tel: Entered: May 23, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 73 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: May 23, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SIPNET EU S.R.O., Petitioner, v. STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP,

More information

Paper Entered: April 20, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: April 20, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 37 571-272-7822 Entered: April 20, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SONY MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS INC., Petitioner, v. SSH COMMUNICATIONS

More information

Paper Entered: March 23, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: March 23, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 111 571-272-7822 Entered: March 23, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC., ELECTRONIC ARTS INC., TAKE-TWO

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Case: 17-2336 Document: 70 Page: 1 Filed: 11/09/2018 NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ARISTA NETWORKS, INC., Appellant v. CISCO SYSTEMS,

More information

ORDER CONSTRUING THE TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 5,825,631; 5,717,761; 6,950,444; 5,880,903; 4,937,819; 5,719,858; 6,131,159; AND 5,778,234

ORDER CONSTRUING THE TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 5,825,631; 5,717,761; 6,950,444; 5,880,903; 4,937,819; 5,719,858; 6,131,159; AND 5,778,234 United States District Court, D. Delaware. In re REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP PATENT LITIGATION. No. 07-md-1848(GMS) Nov. 19, 2008. Collins J. Seitz, Jr., Connolly, Bove, Lodge & Hutz, David L. Schwarz,

More information