Apple 1003 IPR2016-01842

U.S. Pat. 9,189,437

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

___________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

___________________

DECLARATION OF EREZ ZADOK, PH.D. IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF

U.S. PATENT 9,189,437

- i -

TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction. ................................................................................................ - 1 - II. Qualifications. ............................................................................................. - 2 - III. My understanding of claim construction. ................................................... - 8 - IV. My understanding of obviousness. ............................................................. - 9 - V. Level of ordinary skill in the art. .............................................................. - 10 - VI. Background of the technologies disclosed in the ’437 patent. ................. - 11 -

A. Device emulation. ............................................................................. - 11 - B. Hard disk interface technologies. ...................................................... - 17 - C. Operating systems and file systems. ................................................. - 22 -

VII. Claim construction. ................................................................................... - 26 - VIII. Ground 1: The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt renders claims 1,

4–6, 9–12, 14, 15, 30, and 34 obvious. ..................................................... - 27 - A. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt renders claim 1

obvious. ............................................................................................. - 28 - 1. An analog data generating and processing device (ADGPD),

comprising [1P]: ......................................................................... - 28 - 2. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt discloses the

ADGPD architecture elements. .................................................. - 30 - a) an input/output (i/o) port; ..................................................... - 31 - b) a program memory [1B]; ..................................................... - 32 - c) a data storage memory [1C]; ................................................ - 32 - d) a processor operatively interfaced with the I/O port, the

program memory and the data storage memory [1D]; ......... - 33 - 3. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt teaches the

acquisition and processing limitations of independent claim 1. - 36 - a) Pucci teaches the acquisition limitation [1E.1]. ................... - 36 - b) The combination of Pucci and Kepley teaches the data

processing limitation [1E.2]. ................................................ - 47 - 4. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt teaches the

automatic recognition limitation of independent claim 1. ......... - 51 -

- ii -

a) The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt discloses the claimed automatic recognition operation [1F.1]. ................. - 52 -

b) The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt teaches the end user requirements. ................................................................ - 62 -

c) The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt teaches the automatic recognition data element requirements. .............. - 67 -

5. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt teaches the file transfer limitation of independent claim 1. ................................ - 70 - a) The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt teaches the

recited automatic file transfer process. ................................ - 71 - b) The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt discloses the

emulation and user requirement component of the file transfer limitation. ............................................................................. - 77 -

B. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt renders claim 4 obvious. ............................................................................................. - 78 -

C. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt renders claim 5 obvious .............................................................................................. - 80 -

D. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt renders claim 6 obvious. ............................................................................................. - 81 -

E. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt renders claim 9 obvious. ............................................................................................. - 81 -

F. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt renders claim 10 obvious. ............................................................................................. - 84 -

G. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt renders claim 11 obvious. ............................................................................................. - 84 -

H. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt renders claim 12 obvious. ............................................................................................. - 87 -

I. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt renders claim 14 obvious. ............................................................................................. - 89 -

J. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt renders claim 15 obvious. ............................................................................................. - 90 -

K. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt renders claim 30 obvious. ............................................................................................. - 91 -

L. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt renders claim 34 obvious. ............................................................................................. - 93 -

- iii -

IX. Ground 2: The combination of Pucci, Kepley, Schmidt, and Shinosky renders claim 16 obvious. ......................................................................... - 94 -

X. Ground 3: The combination of Pucci, Kepley, Schmidt, and Campbell renders claims 13 and 18 obvious. ........................................................... - 98 - A. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, Schmidt and Campbell renders

claim 13 obvious. .............................................................................. - 99 - B. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, Schmidt, and Campbell renders

claim 18 obvious ............................................................................. - 103 - XI. Ground 4: The combination of Pucci, Kepley, Schmidt, and Wilson renders

claim 32 obvious. .................................................................................... - 103 - XII. Ground 5: The combination of Pucci and Schmidt renders claim 43 obvious.

- 105 - A. An analog data generating and processing method for acquiring analog

data and for communicating with a host computer comprising [43P]: ... - 105 -

B. The combination of Pucci and Schmidt discloses the architecture elements of claim 43. ...................................................................... - 106 - 1. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt teaches the

acquisition and processing limitations [43B]. .......................... - 109 - a) Pucci teaches the acquisition limitation of independent claim

43. ....................................................................................... - 109 - b) The combination of Pucci and Schmidt teaches the processing

limitation of independent claim 43. ................................... - 109 - 2. The combination of Pucci and Schmidt teaches the automatic

recognition limitation of independent claim 43. ...................... - 111 - 3. The combination of Pucci and Schmidt teaches the transferring

limitation of independent claim 43. .......................................... - 115 - 4. The combination of Pucci and Schmidt teaches “wherein the

identification parameter is consistent with the ADGPD being responsive to commands issued from a customary device driver.” .. - 117 -

XIII. Ground 6: The combination of Pucci, Schmidt, and Campbell renders claim 45 obvious. .............................................................................................. - 118 -

XIV. Adequacy of the German Priority Application ....................................... - 118 - XV. Conclusion. ............................................................................................. - 122 -

- 1 -

I. Introduction.

I, Dr. Erez Zadok, declare as follows:

1. I have been retained on behalf of Apple Inc. for the above-captioned

inter partes review proceeding. I understand that this proceeding involves U.S.

Patent No. 9,189,437 (“the ’437 patent”) titled “Flexible Interface for

Communication Between a Host and an Analog I/O Device Connected to the

Interface Regardless the Type of the I/O Device” by Michael Tasler, and that the

’437 patent is currently assigned to Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG.

2. In preparing this declaration, I have reviewed and am familiar with all

the references cited herein.

3. The ’437 patent describes an interface device that “simulates, both in

terms of hardware and software, the way in which a conventional input/output

device functions, preferably that of a hard disk drive.” (Ex. 1001, ’437 patent,

4:16–20.) I am familiar with the technology described in the ’437 patent as of its

August 24, 2006 filing date and its claimed March 4, 1997 priority date.

4. I have been asked to provide my independent technical review,

analysis, insights, and opinions regarding the ’437 patent and the references that

form the basis for the six grounds of rejection set forth in the Petition for Inter

Partes Review of the ’437 patent.

- 2 -

II. Qualifications.

5. As indicated in my curriculum vitae, attached as Ex. 1004, I am a

Professor in the Computer Science Department at Stony Brook University (part of

the State University of New York (“SUNY”) system). I direct the File Systems and

Storage Lab (FSL) at Stony Brook’s Computer Science Department. My research

interests include file systems and storage systems, operating systems, energy

efficiency, performance and benchmarking, information technology and system

administration, security, networking, compilers, and software engineering.

6. I studied at a professional high school in Israel, focusing on electrical

engineering (“EE”), and graduated in 1982; for my final high-school EE project, I

developed a system and custom protocol to exchange data between a Commodore

CBM-9000 6502-processsor-based personal-computer and a custom-built Intel

8080 processor based embedded system. I spent one more year at the high school’s

college division, receiving a special Certified Technician’s degree in electrical

engineering. I then went on to serve in the Israeli Defense Forces for three years

(1983–1986). I received my Bachelor of Science degree in computer science

(“CS”) in 1991, my Master’s degree in CS in 1994, and my Ph.D. in CS in 2001—

all from Columbia University in New York.

7. In 1981, while still in high school studying electrical engineering, I

became the lab manager for a newly established computer lab. During that time, I

- 3 -

also worked as a support technician for Commodore Computers in Israel. During

my army service, I was trained and then supported electronic and computerized

subsystems (including HP-IB based measurement equipment and oscilloscopes).

After being honorably discharged, I served as an instructor, teaching computer

programming to K-12 students for one year.

8. When I began my undergraduate studies at Columbia University, I

also started working as a student assistant in the various campus-wide computer

labs, eventually becoming assistant to the lab manager, who was managing all

public computer labs on campus. During that time, I also became more involved

with research within the CS Department at Columbia University, conducting

research on operating systems, file and storage systems, and other topics. I also

assisted the CS department’s computer administrators in managing the

department’s computers, which included storage related duties.

9. In 1991, I joined Columbia University’s CS department as a full-time

systems administrator, studying towards my MS degree part-time. My MS thesis

topic related to file system reliability, fault tolerance, replication, and failover. My

main duties as a systems administrator involved installing, configuring, and

managing many servers and desktops running several operating systems. My duties

also included ensuring reliable, convenient, high-speed data storage management

and backups using various backup/restore systems and software. I have studied and

- 4 -

mastered an assortment of storage devices (e.g., floppy, hard disk, optical

jukeboxes) and protocols (e.g., SCSI, ATA/IDE).

10. In 1994, I left my systems administrator position to pursue my

doctoral studies at Columbia University. My Ph.D. thesis topic was on versatile file

system development, with examples in the fields of security and encryption,

efficiency, reliability, and failover. I continued to work part-time as a systems

administrator at the CS department, and eventually I was asked to serve as

manager to the entire information technology (“IT”) staff. From 1991 to 2001, I

was a member of the faculty-level Facilities Committee which oversaw all IT

operations at the CS department.

11. From 1990 to 1998, I consulted for SOS Corporation and HydraWEB

Technologies, as a systems administrator and programmer, often managing data

storage use and backup/restore duties. From 1994 to 2000, I led projects at

HydraWEB Technologies, and then became the Director of Software

Development—overseeing the development of several products and appliances

such as firewalls and load-balancers. Since 2009, I have consulted for Packet

General Networks, a startup specializing in secure storage and applications’ data

security.

12. In 2001, I joined the faculty of Stony Brook University, a position I

have held since. In 2002, I joined the Operations Committee, which oversees the

- 5 -

IT operations of the CS department at Stony Brook University. From 2006 to 2010,

I was the Director of IT Operations of the CS department; my day-to-day duties

include setting policies regarding computing, hiring and training new staff,

assisting any staff with topics of my specialty, defining requirements for new

software/hardware, and purchasing. From 2010 to 2015, I have served as the Co-

Chair to the Operations Committee. As of 2016, I oversee the IT Operations as the

Chair of the Operations Committee.

13. Since 1995, I have taught courses on operating systems, storage and

file systems, advanced systems programming in Unix/C, systems administration,

data structures, and more. My courses often use storage, file systems, and security

as key teaching principles and practical examples for assignments and projects. I

have taught storage hardware concepts and techniques to my students, both to my

direct advisees as well as in my graduate Storage Systems course.

14. My research often investigates computer systems from many angles:

security, efficiency, energy use, scalability, reliability, portability, survivability,

usability, ease-of-use, versatility, flexibility, and more. My research gives special

attention to balancing five often-conflicting aspects of computer systems:

performance, reliability, energy use, security, and ease-of-use. Since joining Stony

Brook University in 2001, my group in the Filesystems and Storage Lab has

developed many file systems and operating system extensions; examples include a

- 6 -

highly-secure cryptographic file system, a portable copy-on-write (COW)

versioning file system, a tracing file system useful to detect intrusions, a replaying

file system useful for forensics, a snapshotting and sandboxing file system, a

namespace unification file system (that uses stackable, file-based COW), an anti-

virus file system, an integrity-checking file system, a load balancing and

replication/mirroring file system, a compiler to convert user-level C code to in-

kernel efficient yet safe code, GCC plugins, stackable file system templates, and a

Web-based backup system. I continue to maintain and release newer versions of

some of these file systems and software to date. Many of the storage and file

systems I have developed and published use various forms of virtualization: they

emulate one type of storage or file system while using another internally.

15. I have published over 110 refereed publications (in ACM, IEEE,

USENIX, and more). To date, my publications had been cited more than 4,700

times (as per Google Scholar). My papers cover a wide range of related

technologies such file systems, storage systems, security, performance

benchmarking and optimization, energy efficiency, and more. I also published a

book entitled “Linux NFS and Automounter Administration” (Sybex, 2001),

covering systems administration topics related to network storage.

16. Some of my research has led to public software releases that have

been used world-wide. I have publicly maintained the Amd Berkeley Automounter

- 7 -

in a package called “am-utils” since 1992; this software helps administrators

manage the multitude of file system mounts on dozens of different Unix systems.

Since 1997, I have maintained and released several stackable file system software

projects for Linux, FreeBSD, and Solaris, in a package called FiST. One of my

stackable file system encryption projects, called Cryptfs, became the basis for

IBM’s public release of eCryptfs, now part of Linux. Another encryption file

system called Ncryptfs was licensed by Packet General Networks, for whom I have

provided consulting services since 2009. Another popular file system released in

2003, called Unionfs, offers namespace unification, transparent shadow copying

(a.k.a., copy-on-write or COW), file system snapshotting, and the ability to save

disk space by sharing a read-only copy of data among several computers, among

other features.

17. My research has been supported by many federal and state grants,

including an NSF CAREER award, two IBM Faculty awards, two NetApp Faculty

awards, a Western Digital award, EMC awards, and several equipment gifts. I was

the winner of the 2004 Computer Science Department bi-annual Graduate

Teaching Award, the winner of the 2006 Computer Science Department bi-annual

Research Excellence Award, and a recipient of the 2008 SUNY Chancellor’s

Excellence in Teaching award (an award that can be given only once a lifetime).

- 8 -

18. I am a named inventor on three patents, two titled “Systems and

Methods for Detection of New Malicious Executables” (U.S. Patent No. 7,979,907,

issued July 12, 2011; and U.S. Patent No. 7,487,544, issued February 3, 2009); and

one titled “Multi-Tier Caching,” (U.S. Patent 9,355,109, issued May 31, 2016).

19. I have been disclosed as a testifying expert in six cases in the past four

years. I have been deposed four times and testified in trial twice.

20. A complete copy of my curriculum vitae, which includes a list of my

publications, and contains further details on my education, experience,

publications, patents, and other qualifications to render an expert opinion, is

attached as Ex. 1004.

21. The compensation I receive through my consulting company, Zadoks

Consulting, LLC, is $450 per hour for my time, plus out-of-pocket expenses. This

compensation is not dependent in any way on the contents of this declaration, the

substance of any testimony I may provide, or the outcome of this proceeding.

III. My understanding of claim construction.

22. I understand that during an inter partes review, claims of an unexpired

patent are to be given their broadest reasonable construction in light of the

specification as would be read by a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art

(“POSITA”).

- 9 -

IV. My understanding of obviousness.

23. I understand that a patent claim is invalid if the claimed invention

would have been obvious to a POSITA at the time the application was filed. This

means that even if all of the requirements of the claim cannot be found in a single

prior art reference that would anticipate the claim, the claim can still be invalid.

24. As part of this inquiry, I have been asked to consider the level of

ordinary skill in the field that someone would have had at the time the claimed

invention was made. In deciding the level of ordinary skill, I considered the

following:

• the levels of education and experience of persons working in the field;

• the types of problems encountered in the field; and

• the sophistication of the technology.

25. To obtain a patent, a claimed invention must have, as of the priority

date, been nonobvious in view of the prior art in the field. I understand that an

invention is obvious when the differences between the subject matter sought to be

patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have

been obvious at the time the invention was made to a POSITA.

26. I understand that to prove that prior art, or a combination of prior art,

renders a patent obvious, it is necessary to: (1) identify the particular references

that singly, or in combination, make the patent obvious; (2) specifically identify

- 10 -

which elements of the patent claim appear in each of the asserted references; and

(3) explain how the prior art references could have been combined in order to

create the inventions claimed in the asserted claim.

27. I understand that certain objective indicia can be important evidence

regarding whether a patent is obvious or nonobvious. Such indicia include: (1)

commercial success of products covered by the patent claims; (2) a long-felt need

for the invention; (3) failed attempts by others to make the invention; (4) copying

of the invention by others in the field; (5) unexpected results achieved by the

invention as compared to the closest prior art; (6) praise of the invention by the

infringer or others in the field; (7) the taking of licenses under the patent by others;

(8) expressions of surprise by experts and those skilled in the art at the making of

the invention; and (9) the patentee proceeded contrary to the accepted wisdom of

the prior art.

V. Level of ordinary skill in the art.

28. I understand that claims must be interpreted by the POSITA at the

time of invention. For the purpose of this proceeding, I have been informed to

evaluate the level of ordinary skill in the art as of March 4, 1997. Based on the

disclosure of the ’437 patent, a POSITA at the relevant time, would have had at

least a four-year undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, computer science,

computer engineering, or related field of study, or equivalent experience, and at

- 11 -

least two years’ experience in studying or developing computer interfaces or

peripherals and storage related software. In my opinion, a POSITA would also be

familiar with operating systems (e.g., MS-DOS, Windows, Unix), their associated

file systems (e.g., FAT, UFS, FFS), device drivers for computer components and

peripherals (e.g., mass storage device drivers), and communication interfaces (e.g.,

SCSI, USB, PCMCIA). This description is approximate, and a higher level of

education or skill might make up for less experience, and vice-versa.

29. Based on my experience I have an understanding of the capabilities of

a POSITA. Furthermore, I possessed those capabilities myself at least as of the

time the patent was filed.

VI. Background of the technologies disclosed in the ’437 patent.

30. The ’437 patent adds minor details to a known approach (hard disk or

mass storage device emulation) to interfacing between a host computer and a data

transmit/receive device. In this section, I provide a background discussion of

aspects of the claimed system, including the purported novelty of the ’437 patent

over the prior art.

A. Device emulation.

31. The ’437 patent recites that “[t]he interface device according to the

present invention… simulates, both in terms of hardware and software, the way in

- 12 -

which a conventional input/output device functions, preferably that of a hard disk

drive.” (’437 patent, 4:16–20 (emphasis added).)

32. The concept of “simulation” as it is described in the ’437 patent—

where one device simulates another device—was also known in the art as

“emulation” prior to the earliest possible priority date of the ’437 patent. For

example, U.S. Patent No. 4,727,512 to Birkner et al., filed on December 6, 1984,

was known in the art to utilize a “universal interface device” to emulate magnetic

tape drives in the context of connecting “a computer system having an industry

standard magnetic tape drive interface and peripheral image acquisition processing

system.” (Ex. 1009, Birkner, 1:7–12; 1:27–31.) This interface device provides

“compatibility between magnetic tape drives and the peripheral image acquisition

processing system” (Birkner, 1:7–12), by receiving “magnetic tape data and

controls signals” at the interface bus of the interface bus, and “convert[ing] them

into digital data and control signals.” (Birkner, 41–44.) These converted “digital

data and control signals are sent to a data bus [] where they are available for

general access” by another computer system, such as a peripheral image

acquisition processing system. (Birkner, 2:44–51.) Thus, the interface device

allows a host computer, such as the peripheral image acquisition processing

system, to use “existing industry standard interfaces” to access data stored on

magnetic tape drives. (Birkner, 1:27–31.)

- 13 -

33. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that

emulation was not merely limited to interface devices for magnetic tape drives. For

example, as early as 1983, interface devices such as storage controller emulators

were known in the art for providing “transparent resource sharing” to mass storage

devices such as floppy disk drives. (See Ex. 1010, Maclean, 1:6–11; 3:17–26.) U.S.

Patent No. 4,792,896 to Maclean (“Maclean”), filed on November 29, 1983, for

example, is titled “Storage Controller Emulator Providing Transparent Resource

Sharing in a Computer System.” (See Maclean, Face.) In this patent, storage

controller emulators operate by simulating “the characteristics and responses of a

mass storage device… by processing commands sent by the microprocessor.”

(Maclean, 3:45–49.) One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the

practice of emulation solved an important problem in the context of sharing

network resources to a host computer from different devices, such as storage

devices, that are provided by different manufacturers. (See, e.g., Maclean, 1:14–

20.) Different manufacturers may “replac[e] the existing device drivers with their

own” “in order to install their hardware into the computers.” (Maclean, 2:25–30.)

Device drivers translate the protocols of the device so that it may be understood by

the host computer. (See Maclean, 1:57–66.)

34. As one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized, at least as

early as 1983, this approach—where different devices require different device

- 14 -

drivers in order to communicate with the host computer—can cause compatibility

problems. For example, changes to the operating system of the host computer, such

as updates or new releases, may cause the operating system to be incompatible

with the existing devices. (See Maclean, 2:30–34.) Accordingly, manufacturers

would have to update and reinstall new device drivers for their devices (or provide

“patches”) in order to continue communication with the host computer. (See

Maclean, 2:34–40.) There may also be incompatibility caused by original device

drivers provided by the operating system and device drivers provided by the device

manufacturer. (See Maclean, 2:37–40.) Finally, users depended on manufacturers

to provide device drivers for different operating systems before installing new

software or devices on their host computers. (See Maclean, 2:40–42.)

35. Based on these problems associated with device drivers, it was

desirable “to provide the capability of resource and information sharing from a

network system… while at the same time avoiding the problem of the need to

modify the software package for the operating system to run on and accommodate

the network system.” (Maclean, 2:60–65.) In other words, it was desirable to use

the same drivers that were known to the operating system (and the host computer),

rather than requiring different device drivers from each device manufacturer. (See

Maclean, 3:6–14.)

- 15 -

36. At least as early as 1983, one of ordinary skill in the art would have

been aware of at least one way to accomplish these goals: emulating a host

computer device so that existing drivers within the operating system may be

utilized. Such emulation may be performed by “exactly simulat[ing] the

characteristics and responses of the normal computer hardware which it replaces.”

(Maclean, 4:49–53.) Examples of host computer devices that may be emulated

include mass storage devices, floppy disks, and printers. (Maclean, 5:24–28; 6:32–

34.) The benefits of this approach were well known to one of ordinary skill in the

art and included eliminating the need for device drivers from device

manufacturers, reusing existing device drivers already present in the operating

system, and ensuring communications compatibility between devices and the host

computer across past, existing, and future operating systems. (See Maclean, 3:54–

68.) As another example, when an interface device emulates a floppy disk, “any

that is designed to be used on an IBM PC with disk drives (whether hardware or

software) can still be used [and] [t]herefore, local hard disks are possible as are

RAM disks, communication devices, and even other networks from other

manufacturers.” (Maclean, 7:60–66.)

37. Another example of a universal interface known at the time of the

earliest possible priority date of the ’437 patent is plug-and-play (“PnP“). PnP

refers to a set of specifications “that allows a PC to configure itself automatically

- 16 -

to work with peripherals such as monitors, modems, and printers.” (Ex. 1014,

Microsoft Computer Dictionary, p. 370.) As explained by the Plug-and-Play SCSI

Specification, Version 1.0, dated March 30, 1994, PnP essentially extend existing

standards, such as Small Computer System Interface (“SCSI”) to enable automated

identification and configuration of peripherals. (Ex. 1031, PnP SCSI, p. 5.)

38. There were several different uses for device emulation as I described

above. One such application allows storage devices to appear as if they are local to

the host computer when, in actuality, they are separated from the host computer by

a network. (See Maclean, 7:45–53.) In other words, interface devices that emulated

disk drives essentially “lie” to or trick the host computer into using its known

device drivers to communicate with a wider variety of devices.

39. There is another benefit to avoiding the use of device drivers: they are

simply slower than interface devices for translating commands between the host

computer devices and the host computer. (See Ex. 1011, Jorgensen, p. 5

(explaining that software drivers are “relatively slow” compared to hardware-based

solutions for converting “appropriate commands for interfacing with [an] optical

disk drive”).)

40. In the prosecution history of the ’437 patent, the applicant argued that

“all the claims require the processor of the ADGPD to automatically send an

identifying parameter which misrepresents what the ADGPD is to the host

- 17 -

computer in a host computer automatic recognition process.” (Ex. 1002, p. 702,

(Reply Brief, September 25, 2012) (emphasis added).) From the above discussion,

it is readily apparent that such “misrepresentation”—emulation in technical

terms—is not a novel feature of the ’437 patent.

B. Hard disk interface technologies.

41. In this section, I provide a background discussion of hard disk drive

technologies at the time of the earliest possible priority date of the ’437 patent. The

’437 patent recites causing:

at least one parameter identifying the analog data generating and processing device, independent of analog data source, as a digital storage device instead of as an analog data generating and processing device to be automatically sent through the i/o port and to the multi-purpose interface of the computer.

(’437 patent, 12:64 to 13:5 (emphasis added).) 42. The “identifying” clause of the claim implies device emulation

discussed above in the previous section. The remainder of the quoted portion

(“which signals…”) describes the concept of identifying devices, such as hard disk

drives, within a computer.

43. It was well known at the time prior to the earliest priority date of the

‘437 patent that when a host computer detects that a device has been connected to

it, the host inquires as to what type of device it is and the connected device

responds. The host then determines whether it already possesses drivers for the

- 18 -

identified type of device, and if not, the host must obtain device-specific drivers

before it can fully operate with the new device. This concept is perhaps best

illustrated by two well-known hard disk interface technologies that existed prior to

the earliest priority date of the ’437 patent, in particular, Advanced Technology

Attachment (“ATA”) and Small Computer Systems Interface (“SCSI”) bus.

44. As of the earliest possible priority date of the ’437 patent, the ATA

interface, also known as the Integrated Device Electronics (“IDE”) interface, and

the SCSI bus were the most commonly used interfaces for computer peripherals.

“The IDE hard disk interface is found almost exclusively in the world of IBM PC

compatibles.” (Ex. 1007, Schmidt, p. v.) Additionally, “almost all modern

computers, from PCs to workstations to mainframes, are equipped with a SCSI

interface.” (Schmidt, p. v.) While the IDE interface is generally limited to hard

drives and CD-ROMs, the SCSI bus is compatible with a variety of devices

including tape drives, CD-ROM, scanners, and printers. (Schmidt, pp. v, 133.)

45. “The primary objective of the [SCSI] interface is to provide host

computers with device independence within a class of devices.” (Ex. 1012, SCSI

Spec, p. 6; see also Schmidt, p. 79.) Schmidt explains that SCSI is an “ANSI

standard” and the document describing this standard is the SCSI Specification

called X3.131-1994. The SCSI specification thus provides an overview of the

approved SCSI standard. SCSI bus is a “device independent interface” that allows

- 19 -

a variety of devices to be linked to a computer system using a single bus. (Schmidt,

p. 79.) This means that a wide range of devices from different vendors may be

connected to the SCSI bus without requiring specific knowledge of the device’s

properties. (Schmidt, p. 166 (noting the “vendor independent philosophy of

SCSI”).) The ’437 patent acknowledges that SCSI is a multi-purpose interface.

(’437 patent, 3:51–56.) This means that SCSI supports a variety of device types by

providing command sets for directing operations of each type of device. (See SCSI

Spec, p. xxii.)

46. As the ’437 patent acknowledges, automatic recognition of

peripherals such as hard disk drives, connected to a host computer, existed before

the earliest possible priority date of the ’437 patent. (’437 patent, 5:11–33

(describing features of “known standard access commands” and “usual BIOS

routines or multi-purpose interface programs”).) In the context of SCSI, an

INQUIRY command may be used to discover the type of device. (See Schmidt,

pp. 132–33, Table 12.1; see also p. 138.) The SCSI standard defines devices as an

initiator (i.e., a device that begins a transaction by giving another device a certain

task to perform) and a target (i.e., the device that carries out the certain task). (See

Schmidt, p. 79.) Through the use of the INQUIRY command, the initiator may

determine the device type of the target (e.g., whether the target is a printer, a hard

disk drive, or a scanner). (See Schmidt, p. 132.) As one example, when a hard disk

- 20 -

drive is connected to a host via a SCSI cable, the host issues an INQUIRY

command to the connected hard disk drive. The hard disk drive responds to the

INQUIRY command with a message that includes an identification of its device

type in accordance with the SCSI standard. (See Schmidt, pp. 138–41.)

47. In general, the initiator will transmit the INQUIRY command without

requiring any user action when a device is connected to the SCSI bus and

undergoing initialization. The target device will also respond to the INQUIRY

command with the information described above without requiring any human user

action. In other words, the INQUIRY command and the subsequent response

exchange occur automatically without requiring human intervention.

48. Targets generate standards-compliant INQUIRY data for responding

to the INQUIRY command. The table below illustrates the format of the standard

INQUIRY data:

- 21 -

(SCSI Spec, p. 97.)

49. An initiator that receives the standard INQUIRY data from a target

shown above determines the device type of the target by reviewing at least the

“peripheral qualifier,” “peripheral device-type,” and “RMB” fields. “The

peripheral qualifier and peripheral device-type fields identify the device currently

connected to the logical unit.” (SCSI Spec, p. 97.) The codes used to identify the

peripheral device type include direct-access device (e.g., disk drive), sequential-

- 22 -

access drive, and printer device. These codes are defined by the SCSI standard and

are shown below:

(SCSI Spec, p. 98.) As an example, a printer that receives an INQUIRY command

would respond with a response that included the code “02h” (“02” in hexadecimal)

in the “peripheral device-type” field.

50. Another field is “RMB,” which refers to removable medium bit,

which is used by a target to identify whether the medium is a removable (e.g., CD-

ROM) or not removable. (SCSI Spec, p. 98.)

C. Operating systems and file systems.

51. In this section, I provide a background discussion of operating

systems and file systems at the time of the earliest possible priority date of the ’437

patent.

52. One common definition of an operating system is a “program that acts

as an intermediary between a user of a computer and the computer’s hardware.”

(Ex. 1013, Silberschatz, p. 3.) A computer’s hardware includes input/output (I/O)

- 23 -

devices such as the computer’s disk drives, printers, and tape drives. (See

Silberschatz, p. 30; Figure 2.1.) Each of these devices often interfaces with “a

special subroutine [] written for each I/O device.” (Silberschatz, p. 6.) This

subroutine, also known as a device driver, acts as a translator for its respective I/O

device, translating commands sent from the operating system into a (special)

format understood by the device. (See Silberschatz, pp. 6, 384–385.) With regard

to disk drives in particular, a disk drive is typically attached to a computer by way

of a bus. (See Silberschatz, pp. 29–30.) One such example of such a bus that

connects to input/output devices such as disk drives is a SCSI bus. (Schmidt,

p. 79.) Data transfers to/from disk drives are carried out by devices called

controllers and each type of device is typically managed by specific device

controller. (See Silberschatz, pp. 32–33.) As one example, one or more SCSI

devices are controlled by a SCSI device controller. (See Silberschatz, p. 32.)

53. When a computer, such as one implementing a Macintosh Operating

System boots up, or an OS found in “many small- to medium-sized computers,”

the operating system determines what hard disks are connected to the computer.

(See Silberschatz, pp. 32, 386–387.). If a hard disk is found, the operating system

searches for a file system on the hard disk. (See Silberschatz, pp. 386–387.) A file

system “[i]n an operating system, [is] the overall structure in which files are

named, stored, and organized” and “consists of files, directories, or folders, and the

- 24 -

information needed to locate and access these items.” (Microsoft Computer

Dictionary, p. 196.) “To provide an efficient and convenient access to the disk, the

operating system imposes a file system to allow the data to be stored, located, and

retrieved easily.” (Silberschatz, p. 384 (emphasis in original).) The file system

organizes and stores the data as files, and provides the mechanism by which users

may access data and programs of the operating system. (See Silberschatz, pp. 349–

350, Figure 11.1 below.)

“The file system consists of two distinct parts: a collection of files, each storing

related data, and a directory structure, which organizes and provides information

about all the files in the system.” (See Silberschatz, p. 349 (emphasis in original).)

- 25 -

54. One example of a file system is the file allocation table (“FAT”) file

system, which is utilized by the operating system MS-DOS. (Microsoft Computer

Dictionary, p. 194 (definition of “file allocation table”).)

55. Data transfer of files takes advantage of the file system structure that

is accessible to the operating system (e.g., data, meta-data, namespace). “To

improve I/O efficiency,” a file system maintains the files in units called blocks and

each block is further organized into one or more sectors, which represent actual

physical locations on the disk drive. (Silberschatz, p. 410.) Depending on the disk

drive, sectors may vary in size (e.g., from 32 bytes to 4096 bytes). (Silberschatz,

p. 383.) The file system employs drivers to transfer the data between the memory

and the disk system. (Silberschatz, p. 384.)

56. For the operating system to access a file system on any disk drive, the

operating system must first mount the file system. Mounting generally takes place

when the computer is booting, for example when the computer is turned on or after

the computer has been restarted. The booting process discussed above involves the

use of a bootstrap program which is the initial program that the computer runs on

when it is powered up or rebooted. (Silberschatz, p. 30.) In IBM PCs, this initial

bootstrap program is known as Basic Input/Output System (“BIOS”). (Microsoft

Computer Dictionary, p. 51.) The bootstrap program “initializes all aspects of the

- 26 -

system” including identifying all devices that are connected to the system.

(Silberschatz, p. 30.)

57. At boot time, the operating system running the initial bootstrap

program identifies the devices connected to the computer. (See Silberschatz,

p. 387.) The operating system then loads the relevant drivers for the identified

devices. (Silberschatz, pp. 60, 90.) With regard to disk drives and its file system, “a

file system must be mounted before it can be available to processes on the

system.” (Silberschatz, p. 386 (emphasis in original).) To do this, “[t]he operating

system is given the name of the device, and the location within the file structure at

which to attach the file system.” (Silberschatz, p. 386.) The operating system next

verifies that the device contains a valid file system by asking, via the device’s

driver, to read the device’s file system information and verifying that the file

system has the appropriate format (Silberschatz, pp. 386–387.) Once verified, the

operating system will automatically mount the file system and provide users with

access to the file system, typically through an icon on the graphical user interface

or a newly available drive letter. The user may then click on the icon to access the

file system of the device. (See Silberschatz, p. 387.)

VII. Claim construction.

58. The term “multi-purpose interface of the host computer” is not

defined in the ’437 patent. However, I have been informed by counsel that Papst

- 27 -

agreed to this construction for the term: “a communication interface designed for

use with multiple devices that can have different functions from each other.”

59. It is my opinion that the term “customary device driver” means

“driver for a device normally present in most commercially available host devices

at the time of the invention.” The ’437 patent describes an “input/output device

customary in a host device” as “normally present in most commercially available

host devices.” (’437 patent, 3:35–37.) Thus, “customary” means “normally present

in most commercially available host devices.” I have been informed by counsel

that my interpretation is consistent with a construction provided by the Federal

Circuit in a decision involving the ’437 patent.

VIII. Ground 1: The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt renders claims 1, 4–6, 9–12, 14, 15, 30, and 34 obvious.

60. Configurable Data Manipulation in an Attached Multiprocessor,

by Marc F. Pucci (Ex. 1037) is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and

102(b) because it was published in 1991. (See Ex. 1024.) The SCSI Bus and IDE

Interface—Protocols, Applications and Programming, by Friedhelm Schmidt

(Ex. 1007) is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 102(b) because it was

published in 1995. (See Ex. 1024.) U.S. Patent No. 4,790,003 to Kepley et al.,

titled “Message Service System Network” is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §§

102(a) and 102(b) because it issued on December 6, 1988. (See Ex. 1038.)

- 28 -

A. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt renders claim 1 obvious.

1. An analog data generating and processing device (ADGPD), comprising [1P]:

61. It is my opinion that the combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt

discloses “an analog data generating and processing device,” and in particular,

Pucci’s ION node is an “analog data generating and processing device (ADGPD).

An ION node “is a back-end system, connecting to a workstation via the Small

Computer Systems Interface (SCSI) disk interface.” (Pucci, p. 217) In an

exemplary application, 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.) As shown in Pucci’s annotated Figure 1 below,

the ION node includes A to D converters.

analog data generating and processing device

- 29 -

62. These A to D converters convert analog voice messages received on

respective analog channels. (Pucci, p. 221.) Pucci explains that in one example

application “ION provides the platform for analog to digital (A-to-D) services for a

voice messaging application.” (Pucci, p. 231.)

63. A POSITA would understand an A to D converter to be an analog-to-

digital converter, which is “[a] device that converts a continuously varying

(analog) signal, such as sound or voltage, from a monitoring instrument to binary

code for use by a computer.” (Microsoft Computer Dictionary, p. 23.) Based on

this understanding of Pucci’s A to D converter and the disclosures in Pucci

described above, a POSITA would understand that, in Pucci, when an analog voice

message is received on a given analog channel, analog data is generated at the

input of the corresponding A to D converter.

64. Pucci describes three tasks the ION node performs and further

explains that:

The part of the A-to-D application that resides within ION is structured around three cooperating tasks. One task 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.) 65. The second task performed on the ION node “is a generic system

utility that translates 16-bit linear data into 8-bit mu-law data....” (Pucci, p. 231.)

And, the third task “interfaces to the SCSI bus and returns data to the workstation

when requested.” (Pucci, p. 232.) These tasks, performed by the ION node,

- 30 -

represent additional processing of the generated analog data performed by the ION

node. Thus, in Pucci’s A-to-D conversion application, the ION node is dedicated to

generating and processing analog data. Accordingly, a POSITA would conclude

that the ION node is an “ADGPD.”

2. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt discloses the ADGPD architecture elements.

66. Independent claim 1 recites four architectural elements of the

ADGPD: (1) an input/output (i/o) port, (2) a program memory, (3) a data storage

memory, and (4) a processor operatively interfaced with the i/o port, the program

memory, and the data storage memory. The following annotated Figure 2

highlights the mapping of the claim elements to Pucci’s ION system. I address

these four architectural elements below.

- 31 -

a) an input/output (i/o) port;

67. It is my opinion that the combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt

discloses “an input/output (i/o) port.” An input/output port is “[a] channel through

which data is transferred between an input or output device and the processor.”

(Microsoft Computer Dictionary, p. 253 (definition of “input/output port”).) .)

Annotated figure 2 of Pucci (reproduced above) depicts the hardware configuration

of an ION node. The depicted configuration uses a set of single board computers

(SBC’s) where “[a]n SBC is dedicated to each workstation connection.” (Pucci, p.

222.) And, “[e]ach SBC contains its own SCSI interface chip....” (Pucci, p. 222,

Figure 2.) A single board computer is also known as a “board computer” and

“pertain[s] to a computer that occupies only one circuit board, usually with no

capacity for additional boards.” (Microsoft Computer Dictionary, pp. 57 (definition

of “board computer”), 437 (definition of “single-board”.) Pucci’s Figure 2

indicates that each SBC comprises an SCSI Bus Interface that connects with an

individual workstation.

- 32 -

(Pucci, annotated Fig. 2.)

68. Based on at least these disclosures in Pucci, a POSITA would

conclude that the SCSI interface chip enables the SCSI Bus Interface, and in

particular the connection to the individual workstations, as shown in figure 2.

Accordingly, based on a POSITA’s understanding of “i/o port,” the SCSI interface

chip of an SBC of the ION node is “an input/output (i/o) port.”

b) a program memory [1B];

69. It is my opinion that the combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt

discloses an ADGPD comprising “a program memory.” In particular, 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 memory..

c) a data storage memory [1C];

70. It is my opinion that the combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt

discloses an ADGPD comprising “a data storage memory.” The ION node also

includes “local ION storage” and a “large buffer memory.” (Pucci, p. 222, Figure

2.) The local ION storage “may consist of file system data and or application

managed object repositories.” (Pucci, p. 222.) The “[l]arge buffer memory, on the

- 33 -

order of hundreds of megabytes, is used as a cache for physical device data.”

(Pucci, p. 222.) Accordingly, the local ION storage and the large buffer memory

are the recited “data storage memory.”

d) a processor operatively interfaced with the I/O port, the program memory and the data storage memory [1D];

71. It is my opinion that the combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt

discloses an ADGPD comprising “a processor operatively interfaced with the i/o

port, the program memory and the data storage memory.” The set of SBCs in

Pucci’s ION node includes an Application CPU (e.g., to run application code) and

CPUs on the interface SBCs. (See Pucci, p. 222, Figure 2.) As known by a

POSITA, a CPU is “[t]he computational and control unit of a computer” and may

be viewed as “encompass[ing] both the processor and the computer’s memory or,

even more broadly, the main computer console.” (Microsoft Computer Dictionary,

p. 84.) A “computer control console” is considered to be the “control center of a

computer system, primarily with reference to mainframe and minicomputers.”

(Microsoft Computer Dictionary, pp. 109 (definition of “computer control

console”), 457 (definition of “system console”).) Based on this understanding of a

CPU, a POSITA would conclude that Pucci’s Application CPU and interface CPUs

form a processor for the ION system.

- 34 -

72. As shown in Pucci’s annotated Figure 2 above, the Application CPU

interfaces via a VME backplane with the SCSI interface chip (“the i/o port”) and

with the local ION storage and large buffer memory (“the data storage memory.”)

An application task that resides within the ION node “interfaces to the SCSI bus

and returns data to the workstation when requested.” (Pucci, pp. 231–232.)

Because the interface of the Application CPU functions by interfacing with the

SCSI bus and providing data, the interface is operative.

73. Moreover, Pucci’s CPUs are operatively interfaced with the SCSI

interface chip. Based on the well-known understanding of a CPU, a POSITA

would conclude that Pucci’s application tasks are executed on the Application CPU

because it is “[t]he computational and control unit of a computer.” (Microsoft

Computer Dictionary, p. 84.) Because the Application CPU interfaces with the

SCSI bus via the SCSI interface chip, which connects to the ION node to

workstations, the task executing on the Application CPU is interfaced to the same

components as the Application CPU. Each SBC manages a respective SCSI Bus

Interface to a respective workstation. (Pucci, p. 222, Figure 2.) Pucci explains that

the SCSI hardware interface is used to “[e]xchange data with the workstation

across the SCSI bus.” (Pucci, p. 225.) Accordingly, a POSITA would appreciate

this interface management would include the SBC’s CPU (“the processor”)

operatively interfacing with the SBC’s SCSI interface chip (“the i/o port”).

- 35 -

74. The Application CPU is also “operatively interfaced” with the local

ION storage and large buffer memory (“the data storage memory.”) For example,

“[l]arge buffer memory... is used as a cache for physical device data.” (Pucci,

p. 222.) 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.) A POSITA would

appreciate the placing the raw data in a queue for temporary storage includes the

application task operatively interfacing with the large buffer memory where

physical device data is cached in Pucci. As I explained above, a POSITA would

further appreciate that the application tasks would execute on the Application

CPU.

75. The Application CPU is also “operatively interfaced” with the

“program memory.” Pucci teaches a “program memory” in which application tasks

are stored. (See Section VIII(A)(2)(b)above.) 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

retrieve and execute the tasks.

- 36 -

3. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt teaches the acquisition and processing limitations of independent claim 1.

76. For my analysis, I utilize the following outline provided to me by

counsel, which describes a data generation process limitation [1E] as including two

components:

[1E] wherein the processor is adapted to implement

[1E.1] a data generation process by which analog data is acquired

from each respective analog acquisition channel of a plurality of

independent analog acquisition channels, (referred to as the “analog

data acquisition limitation”)

[1E.2] the analog data from each respective channel is digitized,

coupled into the processor, and is processed by the processor, and the

processed and digitized analog data is stored in the data storage

memory as at least one file of digitized analog data (referred to as the

“data processing limitation”).

I address these two components below.

a) Pucci teaches the acquisition limitation [1E.1].

77. It is my opinion that the combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt

discloses “the processor is adapted to implement a data generation process by

which analog data is acquired from each respective analog acquisition channel of a

- 37 -

plurality of independent analog acquisition channels.” 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.) The ION node is connected through its

application hardware interfaces to multiple A-to-D converters, as seen below.

(Pucci, p. 220, Figure 1 and p. 222, Figure 2.)

(Pucci, Annotated Figure 1.)

78. Each A-to-D converter provides a respective analog channel for

receiving analog voice messages; in particular, “[t]he 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.) “The

bulk of the application resides in a conventional workstation, while the peripheral

devices are located within ION.” (Pucci, p. 221.) “ION supports an analog to

digital (A-to-D) conversion application that provides voice messaging service for a

- 38 -

protocol telephone switch.” (Pucci, p. 221.) Figure 1 illustrates the presence of

multiple “A to D Converters” and “[t]he 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). Actions in

Pucci refer to “application specific functions.” (Pucci, p. 221.) Based on these

disclosures, a POSITA would conclude that on the workstation, the A-to-D

conversion 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.

79. Based on Pucci’s description of the ION system, I have recreated a

figure to illustrate the features and interconnections of the system. Based on

Pucci’s description of the ION system, I have generated Figure A (below) that

combines Pucci’s Figure 1, which illustrates the ION system (Pucci, p. 220), with

Figure 2, which illustrates the internal components of the ION node in the ION

system (Pucci, p. 222).

- 39 -

(Figure A.)

80. I have further generated Figure B (below) which illustrates, based on

Pucci’s illustration in Figure 1, how the ION node of Figure 2 is connected to the

individual workstation, ION local storage (i.e., ION Disks), and application

peripherals (i.e., A to D Converters).

- 40 -

(Figure B.)

81. Moreover, Pucci further discloses, “[a]n example application [of]

[a]nalog to [d]igital conversion” where “ION provides the platform for analog to

digital (A-to-D) services for a voice messaging application of a protocol

programmable telephone switch system called GARDEN.” (Pucci, p. 231.) For the

following reasons, a POSITA would conclude that the GARDEN telephone switch

system includes a sensor. Pucci teaches that “ION provides the 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.) It is

well known to a POSITA that “a standard telephone line [] carries continuously

varying (analog) signals.” (Microsoft Computer Dictionary, p. 23 (definition of

“analog line”).) Based on Pucci’s disclosure of the telephone switch system and the

- 41 -

well-understood principles of voice data as analog data, a POSITA would conclude

that the telephone switch system provides analog data to ION for A-to-D

conversion and is “at least one of the analog sources... operatively interfaced with

the analog data generating and processing device and that is designed to generate

the analog data.”

82. It would have been obvious that Pucci’s telephone switch system

included a transducer or a “sensor” for converting “one form of energy into

another” (e.g., sound into an electrical signal). (Microsoft Computer Dictionary,

p. 428 (definition of sensor); p. 474 (definition of transducer).) Pucci discloses that

“ION provides the platform for analog to digital (A-to-D) services for a voice

messaging application” of the telephone switch system. (Pucci, p. 231.) Pucci

contemplates applications that capture audio signals: “An example application uses

a simple set of directives to capture and digitize high quality stereo audio.” (Pucci,

p. 217.) Thus, the telephone switch system must generate and provide analog

electrical signals to ION. For example, a POSITA would know that telephones and

videophones include a microphone and that a “microphone” is a sensing “device

that converts sound waves into analog electrical signals.” (Microsoft Computer

Dictionary, pp. 307 (definition of “microphone”), 496 (definition of

“videophone”).) Given that the supported application is a “voice messaging

application,” it would have been reasonable for a POSITA to conclude that Pucci’s

- 42 -

telephone switch system captures a voice or acoustic signal and transforms it into

an electrical signal.

83. Based on this understanding of conventional components within a

telephone switch, a POSITA would conclude that Pucci’s GARDEN telephone

switch captures incoming audio signals, such as voice waveforms. Based on this

conclusion, I have generated Figure C below that illustrates the GARDEN

telephone switch:

(Figure C.)

84. With regard to the A-to-D converters, Pucci explains that “[t]he

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; see also p. 232 (“This task defines a SCSI action

- 43 -

function which contains 4 block addresses for each of 5 A-to-D channels”)

(emphasis added).) Based on this disclosure, I have generated Figure D below to

represent the analog channels within the A-to-D converter:

(Figure D.)

85. Based on all of the foregoing discussion, I have generated the

following representations of the ION system that illustrate the ION node and the

A-to-D converters as shown below in Figure E. Figure E is similar to Figure B but

includes the connection between the ION node and the analog channels, as

illustrated in Figure D.

- 44 -

(Figure E.)

86. “This [third] task defines a SCSI action function which contains 4

block addresses for each of 5 A-to-D channels. Each channel contains a block

address to start conversion, stop conversion, return status, and retrieve A-to-D

data.” (Pucci, p. 232.) A POSITA would interpret each A-to-D converter as a

device that includes circuitry, which is “[a] combination of electrical components

interconnected to perform a task.” (Microsoft Computer Dictionary, p. 90

(definition of “circuit”).) Based on Pucci’s description of the A-to-D converters

comprising channels and understanding that each A-to-D converter comprises

circuitry, Pucci’s A-to-D converter includes an “analog acquisition channel.”

- 45 -

Because Pucci discloses multiple A-to-D converters, Pucci teaches a “a plurality of

analog acquisition channels.”

87. “[T]he 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).) A POSITA would

understand this disclosure to mean five independent channels.

88. Each A-to-D converter is read independently of the other A-to-D

converters. 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).)

89. Reading an A-to-D converter includes acquiring analog data through

the analog acquisition channel of the A-to-D converter. On the workstation, an A-

to-D conversion application controls acquisition of analog voice data from the

analog channels by activating the A-to-D converters within the ION node. (Pucci,

pp. 221-223.) Pucci teaches “[t]his [third] task defines a SCSI action function

which contains 4 block addresses for each of 5 A-to-D channels. Each channel

contains a block address to start conversion, stop conversion, return status, and

retrieve A-to-D data.” (Pucci, p. 232.) Based on these disclosures in Pucci, a

- 46 -

POSITA would conclude that Pucci teaches “a plurality of independent analog

acquisition channels” from which “analog data [can be] acquired.”

90. It further would have been obvious to a POSITA that analog data

would be acquired from each respective A-to-D converter channel in Pucci. Pucci

discloses that “[o]ne task [of the A-to-D application that resides within ION] is

activated by periodic interrupts from the hardware and extracts the raw data from

the converter....” (Pucci, p. 231). Based on this disclosure, a POSITA would

understand that the A-to-D application, which runs on the ION node periodically

extracts data from each of the A-to-D converters. Over a period spanning an

interrupt from each A-to-D converter, the ION will thus read “each” of the

plurality of A-to-D converters.

91. Finally, Pucci’s application CPU (“the processor”) is “adapted to

implement [the] data generation process.” Analog data is acquired from the A-to-

D converters through application tasks that reside within the ION node. “This

[third] task defines… for each of 5 A-to-D channels. Each channel contains a block

address to start conversion, stop conversion, return status, and retrieve A-to-D

data.” (Pucci, p. 232.) These application tasks are executed by the Application

CPU (“the processor”) because, as described above, the CPU is “[t]he

computational and control unit of a computer.” (Microsoft Computer Dictionary,

p. 84.)

- 47 -

b) The combination of Pucci and Kepley teaches the data processing limitation [1E.2].

92. It is my opinion that the combination of Pucci and Kepley discloses

“the analog data from each respective channel is digitized, coupled into the

processor, and is processed by the processor, and the processed and digitized

analog data is stored in the data storage memory as at least one file of digitized

analog data.” The A-to-D converters 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....”).) Based on Pucci’s disclosure

of A-to-D converters and the well-known definition of A-to-D converters, a

POSITA would appreciate that Pucci teaches that analog data is acquired from

each analog acquisition channel of a plurality of A-to-D converters. The resulting

digitized data from the A-to-D converters is “coupled into the processor, and is

processed by the processor.” In particular, 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, based on the well-known definition of a

CPU, a POSITA would appreciate that these application tasks execute on the

Application CPU (“the processor”) of the ION node.

- 48 -

93. Pucci further teaches that “the processed and digitized analog data is

stored in the data storage memory.” 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

(“the data storage memory”) of the ION node.

94. Finally, Pucci suggests that the processed digitized data is stored as a

file. Specifically, Pucci describes that data can be stored as “traditional file system

data” in the ION node. (Pucci, p. 221.) Pucci’s suggestion is consistent with a

POSITA’s understanding of data storage in conventional computer systems as of

the earliest possible priority date of the ’437 patent. As I described above in the

background section, file systems are an essential part of any computer system as

they are “the most visible aspect of an operating system.” (Silberschatz, p. 349.)

The file system includes “a collection of files” (Silberschatz, p. 349), and each file

“is a named collection of related information that is recorded on secondary

storage.” (Silberschatz, p. 350.) “From a user’s perspective, a file is the smallest

allotment of logical secondary storage; that is, data cannot be written to

secondary storage unless they are within a file.” (Silberschatz, p. 350 (emphasis

added).) Based on this disclosure, a POSITA would appreciate that the digitized

- 49 -

analog data of Pucci would have been stored “as at least one file of digitized

analog data.”

95. Furthermore, 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 and

Kepley. First, 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.) A POSITA would have looked to Kepley for

those details because Kepley describes a voice mail messaging system and

application just like Pucci, and both are in the same field. (Kepley, Abstract.)

96. 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. 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.) Kepley’s discussion of the importance of data storage as a file

is consistent with the well-understood principles of file systems:

- 50 -

Since the voice mail message is a data file, the computer-to-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 sender’s name in text form along with the voice mail message.

(Kepley, 15:59 to 16:4.) 97. 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. 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 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 (“the 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 file storage) could have been readily implemented by a

POSITA using Pucci’s file system. 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.

- 51 -

4. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt teaches the automatic recognition limitation of independent claim 1.

98. For my analysis, I utilize the following outline provided to me by

counsel, which describes a data generation process limitation [1F] as including

three components:

[1F] wherein the processor also is adapted to be involved in

[1F.1] an automatic recognition process of a host computer in which,

when the i/o port is operatively interfaced with a multi-purpose

interface of the host computer, the processor executes at least one

instruction set stored in the program memory and thereby causes at

least one parameter identifying the analog data generating and

processing device, independent of analog data source, as a digital

storage device instead of as an analog data generating and processing

device to be automatically sent through the i/o port and to the multi-

purpose interface of the computer (referred to as the “the automatic

recognition operation”)

[1F.2] (a) without requiring any end user to load any software onto

the computer at any time and (b) without requiring any end user to

interact with the computer to set up a file system in the ADGPD at

any time, (referred to as the “end user requirements”)

- 52 -

[1F.3] wherein the at least one parameter is consistent with the

ADGPD being responsive to commands issued from a customary

device driver; wherein the at least one parameter provides information

to the computer about file transfer characteristics of the ADGPD

(referred to as the “automatic recognition data requirements”).

I address each of these components below.

a) The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt discloses the claimed automatic recognition operation [1F.1].

99. It is my opinion that the combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt

discloses “wherein the processor also is adapted to be involved in an automatic

recognition process of a host computer in which, when the i/o port is operatively

interfaced with a multi-purpose interface of the host computer.” I first note that the

’437 patent does not provide an explicit definition for “automatic recognition

process.” Instead, based on the “in which” part that follows the term, the claim

appears to rely on the subsequent language to provide the proper claim scope for

the term. In other words, I understand that the following claim language describes

an “automatic recognition process”:

(1) when the i/o port is operatively interfaced with a multi-purpose interface of the host computer, (2) the processor executes at least one instruction set stored in the program memory and thereby causes at least one parameter identifying the analog data generating and processing device, independent of analog data source, as a digital storage device instead of as an analog data

- 53 -

generating and processing device to be automatically sent through the i/o port and to the multi-purpose interface of the computer.

(1) I/O port operatively interfaced with a multi-purpose interface of the host computer

100. I first address the first sub-limitation directed to the i/o port. In Pucci,

the ION node’s SCSI interface chips (“the i/o port”) interfaces with an individual

workstation (“host computer”) via a SCSI bus. (Pucci, p. 222, Figure 2.) Although

Pucci teaches that a SCSI “host controller” resides within the host system (Pucci,

pp. 238–239, section titled “What is SCSI?”), Pucci does not explicitly disclose

how the SCSI bus connects to a workstation. However, Schmidt discloses that “[a]

computer system is connected to the SCSI bus through a host adapter.” (Ex. 1007,

Schmidt, p. 79.) Such adapters “often reside directly on the mother board of

workstations and modern personal computers, in which case they are referred to as

embedded host adapters.” (Schmidt, p. 79.) A POSITA would therefore have

understood that the individual workstations in Pucci included such an SCSI

adapter.

101. SCSI is a well-known “device-independent” standard that allows “a

variety of devices to be linked to a computer system,” where the “computer system

is connected to the SCSI bus through a host adapter.” (Schmidt, p. 79.) Such

adapters “often reside directly on the mother board of workstations and modern

personal computers, in which case they are referred to as embedded host adapters.”

- 54 -

(Schmidt, p. 79.) Devices of different types, such as hard disks and printers, may

be connected to the computer system. (Schmidt, p. 79, v.) Therefore, SCSI is a

multi-purpose interface. Furthermore, the ’437 patent acknowledges that SCSI is a

well-known multi-purpose interface. (’437 patent, 3:51–56.) As such, the SCSI

interface in Pucci’s workstation is a multi-purpose interface.

(2) “at least one parameter identifying the analog data generating and processing device.”

102. Pucci’s ION node emulates a disk drive: “A workstation sees ION as

though it were physically a local disk drive (an ION drive).” (Pucci, p. 220.)

Specifically, “[s]oftware 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.) Thus, Pucci teaches that the ION identifies itself as a

disk drive, and that the workstation recognizes the ION node as a disk drive.

103. It was well known at the earliest possible priority date of the ’437

patent that SCSI bus initialization between a host computer and a peripheral device

included the peripheral device identifying its device class and type to the host

computer. Schmidt provides the details of SCSI bus initialization. For reasons

discussed below, the five-bit “device class” or “peripheral device type” of the SCSI

protocol is the recited “at least one parameter identifying the analog data

generating and processing device” and it is sent “through the i/o port and to the

multi-purpose interface of the computer.”

- 55 -

104. Schmidt discloses a “recognition process of a host computer in

which… at least one parameter identifying… as a digital storage device … is sent

through the i/o port and to the multi-purpose interface of the computer.” In SCSI,

as described by Schmidt, “[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 12.10 (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. 139–40.)

105. Pucci discloses a SCSI bus for connecting ION node to a workstation

(Pucci, Figure 2, p. 222.). Since both the ION node and workstation would have

supported the mandatory SCSI initialization process, a POSITA would have found

it obvious to use Schmidt’s SCSI device recognition process in Pucci’s ION node

to enable device identification of the ION node using routine SCSI signaling. And,

because all SCSI devices must support the INQUIRY command, it would have

been obvious to a POSITA that Pucci’s ION node, when connected to the host via

the SCSI connecter, would receive a SCSI INQUIRY command issued from the

external host computer such as disclosed by Schmidt. The SCSI INQUIRY

- 56 -

command would be received by the SCSI interface chip dedicated to the SCSI

interface between the ION node and the workstation. (Pucci, p. 222, Figure 2.)

106. Schmidt provides details about a device’s response to the INQUIRY

command. (Schmidt, pp. 139–41.) In response to an INQUIRY command, a SCSI

device provides a response including a five-bit “device class” or “peripheral device

type.” (Schmidt, pp. 139–40; see also p. 132 (“Table 12.1 shows an example of the

device types returned from an INQUIRY command”).) The five-bit “device class”

or “peripheral device type” in the response is the recited “at least one parameter

identifying the analog data generating and processing device” and it is sent

“through the i/o port and to the multi-purpose interface of the computer.” One

device class is the (hard) “disk drive” class. (Schmidt, p. 133, Table 12.1.) Further,

because Pucci’s ION node is designed to emulate a hard disk, the POSITA would

also have found it obvious to have Pucci’s ION node returns the (hard) “disk

drive” class (purposely misidentifying itself as a member of the hard disk class,

even though it is not itself a hard disk) in its response to the INQUIRY command

from workstation 21. One device class is the “hard disk” class. (Schmidt, p. 133,

Table 12.1.) Because Pucci’s ION node is designed to emulate a disk drive, a

POSITA would also have found it obvious to have the ION node return the “hard

disk” class (identifying a “digital storage device”) in its response to the INQUIRY

- 57 -

command from the workstation. Thus, the response parameter identifies the ION

node, not as an ION node but as a “hard disk.”

107. Based on the SCSI disclosures in Pucci and the well-understood

principles of the SCSI protocol, a POSITA would interpret that the combination of

Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt discloses the parameter “identifying the analog data

generating and processing device… as a digital storage device instead of as an

analog data generating and processing device.” In the combination of Pucci and

Schmidt, the “at least one parameter” would be sent by the SCSI interface chip

dedicated to the SCSI interface between the ION node and the workstation. (Pucci,

p. 222, Figure 2.) Accordingly the combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt

discloses the parameter “identifying the analog data generating and processing

device… as a digital storage device instead of as an analog data generating and

processing device.”

(3) “independent of [the] analog data source.”

108. The response parameter is also “independent of [the] analog data

source.” Schmidt stresses that the SCSI interface is a “device independent I/O

bus” that “makes it possible to write device drivers for a device without knowing

device specific details.” (Schmidt, p. 79 (emphasis added).) Moreover, as I

outlined above, the ION node identifies itself as a disk drive to the workstation.

Because the response parameter identifies the ION node as a hard disk regardless

- 58 -

of the analog data source within the ION node, the identification of the ION node

is “independent” of the ION node’s an “analog data source.”

109. 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. Specifically, the host computer’s SCSI

controller automatically issues the INQUIRY command to discover any SCSI

peripheral devices attached to the SCSI bus. No user action, beyond powering the

host computer, is required to initiate the SCSI initialization process. Given that

Pucci’s ION node is a SCSI device, a POSITA would have found it obvious to

configure the ION node to respond automatically to a SCSI inquiry command from

the host computer as described in Schmidt. Moreover, because the ION node

emulates a hard disk, it would have also been obvious to a POSITA to have the

ION node automatically return the “hard disk” class in its response to the

conventional SCSI INQUIRY command.

(4) “processor… adapted to be involved in [the] automatic recognition process.”

110. Pucci’s “processor” (the Application CPU and the SBC CPUs) “is

adapted to be involved in [the] automatic recognition process.” As discussed

above, in the combination of Pucci and Schmidt, the ION node automatically sends

the “at least one parameter identifying the analog data generating and processing

device” through the SCSI interface (“the i/o port”), over the SCSI bus, to the

- 59 -

corresponding SCSI interface of the specific workstation (“the multi-purpose

interface of the computer”). (Pucci, p. 222, Figure 2.) The SCSI interface between

the ION node and the workstation is managed by the corresponding SBC. “An

SBC is dedicated to each workstation connection, primarily because most hosts

insist on using the same SCSI bus address. Each SBC contains its own SCSI

interface chip.” (Pucci, p. 222.) As I describe above, a CPU is “[t]he computational

and control unit of a computer.” (Microsoft Computer Dictionary, p. 84.) Based on

the well-understood definition of CPU, a POSITA would appreciate that the SBC

CPU (“the processor”) would be involved in the management of the SCSI

interface, and particularly, that this management would involve controlling the

SCSI interface chip, including during the automatic recognition process.

(5) “executes at least one instruction set stored in the program memory.”

111. It is also my opinion that the combination of Pucci, Kepley, and

Schmidt, further discloses “the processor executes at least one instruction set

stored in the program memory and thereby causes at least one parameter

identifying the analog data generating and processing device… as a digital storage

device instead of as an analog data generating and processing device to be

automatically sent through the i/o port and to the multi-purpose interface of the

computer.”

- 60 -

112. Pucci’s Application CPU and SBC CPUs are a “processor.” A

POSITA would understand that Pucci’s Application CPU and SBC CPUs would be

involved in all operations of the ION node. Therefore, a POSITA would

understand that Pucci’s Application CPU and SBC CPUs are involved in

controlling operations of Pucci’s ION node, including the automatic recognition

process.

113. While not expressly stated by Pucci, a POSITA would understand that

Pucci’s Application CPU and SBC CPUs execute at least one instruction set stored

in a program memory in order to provide the SCSI signals between the ION node

to a workstation during the SCSI initialization process described by Schmidt.

Instructions are a fundamental element of any computer system that drive the

function and operation of the computer system and its components. (Schmidt, p. 3

(“The CPU executes the instructions of a program, which, along with the necessary

data, must reside in main memory at execution time”); Microsoft Computer

Dictionary, p. 84 (“The central processing unit… has the ability to fetch, decode,

and execute instructions”).)

114. With regard to emulation in particular, it would have been well known

in the art that an emulator executes software instructions in order to send the SCSI

signals from Pucci’s ION node so that a connected workstation may identify the

ION node as a disk drive. For example, Maclean discloses an emulator “that will

- 61 -

respond exactly like [an] original floppy disk controller” in order to “exactly

simulate[] the floppy disk controller.” (Maclean, 7:49–51; 7:60–61.) Maclean

disclosed mass storage device emulation in 1983, more than a decade before the

earliest priority date of the ’437 patent. In other words, like Pucci’s ION node,

which acts as an emulator, Maclean discloses an emulator that simulates a mass

storage device: Pucci emulates a hard disk drive whereas Maclean focuses on

simulating a floppy disk drive.

115. Maclean discloses that “[t]he characteristics and responses of a mass

storage device are simulated by processing commands sent by the microprocessor

and presenting the status to the microprocessor.” (Maclean, 3:45-50.) Maclean

further discloses that “a microprocessor [in the mass storage controller] will

normally incorporate ROM 22 (which will contain the firmware for the

controller).” (Maclean, 5:43-45.) “It is the installed software present in ROM 22

and the control circuits 26 that configure this computer for this particular

application.” (Maclean, 5:60-63.) Maclean further specifies that “the

microprocessor executes instructions to initialize hardware and to start

communication network functions.” (Maclean, 8:24-26.) The microprocessor

executes additional instructions to response to requests from the host computer.

(Maclean, 8:29-41.) Based on these disclosures in Maclean, a POSITA would

conclude that, in order for the emulator to simulate floppy disks, the emulator

- 62 -

executes software or firmware, which is stored in ROM. Accordingly, a POSITA

would have understood that Pucci’s Application CPU and SBC CPUs “execute[] at

least one instruction” as per the claim, in order to provide the requisite SCSI

signals, such as the device class of a hard disk, to workstation. The SCSI device

class which is returned by the ION node identifies itself “as a digital storage device

instead of as an analog data generating and processing device.”

b) The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt teaches the end user requirements.

116. It is my opinion that the combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt

discloses causing at least one parameter identifying the analog data generating and

processing device as a digital storage device instead of as an analog data

generating and processing device to be automatically sent through the i/o port and

to the multi-purpose interface of the computer “without requiring any end user to

load any software onto the computer at any time.” I note here that the “without

requiring” language appears to modify the limitation regarding the automatic

sending of the parameter “through the i/o port and to the multi-purpose interface of

the computer.” In other words, the “without requiring” language clarifies the

automatic nature of how the parameter is sent through the i/o port and to the multi-

purpose interface of the computer. Therefore, in order to meet the claim language

“automatically sent,” the parameter must be sent at least “without requiring any

end user to load any software onto the computer at any time.”

- 63 -

117. In the combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt, no end user is

required “to load any software onto the computer at any time” for the processor to

execute the automatic recognition process because the recognition process of

Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt utilizes existing device drivers. The identification

information is sent from the ION node to the workstation via a routine SCSI

initialization process, and SCSI control signals communicated during the process

are issued by SCSI devices running existing SCSI drivers.

118. Pucci states that computer systems “can suffer from…[c]onstantly

upgrading local workstation based device drivers to coexist with operating system

released.” (Pucci, p. 218.) This criticism is mirrored in the ’437 patent,

admonishing “very sophisticated drivers which are prone to malfunction.” (’437

patent, 1:35–38.)

119. To overcome this issue, Pucci’s system allows for “each workstation

[to] access[] ION using its local disk system, which is a stable, well-defined

interface [] and there is no need to change vendor supplied host system software.”

(Pucci, pp. 219-220.) A POSITA would conclude that the goal of Pucci’s invention

was to avoid the necessity of preparing new device drivers for peripheral devices

by reusing existing device drivers for communicating with new peripheral devices.

120. Pucci’s goal is consistent with its use of the SCSI standard (especially

SCSI-2) (Pucci, Figure 2), which allows for standardized command sets for

- 64 -

specific device types. The SCSI standard therefore allows for different devices to

be attached to the SCSI bus without requiring the development of different drivers.

(Schmidt, pp. 83–84.) Furthermore, a POSITA would understand that Pucci’s use

of SCSI would allow Pucci’s invention to benefit from these features of SCSI. In

other words, in the combined system of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt, the device

type information is sent from Pucci’s ION workstation to a connected workstation

via routine SCSI commands over a SCSI bus. Accordingly, an end user utilizing

Pucci’s invention would not need to load software to enable the transmission of the

device information.

121. It is also my opinion that the combination of Pucci, Kepley, and

Schmidt discloses “caus[ing] at least one parameter identifying the analog data

generating and processing device as a digital storage device instead of as an analog

data generating and processing device to be automatically sent through the i/o port

and to the multi-purpose interface of the computer… without requiring any end

user to interact with the computer to set up a file system in the ADGPD at any

time.” I note here that the “without requiring” language appears to modify the

limitation regarding the automatic sending of the parameter “through the i/o port

and to the multi-purpose interface of the computer.” In other words, the “without

requiring” language clarifies the automatic nature of how the parameter is sent

through the i/o port and to the multi-purpose interface of the computer. Therefore,

- 65 -

in order to meet the claim language “automatically sent,” the parameter must be

sent at least “without requiring any end user to interact with the computer to set up

a file system in the ADGPD at any time.”

122. As discussed above, the information identifying the ION node as a

hard disk is sent to the workstation using a routine SCSI initialization process

implemented by built-in SCSI devices that run existing SCSI drivers. In the context

of SCSI, an INQUIRY command may be used to discover the type of device that is

connected to a host computer. (Schmidt, 133, Table 1 at 133.) The SCSI INQUIRY

command is mandatory and “must be implemented.” (Schmidt, Table 12.8 at 137,

Table 12.10 at 138.) This command is typically sent by a device, called an initiator,

to connected devices, called targets, through the initiator’s SCSI bus. The

identification process (i.e., when the initiator sends the INQUIRY command),

typically occurs “after a reset or power-up condition to determine the device types

for system configuration.” (SCSI Spec, p. 96.) Therefore, initiators, such as Pucci’s

workstation, will recognize the types of devices that are connected to it, upon

booting of the targets.

123. In the combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt, the automatic

recognition process occurs before the file system is prepared in Pucci’s ION node

because SCSI bus initialization occurs upon booting of systems including devices

connected to the SCSI bus. The role of the file system is to support emulation only

- 66 -

after the device types of SCSI devices, such as Pucci’s ION node, have been

identified. Transmission of the INQUIRY command is an essential step of the

initialization process because initiators must know the device types of devices

connected to the SCSI bus prior to transmitting other commands. (SCSI Spec., p.

6.) This is because devices have device-type specific commands and the initiator

must be aware of which commands are compatible with the connected devices.

(SCSI Spec., p. 6.) For example, disk drives will have different commands than

printers because they process data differently. (Schmidt, p. 122.) The initialization

process allows the initiator to “identify the type of attached SCSI-2 device, the

characteristics of the device, and all the changeable parameters supported by the

device.” (SCSI Spec., p. 6.)

124. A POSITA would understand that Pucci’s disclosure of implementing

the SCSI standard between the ION node and workstation requires these devices to

support standard SCSI commands, such as the INQUIRY command. In Pucci’s

system, a connected workstation, acting as an initiator, must identify the device

type of an ION node, acting as a target, prior to the workstation being able to send

other commands. In this regard, Pucci discloses that the “workstation sees ION as

though it were physically a local disk drive (an ION drive).” (Pucci, p. 220.)

Therefore, a POSITA would understand that Pucci’s ION node would respond to

the INQUIRY command using the appropriate device type identifier to signal this

- 67 -

device type to workstation 21. The SCSI standard defines a (hard) “disk drive”

class that is included in responses to INQUIRY commands. (Schmidt, p. 133,

Table 12.1.)

125. Typically, the INQUIRY command sequence (request and response)

between initiator and target occurs upon power up or booting of the initiator and/or

the target. (SCSI Spec., p. 85.) The INQUIRY command sequence occurs without

user intervention (e.g., automatically at boot time) and without needing to establish

a file system on the ION node, and for the reasons I discuss above, is necessary for

the initiator to direct operations of target devices. Accordingly, an end user is not

required to set up a file system in the ION node to enable this routine SCSI

process.

c) The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt teaches the automatic recognition data element requirements.

126. It is my opinion that the combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt

discloses “at least one parameter identifying the analog data generating and

processing device,” “wherein the at least one parameter is consistent with the

ADGPD being responsive to commands issued from a customary device driver,”

and “provides information to the computer about file transfer characteristics of the

ADGPD.”

127. As part of the automatic recognition process, the identification

information sent in response to a SCSI INQUIRY command identifies the ION

- 68 -

node as a hard disk to the workstation. Pucci further discloses that the ION node

connects to the workstation via the SCSI “disk interface” that maps or responds to

“simple disk read and write accesses.” (Pucci, p. 217.) These read and write

accesses are hard disk commands issued from a device driver in a workstation and

issued to the ION node. (Schmidt, p. 165.) Thus, the ION node is “responsive to

commands issued from” a hard disk driver.

128. Pucci acknowledges the benefits of using a customary device driver.

“Additionally, 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 (emphasis added).)

129. Because a hard disk is a customary and conventional device within

computer systems, a hard disk driver was a “customary device driver” in a

computer system prior to the earliest possible priority date of the ’437 patent. For

example, it was well known in the art that communicating with file systems of disk

drives utilized a disk drive driver implemented within the operating system of the

computer. (Silberschatz, p. 385 (“The basic file system needs only to issue generic

commands to the appropriate device driver to read and write physical blocks on the

disk”); p. 384 (describing device drivers as being part of the “lowest level” of an

operating system’s file system).) Based on this understanding of hard disks, the

identification of the ION node as a hard disk in the response to the SCSI INQUIRY

- 69 -

command “is consistent with the ADGPD being responsive to commands issued

from a customary device driver.”

130. It is also my opinion that the combination of Pucci, Kepley, and

Schmidt discloses “wherein the at least one parameter provides information to the

computer about file transfer characteristics of the ADGPD.” Pucci discloses that

the data on the ION node can be “traditional file system data.” (Pucci, p. 221.)

Specifically, in combination with Kepley, the A-to-D converted data is stored as a

file in Pucci’s ION node. (See Section VIII.A.3.b above.) Pucci also discloses that

“[a] workstation sees ION as though it were physically a local disk drive... [and

that] [s]oftware 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) Thus, when the ION node identifies itself as a hard disk, the

workstation recognizes the ION node as a conventional disk drive. A conventional

disk drive was known to provide file transfer capabilities before the earliest

priority date of the ’437 patent. “For each device class SCSI defines a model, a

command set and parameter pages for configuring the device.” (Schmidt, p. 132.)

For example, disk drives include standard SCSI commands such as “Read” and

“Write.” (Schmidt, p. 164, Table 13.2.) These standard commands within the

command set provide information about “file transfer characteristics” of ION node

because the commands are involved in file transfer operations of ION node. A

- 70 -

POSITA would understand, for example, that users or applications that wish to

transfer files often have to have information about the files’ transfer characteristics,

such as the name of the file that is used to access the file.

5. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt teaches the file transfer limitation of independent claim 1.

131. For my analysis, I utilize the following outline provided to me by

counsel, which describes a data generation process limitation [1G] as including

two separate components:

[1G] wherein the processor is further adapted to be involved in an automatic

file transfer process in which,

[1G.1] when the i/o port is operatively interfaced with the multi-

purpose interface of the computer, and after the at least one parameter

has been sent from the i/o port to the multi-purpose interface of the

computer, the processor executes at least one other instruction set

stored in the program memory to thereby cause the at least one file of

digitized analog data acquired from at least one of the plurality of

analog acquisition channels to be transferred to the computer using the

customary device driver for the digital storage device (referred to as

the “automatic file transfer process requirements”)

[1G.2] while causing the analog data generating and processing

device to appear to the computer as if it were the digital storage

- 71 -

device without requiring any user-loaded file transfer enabling

software to be loaded on or installed in the computer at any time

(referred to as the “emulation and end user requirement”).

I address each of these two components below.

a) The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt teaches the recited automatic file transfer process.

132. It is my opinion that the combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt

discloses “wherein the processor is further adapted to be involved in an automatic

file transfer process in which, when the i/o port is operatively interfaced with the

multi-purpose interface of the computer, and after the at least one parameter has

been sent from the i/o port to the multi-purpose interface of the computer, the

processor executes at least one other instruction set stored in the program memory

to thereby cause the at least one file of digitized analog data acquired from at least

one of the plurality of analog acquisition channels to be transferred to the computer

using the customary device driver for the digital storage device.” I first note that

the ’437 patent does not provide an explicit definition for “automatic file transfer

process.” Instead, based on the “in which” part that follows the term, the claim

appears to rely on the subsequent language to provide the proper claim scope for

the term. In other words, I understand that the following claim language describes

an “automatic file transfer process”:

- 72 -

when the i/o port is operatively interfaced with the multi-purpose interface of the computer, and after the at least one parameter has been sent from the i/o port to the multi-purpose interface of the computer, the processor executes at least one other instruction set stored in the program memory to thereby cause the at least one file of digitized analog data acquired from at least one of the plurality of analog acquisition channels to be transferred to the computer using the customary device driver for the digital storage device. 133. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt discloses a file

transfer process in which “at least one file of digitized analog data acquired from

at least one of the plurality of analog acquisition channels [is] transferred to the

computer using the customary device driver for the digital storage device.” As I

described above, the combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt teaches “the

processed and digitized analog data is stored in the data storage memory as at

least one file of digitized analog data.” The workstation can request the digitized

analog data from the ION node. 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.” (Pucci, p. 232.) A task of the A-to-D application residing on the ION

node “interfaces to the SCSI bus and returns [the] data to the workstation when

requested.” (Pucci, p. 232.)

134. In the combination of Pucci and Kepley, the digitized data is stored as

a file in the data storage memory of the ION node. (See Section VIII.A.3.b.) The

workstation interacts with the ION node as a conventional disk drive that “it knows

- 73 -

how to deal with.” (Pucci, p. 220) Accordingly, a POSITA would have found it

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 using, for

example, standard SCSI commands. Pucci discloses that data can be stored within

an ION node as “traditional file system data.” (Pucci, p. 221.) Thus, the

workstation is able to read files from the ION node. And because the workstation

handles the ION node like a conventional disk drive, a standard hard disk device

can be used to read the file. Thus, the file is transferred using a “customary device

driver for the digital storage device.”

135. Moreover, the automatic recognition process of Pucci, Kepley, and

Schmidt occurs when the ION node is attached to the workstation using the SCSI

bus through the use of standard SCSI commands. Based on the well-understood

principles of SCSI, a POSITA would understand that a standard SCSI device type

is returned from an ION node to a connected workstation. According to well-

understood principles of SCSI, once identified as a disk drive, an ION node may

communicate with the workstation. Accordingly, any additional operations

between an ION node and the connected workstation, including file transfer,

necessarily occur after the device type has been sent to the workstation.

136. With the ION node acting like a hard disk in response to the file

transfer request, the transfer requires no user action on the ION node and is

- 74 -

automatic. Based on Pucci’s disclosure of utilizing SCSI, a POSITA would

understand that standard SCSI commands are used to communicate between ION

node and the connected workstation. Because Pucci’s ION node is identified as a

hard disk, the ION node would be responsive to standard SCSI commands for disk

drives. An ION node, acting as a SCSI target, would automatically respond to

commands from a connected workstation without any user action. The SCSI

response occurs automatically in response to a SCSI command.

137. The “automatic file transfer process” in the combined system of

Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt occurs “when the i/o port is operatively interfaced

with the multi-purpose interface of the computer, and after the at least one

parameter has been sent from the i/o port to the multi-purpose interface of the

computer.” As I described above, file transfer operations will occur only after the

INQUIRY command sequence between Pucci’s ION node and a connected

workstation, which allows workstation to identify the ION node as a disk drive.

Because the INQUIRY command sequence involves the transmission of at least

one parameter, such as the SCSI device type identifying Pucci’s ION node as a

disk drive, any operations, including a file transfer process, necessarily occurs after

“the at least one parameter has been sent from the i/o port to the multi-purpose

interface of the computer.”

- 75 -

138. Moreover, Pucci’s Application CPU and SBC CPUs are involved in

this automatic file transfer process because it is well known that CPUs are “[t]he

computational and control unit of a computer.” (Microsoft Computer Dictionary, p.

84.). In particular, a task of the portion of the A-to-D application residing on the

ION node is to “interface[] to the SCSI bus and return[] data to the workstation

when requested.” (Pucci, p. 232.) Further, file transfers would use the SBC CPU

that interfaces the ION node to the workstation via SCSI. (Pucci, p. 222, Figure 2.)

A POSITA would appreciate that this application task would execute on the

Application CPU based on the well-understood principles of CPUs and the central

role they play in the operations of a computer.

139. A POSITA would understand that execution of these tasks by

Application CPU and SBC CPUs of Pucci’s ION node would involve the

execution of at least one other instruction set that is stored in memory. Maclean

supports this understanding. “The characteristics and responses of a mass storage

device are simulated by processing commands sent by the microprocessor and

presenting the status to the microprocessor.” (Maclean, 3:45-49.) “Dedicated

control processor 4 is responsible for receiving commands from the host system 8

via the system interface 2, and performs the required operations to simulate the

execution of the commands…then returning status and optional to the computer.”

(Maclean, 5:34-40.) Based on these disclosures in Maclean, a POSITA would

- 76 -

conclude that Maclean discloses an emulator comprising a processor that simulates

a floppy disk drive by processing standard floppy disk commands sent by a

computer. These commands include an “‘INPUT’ command from the host

microcomputer” which causes “microprocessor 25 [to] execute[] instructions from

ROM 22 to transmit a RECEIVE command…and set Random Access Memory

(RAM) 24 ready to receive data from communication network.” (Maclean, 8:35-

41.) Based on this command, data transfer is performed: “the data is formatted to

the form recognizable by the host system 2 and then output to the host system

through the system interface 2.” (Maclean, 8:41-44.) Another example is “an

output command” which causes “microprocessor 25…[to] execute[] instructions

resident in the ROM 22 to transmit a TRANSMIT command.” (Maclean, 8:53-56.)

The microprocessor then “executes instructions to transmit data to the

communication network.” (Maclean, 8:59-61.) Thus, Maclean discloses

conventional operations for carrying out commands by the processor of emulator

involves the execution of instructions associated with those commands. “For a

computer to do its job of executing programs, the programs must be in main

memory.” (Silberschatz, p. 37.) Accordingly, a POSITA would further understand

that instructions are stored in “program memory,” which is a well-known

implementation in the art.

- 77 -

b) The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt discloses the emulation and user requirement component of the file transfer limitation.

140. It is my opinion that the combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt

discloses that the processor causes the automatic file transfer to occur “while

causing the analog data generating and processing device to appear to the computer

as if it were the digital storage device.” Pucci’s ION node “appears to the

workstation as a large, high speed disk device.” (Pucci, p. 217.) Specifically,

“[s]oftware 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.) Thus, the ION node appears “as if it were the digital storage

device” during the file transfer process.

141. It is my opinion that the combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt

discloses that the processor causes the automatic file transfer to occur “without

requiring any user-loaded file transfer enabling software to be loaded on or

installed in the computer at any time.” One of the stated benefits of Pucci’s

invention is that “each workstation accesses ION using its local disk system, which

is a stable, well-defined interface [and] there is no need to change vendor supplied

host system software.” (Pucci, pp. 219-220.) Pucci acknowledges the benefits of

using existing device drivers. “Additionally, since the hardware dependent A-to-D

code remains within ION, no driver changes to the host’s operating system are

- 78 -

necessary upon workstation upgrade.” (Pucci, p. 231 (emphasis added).) Pucci’s

specific goal of achieving communication without the “need to change vendor

supplied host system software” would inform a POSITA that an existing driver is

utilized to communicate with the ION node. This understanding is supported

elsewhere in Pucci: “[s]oftware 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 other words, Pucci’s system allows

a workstation to use existing drivers, e.g., a driver for a “local disk system,” to

communicate with the ION node. 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.

B. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt renders claim 4 obvious.

142. It is my opinion that Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt discloses that the

“analog data generating and processing device… is configured to allow at least

one analog source to be attached thereto and detached therefrom.” Pucci describes

that “ION provides the 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.) It is well known to a POSITA that “a standard

telephone line [] carries continuously varying (analog) signals.” (Microsoft

Computer Dictionary, p. 27 (definition of “analog line”).) Based on this

- 79 -

understanding of voice data, the telephone switch system provides analog data to

ION for A-to-D conversion and is “at least one analog source.”

143. The ION system is designed to be used with a variety of applications

(e.g., audio mix application, voice messaging application). (Pucci, pp. 217–218,

229.) These applications, including the programmable telephone switch system, are

connected to the ION node through a SCSI connection. (Pucci, pp. 231-232.) Pucci

further explains, with regard to the conventional SCSI hardware interface, that

features for “disconnect[ing] and reconnect[ing] from the [SCSI] bus” are

important to “improve [SCSI] bus utilization.” (Pucci, p. 225.) “Individual SCSI

tasks manage their own disconnect/reconnect behavior on the SCSI bus on a device

by device basis.” (Pucci, p. 223.) “A facility known as disconnect/reconnect

allows better utilization of the SCSI bus. ... the target can disconnect from the

SCSI bus, making it available for other targets, and reconnect when the data are

ready.” (Pucci, p. 239.) Based on Pucci’s disclosure of utilizing standard SCSI

connections between the ION node and the analog source (e.g., the telephone

switch system), and that SCSI supports disconnecting and reconnecting a device on

a SCSI bus, a POSITA would appreciate that the telephone switch system can be

“attached... and detached” from the ION node. Such configuration furthers Pucci’s

intended use of the ION node with a variety of different applications.

- 80 -

C. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt renders claim 5 obvious

144. It is my opinion that the combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt

discloses “the analog data generating and processing device is attached directly to

at least one analog source.” The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt

teaches this claim limitation. As discussed in claim 4 above, the ION node can be

connected to a telephone switch system, which is “at least one analog source”

because it was well known that voice data is a type of analog data. Pucci explains

that the telephone switch system is connected to the A-to-D conversion services

within the ION system. “ION provides the 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.) “[A]n ION node [] contains

single board computers and other peripheral interfaces.” (Pucci, p. 220, Figure 1

caption.) Based on a POSITA’s understanding of voice data and Pucci’s own

disclosure of A-to-D converters within the ION system, a POSITA would conclude

that the telephone switch system (an “application peripheral”) would be coupled to

the A-to-D converters of the ION node. (Pucci, p. 231, Figure 2.) Thus, the

telephone switch would be “attached directly” to the ION node.

- 81 -

D. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt renders claim 6 obvious.

145. It is my opinion that the combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt

discloses “the analog data generating and processing device is a stand alone [sic]

device.” Pucci’s ION node connects to the workstation through a SCSI bus cable.

“SCSI-2 can use optional secondary cables.” (Pucci, pp. 217, 238, 240.)

146. A POSITA would also understand that standard SCSI connects

standalone devices using a physical cable. “SCSI [is] designed to make it possible

to use the same cables. The A cable is a 50-pin cable while the B cable is 68-pin.

Either implementation may use either ribbon cable or twisted-pair... Cables should

have an impedance ... When Fast SCSI is being used ... the cable requirements are

somewhat stricter. The cable should be shielded.” (Schmidt, p. 96, section titled

“Cables and connectors”.)

147. Accordingly, the ION node is physically separate and apart from, and

not permanently attached to, the workstation and thus is a stand alone device.

(Pucci, p. 220, Figure 1 and p. 222, Figure 2.)

E. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt renders claim 9 obvious.

148. It is my opinion that the combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt

discloses “at least one additional analog data generating and processing device

coupled to the computer in parallel and each analog data generating and processing

- 82 -

device attached to a differen[t] analog data source.” Specifically, Pucci discloses

that “ION configurations are expandable and sharable as needs dictate.” (Pucci, p.

220.) For example, “expansion is possible by using bus repeaters and local area

networks to interconnect multiple ION nodes together.” (Pucci, p. 220

(emphasis added).) A POSITA would understand that in such a configuration with

multiple interconnected ION nodes, “at least one additional” ION node would be

“coupled to the [workstation] in parallel.”

149. This understanding of Pucci is buttressed by Pucci’s use of the SCSI

standard to connect to the ION node. (Pucci, Figure 2.) SCSI was well known as of

the earliest effective priority date of the ’437 patent to allow for multiple devices to

be connected to a computer through SCSI buses. (Schmidt, p, 79.) Sample

configurations, which include multiple different peripheral devices coupled in

parallel to a host computer, are shown below:

- 83 -

(Schmidt, p. 90.)

150. Given the above knowledge of SCSI buses and their configurations, it

would have been obvious to a POSITA to connect, or couple, in parallel at least

two ION nodes, or “ADGPDs” to a SCSI bus. Such a configuration would be an

example of simply substituting known elements, such as a tape drive and CD-ROM

drive in the figure above, for another known element, such as two ION nodes to

obtain predictable results. These predictable results would entail a SCSI

configuration with two ION nodes coupled in parallel to a host computer to enable

parallel operations, which is consistent with Pucci’s stated goal discussed above.

151. Finally, Pucci explains that each ION node can be coupled to a

different analog application (e.g., audio mix application, telephone switch

application). (Pucci, pp. 217-218, 229.) Because each ION node can be coupled to

- 84 -

different analog applications, each ADGPD is “attached to a different analog

source.”

F. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt renders claim 10 obvious.

152. It is my opinion that the combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt

discloses “at least some of the analog data sources are analog data sources of

different types.” As discussed in claim 9 above, in a multi-ION node configuration,

the workstation can be connected in parallel to multiple ION nodes, each attached

to a different “analog data source.” Further, the different “analog data sources”

can be different types such as analog data from an audio mix application or analog

data from a telephone switch system. For example, one ION node can be attached

to a telephone switch system, while another ION node can be attached to an audio

mix application. (Pucci, pp. 217–218, 229.)

G. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt renders claim 11 obvious.

153. It is my opinion that the combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt

discloses the “processor is configured to format the digitized analog data into

blocks of data with block sizes suitable for a hard disk of the computer.” Pucci

discloses that “application specific functions, called actions, [can be] enabled by

reading or writing specific disk block addresses within the ION drive.” (Pucci,

p. 221 (emphasis in original).) For example, the A-to-D application’s interface to

- 85 -

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. The controlling

program within the workstation merely reads from one of these designated disk

block addresses to obtain the converted data.” (Pucci, p. 221) More specifically,

the designated disk block addresses are accessed using “standard disk read and

write accesses.” (Pucci, p. 221.) In other words, the designated disk block

addresses are equivalent to disk blocks of a standard disk drive.

154. Pucci’s disclosure of block addresses is consistent with the common

knowledge well prior to the earliest effective priority date of the ’437 patent that

hard disks store information in units called blocks. (Silberschatz, p. 383.) The size

of these blocks in hard disks may vary but typically were 512 bytes. “Depending

on the disk drive, sectors vary from 32 bytes to 4096 bytes; usually, they are 512

bytes.” (Silberschatz, p. 383.) File access routines rely on this standard practice of

storing information as blocks of data in disk drives. Because of this standard

practice, accessing files only requires issuing “generic commands to the

appropriate device driver to read and write physical blocks on the disk.”

(Silberschatz, p. 385.) A file system also relies on the relationship between logical

blocks and physical blocks, where logical blocks typically represent an addressing

scheme while physical blocks represent the physical locations of the blocks on the

disk. (Silberschatz, pp. 358, 385, 409–410.) An addressing scheme translates

- 86 -

logical blocks to physical blocks in order to locate the requested file data.

(Silberschatz, pp. 358, 385, 409–410.)

155. A POSITA would understand this because the data may be accessed

similarly to any other file stored on a disk drive and that data would be accessed

using the same methods to access other files stored on a disk drive. “I/O transfers

between memory and disk are performed in units of blocks.” (Silberschatz,

pp. 383–384 (emphasis in original).) These methods would necessarily depend on

data being stored as blocks of data because such methods expect a particular

storage format, i.e., logical blocks and i-nodes, when retrieving data. (Silberschatz,

p. 383–384.) Therefore, a POSITA would appreciate that the data stored in the file

system in Pucci’s system will be stored as blocks of data having block sizes.

156. Pucci discloses that workstation communicates with ION node as if it

was a hard disk. (Pucci, p. 217.) It was well known at the earliest possible priority

date of the ’437 patent that writing and reading data from a hard disk required that

the data be formatted into blocks of suitable size. The ’437 patent admits so. “[I]t

should be noted that normally data flow from a host device must be formatted in

blocks to permit writing to a hard disk and subsequent reading from a hard disk, as

known by those skilled in the art.” (’437 patent, 8:10–13.) Thus, based on this

well-known principle of blocks, a POSITA would understand that for Pucci’s

workstation to be able to read data from the ION node as if reading from a hard

- 87 -

disk, the data in the “designated disk block addresses” must have been formatted

into blocks with sizes suitable for a hard disk.

H. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt renders claim 12 obvious.

157. It is my opinion that the combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt

discloses “a data buffer coupled to the processor to permit independence of time of

data acquisition and data transfer to the host computer.” First, Pucci discloses “a

data buffer coupled to the processor.” A buffer was a well-known component prior

to the earliest possible priority date of the ’437 patent: “[a] device in which data

are stored temporarily, in the course of transmission from one point to another;

used to compensate for a difference in the flow of data, or time of occurrence of

events, when transmitting data from one device to another.” (Ex. 1018, IEEE

Dictionary, p. 113; see also Microsoft Computer Dictionary, p. 66 (definition of

“buffer”) (“A region of memory reserved for use as an intermediate repository in

which data is temporarily held while waiting to be transferred between two

locations”.) A POSITA understands that computer memory buffers are often used

to cache data temporarily.

158. Pucci discloses that the ION node includes a “buffer” memory: “Large

buffer memory, on the order of hundreds of megabytes, is used as a cache for

physical device data.” (Pucci, p. 222.) Pucci further discloses that an application

task that resides within the ION node “is activated by periodic interrupts from the

- 88 -

hardware and extracts the raw data from the converter, placing it into a queue for

temporary storage.” (Pucci, p. 231.) A POSITA would appreciate that placing the

raw data in a queue for temporary storage would require the application task to

operatively interface with the large buffer memory where physical device data is

cached in Pucci. A POSITA would further appreciate that the application task

would execute on the Application CPU (“the processor”). Accordingly, the

Application CPU is coupled to the buffer.

159. Further, the data buffer in the combination of Pucci, Kepley, and

Schmidt “permit[s] independence of time of data acquisition and data transfer to

the host computer.” As discussed above, the data is extracted from the A-to-D

converter and placed in a buffer. A “buffer” allows for data to be “temporarily held

while waiting [for the data] to be transferred between two locations.” (Microsoft

Computer Dictionary, p. 66.) Accordingly, the intermediate nature of a “buffer”

and the temporary storage of data allows for temporal independence between data

storage and data transfer. This well-understood function of a buffer is consistent

with its use in Pucci where an application task that resides within the ION node

“interfaces to the SCSI bus and returns data to the workstation when requested.”

(Pucci, pp. 231–232.) Thus, the “time of data acquisition” is independent of the

time of “data transfer to the host computer.”

- 89 -

I. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt renders claim 14 obvious.

160. It is my opinion that the combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt

discloses “the analog data generating and processing device processor interprets a

read command from the host computer as a data transfer command to initiate

transfer of digitized analog data from the analog acquisition channels to the host

computer.” First, Pucci discloses the “analog data generating and processing

device processor” responds to “a data transfer command to initiate transfer of

digitized analog data from the analog acquisition channels to the host computer.”

As discussed above, Pucci’s ION node generates “digitized analog data” from the

A-to-D converters (“the analog acquisition channels”). The ION node temporarily

stores digitized analog data. It “extracts the raw data from the converter, placing it

into a queue for temporary storage.” (Pucci, p. 231.) The workstation (“host

computer”) requests this stored digitized analog data, and this request initiates

transfer of the data from the ION node to the workstation: “[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.” (Pucci, p. 232.) An application task

that resides within the ION node “interfaces to the SCSI bus and returns data to the

workstation when requested.” (Pucci, pp. 231–232.) A POSITA would appreciate

that this application task would execute on the Application CPU because of the

central role of a CPU in a computer system.

- 90 -

161. Pucci also teaches that the data transfer command is a read command.

For example, Pucci discloses “[u]pon start, the workstation reads the A-to-D start

address for an appropriate channel, activating the device. It then retrieves data by

reading the data block address for that channel.” (Pucci, p. 232 (emphasis added).)

Pucci further discloses the use of SCSI commands. (Pucci, p. 234.) Schmidt

describes a number of SCSI commands for requesting data from a SCSI device.

For example, Schmidt describes commands including READ(6), READ(10),

READ BUFFER, and READ LONG. (Schmidt, p. 164, Table 13.2.) Schmidt

discloses that support for the READ(6) and READ(10) commands is mandatory in

the SCSI standard. (Schmidt, p. 164, Table 12.10 (showing the READ(6) and

READ(10) commands as Type “M”); p. 137, Table 12.8 (showing Type M

commands as “Mandatory” commands that “must be implemented”).) Given these

disclosures in Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt, a POSITA would implement Pucci’s

“read command,” which is sent over a SCSI bus, as one of the SCSI READ

commands as described in Schmidt.

J. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt renders claim 15 obvious.

162. It is my opinion that the combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt

discloses “the analog data generating and processing device is adapted to be

interfaced with the multi-purpose interface of the computer by means of a cable.”

As discussed in claim 1 above, the ION node (“the ADGPD”) is interfaced with a

- 91 -

SCSI adapter (“multi-purpose interface”) of the workstation via a SCSI bus.

(Pucci, p. 225.) The SCSI bus includes “a cable.” (Pucci, p. 228 (“The maximum

bus length is about 20 feet....”); p. 229 (“SCSI-2 can use optional secondary

cables....”).)

163. A POSITA would also understand that standard SCSI connects

standalone devices using a physical cable. “SCSI [is] designed to make it possible

to use the same cables. The A cable is a 50-pin cable while the B cable is 68-pin.

Either implementation may use either ribbon cable or twisted-pair... Cables should

have an impedance ... When Fast SCSI is being used ... the cable requirements are

somewhat stricter. The cable should be shielded.” (Schmidt, p. 96, section titled

“Cables and connectors.”)

K. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt renders claim 30 obvious.

164. It is my opinion that the combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt

discloses “wherein the processor is configured to allow an aspect of operation of

the analog data generating and processing device other than the transfer of at least

some of the digitized analog data from the data storage memory to the multi-

purpose interface to be controlled by means of an external computer.” Pucci’s

Figure 5, below, illustrates “a sequence of instructions... prepared by the

workstation to configure the data acquisition tasks.” (Pucci, p. 229.) Pucci teaches

that these tasks “run[] within the ION system.”

- 92 -

165. A POSITA would conclude that Pucci’s data acquisition tasks (e.g.,

“atod 0” and “atod 1” commands in Figure 5 above) relate to acquiring data which

is an operation “other than the transfer of at least some of the digitized analog data

from the data storage memory to the multi-purpose interface.” Pucci discloses that

the workstation (“external computer”) can 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.) Such instructions include, for example the “atod 0” and “atod 1”

commands in Figure 5 below because they initiate A-to-D acquisition and

conversion and do not “transfer at least some of the… file.” Pucci describes with

respect to Figures 4 and 5 “an application [] to mix a stereo source of analog data

into a single stream.” (Pucci, Figure 4, p. 229.) Pucci discloses final a step after

“mu-law compression” that “output[s] to a workstation by reading from an

indicated SCSI I/O address.” A POSITA would therefore conclude that the

- 93 -

commands disclosed in Pucci to transfer file data involve the last step in Figure 5

below (“scsi 32 < g”), whereas the first steps (“atod”) are not involved in the

(final) transfer of digitized data to workstation. Moreover, based on the well-

understood operations of CPUs and the central role it plays in the functions of a

computer system, a POSITA would appreciate that the tasks are executed by the

“processor” of the ION node. Accordingly, Pucci discloses that the workstation

(“external computer”) can control data acquisition tasks (“an aspect of operation...

other than the transfer of... digitized analog data”) of the ION node.

L. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt renders claim 34 obvious.

166. It is my opinion that the combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt

discloses “wherein at least one analog source is coupled to the analog data

generating and processing device and is designed for either one-way or two-way

communication.” Pucci teaches that “ION provides the 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.) Pucci

explains that the connection between ION and the GARDEN system is through

conventional SCSI connections (Pucci, p. 231-232.) Pucci further explains that

such SCSI connections allow for transmissions between devices that include

“accepting data” and “requesting data.” (Pucci, p. 239.) The telephone switch

system provides analog data to ION for A-to-D conversion and is “at least one

- 94 -

analog source... coupled to the analog data generating and processing device.”

Further, as the telephone switch system communicates analog data to the ION node

through the conventional SCSI connection as described above, the telephone

switch system is designed for at least one-way communication between the

telephone switch system and the ION node, because information flows from the

telephone switch in the direction of the ION node.

IX. Ground 2: The combination of Pucci, Kepley, Schmidt, and Shinosky renders claim 16 obvious. 167. U.S. Patent No. 4,065,644 to Shinosky et al., titled “Electro-Optical

and Electronic Switching Systems.” (Ex. 1045.) I have been informed by counsel

that Shinosky is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C §§ 102(a), 102(b), and 102(e).

168. It is my opinion that the combination of Pucci, Kepley, Schmidt, and

Shinosky teaches that “at least one of the analog sources is a sensor that is

operatively interfaced with the analog data generating and processing device and

that is designed to generate the analog data.” Pucci teaches that “ION provides the

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.) A POSITA would have understood that a telephone switch connects to a

telephone (see e.g., Kepley, Figure 1), which includes a sound transducer

(“sensor”) to convert sound into an electrical analog signal. It is well known to a

POSITA that “a standard telephone line [] carries continuously varying (analog)

- 95 -

signals.” (Microsoft Computer Dictionary, p. 23 (definition of “analog line”).)

Based on Pucci’s disclosure of the telephone switch system and the well-

understood principles of voice data as analog data, a POSITA would conclude that

Pucci teaches “at least one of the analog sources is a sensor . . . operatively

interfaced with the analog data generating and processing device and that is

designed to generate the analog data.”

169. Further Pucci’s ION system may include a transducer or a “sensor”

for converting “one form of energy into another” (e.g., sound into an electrical

signal). (Microsoft Computer Dictionary, p. 428 (definition of sensor); p. 474

(definition of transducer).) Pucci contemplates applications that capture audio

signals: “An example application uses a simple set of directives to capture and

digitize high quality stereo audio.” (Pucci, p. 217.) Thus, the ION node would be

coupled to a sound transducer, or sensor. Further, a POSITA would know that

telephones and videophones include a microphone and that a “microphone” is a

sensing “device that converts sound waves into analog electrical signals.”

(Microsoft Computer Dictionary, pp. 307 (definition of “microphone”), 496

(definition of “videophone”).) Given that the supported application is a “voice

messaging application,” it would have been reasonable for a POSITA to conclude

that Pucci’s telephone switch system receives analog voice data from a telephone.

- 96 -

170. A POSITA would have also understood that a telephone switch

includes sensors. Shinosky discloses a telephone switch that includes “a sensor that

is designated to generate…analog data.” Shinosky discloses “[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.)

171. Annotated Figure 1 of Shinosky, below, illustrates the switching

system focusing on a single input.

172. The input signal “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

- 97 -

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 understand a photosensor is a transducer that converts a

light signal to an electrical signal. (Microsoft Dictionary, pp. 363–64 (definition of

“photosensor” and “photoelectric device”).) For example, Figure 1 of Shinosky

illustrates that the output of a photosensor is amplified by amplifier 3-C and output

to a speaker 3-D. (See Shinosky, 9:56–60.)

173. Figure 6 of Shinosky, reproduced in part below, illustrates a switching

system that enables a bi-directional telephone call between two parties.

Photosensors

- 98 -

174. This switching system includes a photosensor array that constitutes

the recited “sensor... designed to generate the analog data.” Figure 6, for example,

illustrates two photosensors in the array transmitting data to respective telephones.

(See Shinosky, Figure 6.) In Kepley, “[a]n individual can directly call voice mail

service system 110 from one of telephone sets T100-Tm or trunk circuits T1-Tn or

can redirect their incoming calls from their associated telephone station sets T100-

Tm to voice mail service system 110.” (Kepley, 4:65-5:2.) Thus, in the

combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Shinosky, the photosensor array would forward

the “analog data” to the voicemail service provided by Pucci’s ION node.

175. Neither Pucci nor Kepley provide detail about the implementation of

their respective telephone switches, and a POSITA would have looked to the prior

art in search of such detail. 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.) The combination would have yielded the predictable

result of an operable telephone switching system for routing calls

X. Ground 3: The combination of Pucci, Kepley, Schmidt, and Campbell renders claims 13 and 18 obvious. 176. U.S. Patent No. 5,081,454 to Campbell, Jr. et al. (“Campbell”), titled

“Automatic A/D Converter Operation Using Programmable Sample Time” is prior

- 99 -

art under at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 102(b) because it issued on January 14,

1992. (See Ex. 1039.)

A. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, Schmidt and Campbell renders claim 13 obvious.

177. It is my opinion that the combination of Pucci, Kepley, Schmidt, and

Campbell discloses “each of the plurality of analog acquisition channels [be]

independently programmable and further comprise a plurality of corresponding

sample and hold amplifiers for simultaneous sampling on the plurality of analog

acquisition channels to permit simultaneous analog data acquisition from a

plurality of respective analog data sources.” The plain and ordinary meaning of

“independently programmable” is “programmed independently from each other.”

This meaning is consistent with its use in the specification which recites that “the

channels can be programmed independently of each other.” (’437 patent, 9:46–47.)

178. As discussed in claim 1 above, Pucci discloses a plurality of A-to-D

converters each providing an independent analog acquisition channel. The

combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt does not explicitly disclose that the

plurality of analog acquisition channels are “independently programmable.”

However, this limitation is taught by Campbell. Campbell discloses “[a]n analog-

to-digital conversion system module [that] provides programmable times for

sampling analog input signals.” (Ex. 1039, Campbell, Abstract.) In Campbell, a

“command word” which includes information specifying “the conversion time per

- 100 -

analog input channel” is provided and stored in a register or memory table.

(Campbell, Abstract.) Other fields may also be “provided to control such

parameters as analog channel, reference selection, conversion resolution, result

data justification, and so on.” (Campbell, 2:29–32.) A POSITA would understand

these disclosures in Campbell to mean that each analog input channel is

independently programmable.

179. Pucci discloses that the ION-connected telephone switch system is

“user programmable.” (Pucci, p. 218.) This “user programmability” extends to “the

interfaces and devices characteristics” which “leads to greater functionality and

power located off the host processor and in the peripheral device.” (Pucci, p. 231.)

Further, Campbell teaches that “[p]rogrammable sample time allows operation

without a loss of accuracy and a higher overall conversion throughput.” (Campbell,

2:44-46.) A POSITA would have been led to combine Pucci and Campbell in light

of these teachings of Pucci and Campbell.

180. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt also does not

explicitly disclose that the plurality of analog acquisition channels “comprise a

plurality of corresponding sample and hold amplifiers for simultaneous sampling

on the plurality of analog acquisition channels to permit simultaneous analog data

acquisition from a plurality of respective analog data sources.” However, this

limitation is also taught by Campbell. As discussed above, Campbell discloses an

- 101 -

analog-to-digital conversion system. Campbell’s system receives 16 analog

channels via a Channel MUX 28. (Campbell, 5:49-51, FIG. 2.) Channel MUX 28

passes two channels to Sample-and-Hold circuits 40 and 42. (Campbell, 5:7, FIG.

2.) Based on this disclosure, a POSITA would conclude that Campbell teaches at

least two independent analog acquisition channels “compris[ing] a plurality of

corresponding sample and hold amplifiers.”

181. Campbell further teaches that “[t]wo adjacent analog channels are

always sampled simultaneously.” (Campbell, 14:2-3.) Thus, a POSITA would

conclude that Campbell also teaches that the Sample-and-Hold circuits 40 and 42

are “for simultaneous sampling on the plurality of analog acquisition channels to

permit simultaneous analog data acquisition from a plurality of respective analog

data sources.” Annotated Figure 2 below shows the channel mux 28 and two

channels that lead to sample-and-hold circuits 40 and 42.

- 102 -

182. Campbell teaches that “[s]imultaneous sampling may be used for

receiving and converting differential or other special signal pairs.” (Campbell,

13:65-66.) Thus, Campbell teaches providing a respective sample-and-hold circuit

for each A-to-D channel when simultaneous sampling of signals may be needed.

Similarly, a POSITA would appreciate that, in Pucci, different A-to-D channels

may receive respective voice messages concurrently triggering interrupts for

reading the different A-to-D channels simultaneously. (Pucci, p. 231.) A POSITA

would have found it obvious to implement a separate sample and hold circuit for

each analog channel in Pucci so that hardware interrupts from the A-to-D

converters can be processed in a timely manner.

- 103 -

B. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, Schmidt, and Campbell renders claim 18 obvious

183. Claim 18 narrows claim 1 by adding “wherein the plurality of analog

acquisition channels are independently programmable.” All of the limitations of

claim 18 are substantially found in claim 13 discussed in sub-section X(A)above.

For the same reasons provided with respect to claim 13, the combination of Pucci,

Kepley, Schmidt, and Campbell renders claim 18 obvious.

XI. Ground 4: The combination of Pucci, Kepley, Schmidt, and Wilson renders claim 32 obvious. 184. U.S. Patent No. 5,353,374 to Wilson et al., titled “Low Bit Rate

Voice Transmission for Use in a Noisy Environment” is prior art under at least 35

U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 102(b) because it issued on October 4, 1994. (See Ex. 1040.)

185. It is my opinion that the combination of Pucci, Kepley, Schmidt, and

Wilson discloses “the digitized analog data is processed by the processor

performing a fast Fourier transform.” A “fast Fourier transform” or “FFT” is “[a]

set of algorithms used to compute the discrete Fourier transform of a function,

which in turn is used for solving series of equations, performing spectral analysis,

and carrying out other signal-processing and signal-generation tasks.” (Microsoft

Computer Dictionary, p. 189 (emphasis added).)

186. Pucci discloses that the “digitized analog data” is processed by the

processor. Specifically, Pucci discloses that “mu-law” data compression is applied

- 104 -

on the digitized analog data. (Pucci, p. 231.) “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.)

187. With regard to the “processor perform[ing] a fast Fourier transform,”

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.” (Ex. 1040,

Wilson, 2:28–30.) Like Pucci, Wilson discloses applying mu-law data compression

on the digitized data in a telephone application. Specifically, Wilson discloses that

“[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.) A POSITA would understand that

“companding” is “[a] process in which compression is followed by expansion.”

(IEEE Dictionary, p. 184.) To achieve further compression, Wilson teaches that

“[a]ny of several known techniques for information coding may be applied” and

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.) Wilson teaches that

- 105 -

“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.)

188. A POSITA would have found it obvious to use a transform coder as

taught in Wilson in Pucci’s ION node to achieve further compression of the

digitized voice signal. Based on Wilson’s disclosure, a POSITA would recognize

the obvious advantages achieved by further compressing the digitized voice signal

using Wilson’s transform coding, including lower storage requirements and faster

transmission. 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).

XII. Ground 5: The combination of Pucci and Schmidt renders claim 43 obvious.

A. An analog data generating and processing method for acquiring analog data and for communicating with a host computer comprising [43P]:

189. It is my opinion that the combination of Pucci and Schmidt discloses

“an analog data generating and processing method for acquiring analog data and

for communicating with a host computer.” Pucci’s ION node is a device that

performs “an analog data generating and processing method for acquiring analog

data and for communicating with a host computer.” An ION node “is a back-end

- 106 -

system, connecting to a workstation via the Small Computer Systems Interface

(SCSI) disk interface.” (Pucci, p. 217) In an exemplary application, 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.) As shown in

Pucci’s Figure 1 below, the ION node includes A-to-D converters for converting

analog voice messages received on respective analog channels. (Pucci, p. 221.)

190. The generated analog data is then processed by being digitized and

compressed: “[t]he part of the A-to-D application that resides within ION is

structured around three cooperating tasks. One task 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.) The second task performed

on the ION node “is a generic system utility that translates 16-bit linear data into 8-

bit mu-law data....” (Pucci, p. 231.) And, the third task “interfaces to the SCSI bus

and returns data to the workstation when requested.” (Pucci, p. 232.) Based on

these disclosures of Pucci’s ION node, a POSITA would conclude that the ION

node both generates and processes analog data, and that this processed analog data

is provided to “the workstation when requested.” (Pucci, p. 232.)

B. The combination of Pucci and Schmidt discloses the architecture elements of claim 43.

191. It is my opinion that the combination of Pucci and Schmidt discloses

“operatively interfacing an analog data device including a digital processor, a

- 107 -

program memory and a data storage memory, to a multi-purpose interface of the

host computer.” In Pucci, the ION node’s SCSI Bus Interface in an SBC interfaces

the ION node (“analog data device”) with an individual workstation (“host

computer”) via a SCSI bus. (Pucci, p. 222, Figure 2.) Pucci teaches that a SCSI

“host controller” resides within the host system. (Pucci, pp. 238–239.)

192. SCSI is a well-known “device-independent” standard that allows “a

variety of devices to be linked to a computer system,” where the “computer system

is connected to the SCSI bus through a host adapter.” (Schmidt, p. 79.) Such

adapters “often reside directly on the mother board of workstations and modern

personal computers, in which case they are referred to as embedded host adapters.”

(Schmidt, p. 79.) Based on Pucci’s disclosure that workstations comprise a SCSI

bus interface and the well-understood principles of SCSI, a POSITA would

therefore have understood that workstations in Pucci included such an SCSI

adapter. Moreover, devices of different types, such as hard disks and printers, may

be connected to the computer system. (Schmidt, 79; v.) Therefore, SCSI is a multi-

purpose interface. Furthermore, the ’437 patent acknowledges that SCSI is a well-

known multi-purpose interface. (’437 patent, 3:51–56.)

193. It is my opinion that the combination of Pucci and Schmidt further

disclose other architectural elements of the analog data device with the “analog

data device including a digital processor, a program memory and a data storage

- 108 -

memory.” Pucci teaches this architectural arrangement as highlighted in annotated

Figure 2 of Pucci (below).

(Pucci, p. 222, Figure 2 (annotated).)

194. Pucci discloses an Application CPU and CPUs within the SBCs (SBC

CPUs) that form “a digital processor” of the ION node. (Pucci, p. 222, Figure 2.)

As discussed in Section VIII(A)(2)(b) above for claim 1, Pucci teaches that the

ION node includes “a program memory.” (See Pucci, pp. 220, 223.) Also, Pucci’s

ION nodes includes “a data storage memory” as discussed in Section VIII(A)(2)(c)

above for claim 1. (See Pucci, p. 222, Figure 2.)

data storage memory

Digital processor

- 109 -

1. The combination of Pucci, Kepley, and Schmidt teaches the acquisition and processing limitations [43B].

a) Pucci teaches the acquisition limitation of independent claim 43.

195. This limitation is substantially similar to the acquisition limitation of

claim 1 [1E.1] as indicated in the following table

Claim 1 Claim 43 [1E.1] … a data generation process by which analog data is acquired from each respective analog acquisition channel of a plurality of independent analog acquisition channels

[43B.1] acquiring analog data on each respective analog acquisition channel of a plurality of independent analog acquisition channels.

196. The limitation of claim 43 recites the same acquisition of analog data

from “each respective analog acquisition channel of a plurality of independent

analog acquisition channels.” Accordingly, as discussed above in Section

VIII(A)(3)(a) with regard to limitation [1E.1], the combination of Pucci and

Schmidt discloses this limitation.

b) The combination of Pucci and Schmidt teaches the processing limitation of independent claim 43.

197. It is my opinion that the combination of Pucci and Schmidt discloses

“converting the acquired analog data to digitized acquired analog data and

coupling the digitized acquired analog data into the digital processor for processing

by the digital processor.” “ION supports an analog to digital (A-to-D) conversion

application that provides voice messaging service for a protocol telephone switch.”

- 110 -

(Pucci, p. 221.) Figure 1 illustrates the presence of multiple “A to D Converters”

and “[t]he 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). The third task performed by “the A-to-D

application that resides within ION” “defines a SCSI action function which

contains 4 block addresses for each of 5 A-to-D channels.” (Pucci, p. 232.) Based

on these disclosures, a POSITA would conclude that Pucci teaches that analog data

is acquired from each analog acquisition channel of a plurality of A-to-D

converters. The A-to-D converters 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....”).)

198. Moreover, Pucci further “couple[s] the digitized acquired analog data

into the digital processor for processing by the digital processor.” 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.) Based on

these disclosures and the well-understood operation of a CPU as a central

component of a computer system, a POSITA would appreciate that these

- 111 -

application tasks execute on the Application CPU (“the processor”) of the ION

node. Accordingly, Pucci discloses that the converted data (“the digitized acquired

analog data”) is “coupl[ed] into the digital processor for processing by the digital

processor.”

2. The combination of Pucci and Schmidt teaches the automatic recognition limitation of independent claim 43.

199. It is my opinion that the combination of Pucci and Schmidt discloses

“automatically generating and transmitting to the host computer via the

multipurpose interface an identification parameter which identifies the analog data

generating and processing device to the host computer as a digital storage device

but which is different than an analog data device.” Pucci’s ION node emulates a

disk drive: “A workstation sees ION as though it were physically a local disk drive

(an ION drive).” (Pucci, p. 220.) Specifically, “[s]oftware 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.) Based on Pucci’s

disclosures, a POSITA would conclude that Pucci’s ION node identifies itself as a

disk drive, and that the workstation recognizes the ION node as a disk drive.

200. Pucci discloses that the ION node comprises SCSI bus interfaces for

connecting to the individual workstations. (Pucci, Figure 2.) A POSITA would

understand that Pucci’s disclosure of implementing the SCSI standard requires

Pucci’s devices to support standard SCSI commands, such as the INQUIRY

- 112 -

command. In Pucci’s system, a workstation, acting as an initiator, must identify the

device type of ION node, acting as a target, prior to the workstation being able to

send other commands. In this regard, Pucci discloses that “ION appears to the

workstation as a large, high speed disk device.” (Pucci, p. 217.) Therefore, a

POSITA would understand that Pucci’s ION node would respond to the INQUIRY

command using the appropriate device type identifier to signal this device type to

the workstation. The SCSI standard defines a (hard) “disk drive” class that is

included in responses to INQUIRY commands. (Schmidt, p. 133, Table 12.1.)

201. In SCSI as described by Schmidt, “[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 12.10 (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. 139–40.) Given that Pucci uses a SCSI bus for connecting the ION node to a

workstation, and that both the ION node and the workstation would have supported

the mandatory SCSI initialization process, a POSITA would have found it obvious

to use Schmidt’s SCSI device recognition process in the system of Pucci to enable

- 113 -

device identification of the ION node to be carried using routine SCSI signaling to

the workstation. And, because all SCSI devices must support the INQUIRY

command, it would have been obvious to a POSITA that Pucci’s ION node

connected to the host workstation via SCSI would receive a SCSI INQUIRY

command issued from the workstation such as disclosed by Schmidt. In Pucci’s

system, the SCSI INQUIRY command would be received by the SCSI interface

chip dedicated to the SCSI interface between the ION node and the workstation.

(Pucci, p. 222, Figure 2.)

202. Schmidt provides details about a device’s response to the INQUIRY

command. (Schmidt, pp. 139–41.) In response to an INQUIRY command, a SCSI

device provides a response including a five-bit “device class” or “peripheral device

type.” (Schmidt, pp. 139–40; see also p. 132 (“Table 12.1 shows an example of the

device types returned from an INQUIRY command”).) The five-bit “device class”

or “peripheral device type” in the response is the recited “at least one parameter

identifying the analog data generating and processing device” and it is sent

“through the i/o port and to the multi-purpose interface of the computer.” One

device class is the (hard) “disk drive” class. (Schmidt, p. 133, Table 12.1.) Further,

because Pucci’s ION node is designed to emulate a hard disc, the POSITA would

also have found it obvious to have the ION node return the (hard) “disk drive”

- 114 -

class (identifying a “digital storage device”) in its response to the INQUIRY

command from the workstation.

203. 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. Specifically, the host computer’s SCSI

controller automatically issues the INQUIRY command to discover any SCSI

peripheral devices attached to the SCSI bus. No user action, beyond powering the

host computer, is required to initiate the SCSI initialization process.

204. Based on the SCSI disclosures in Pucci and the well-understood

principles of the SCSI protocol. Thus, a POSITA would interpret that the

combination of Pucci and Schmidt discloses the parameter identifies Pucci’s ION

node “as a digital storage device but which is different than an analog data

device.” In the combination of Pucci and Schmidt, the “at least one parameter”

would be sent by the SCSI interface chip dedicated to the SCSI interface between

the ION node and the workstation. (Pucci, p. 222, Figure 2.)

205. The response parameter is also “independent of [the] analog data

source.” Schmidt stresses that the SCSI interface is a “device independent I/O

bus” that “makes it possible to write device drivers for a device without knowing

device specific details.” (Schmidt, p. 79 (emphasis added).) Moreover, as I

outlined above, the ION node identifies itself as a disk drive to the workstation.

- 115 -

Because the response parameter identifies the ION node as a hard disk regardless

of the analog data source within the ION node, the identification of the ION node

is “independent” of the ION node’s an “analog data source.”

206. It is my opinion that the combination of Pucci and Schmidt discloses

“the analog data generating and processing device communicating with the host

computer through the multi-purpose interface as if the analog data generating and

processing device were the digital mass storage device.” “A mass storage device is

capable of storing data many times the size of main memory.” (Schmidt, p. 4.)

Examples of mass storage devices include disk drives. (Schmidt, p. 4.) Disk drives

are capable of storing digital data, and therefore may be considered digital mass

storage devices.

3. The combination of Pucci and Schmidt teaches the transferring limitation of independent claim 43.

207. It is my opinion that the combination of Pucci and Schmidt discloses

“the analog data generating and processing device communicat[es] with the host

computer through the multi-purpose interface as if the analog data generating and

processing device were the digital storage device.” In particular, Pucci’s ION node

“appears to the workstation as a large, high speed disk device.” (Pucci, p. 217.)

Accordingly, “[s]oftware 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.)

- 116 -

208. It is also my opinion that the combination of Pucci and Schmidt

discloses “transferring the digitized acquired analog data acquired from at least one

of the analog acquisition channels.” In Pucci, the workstation can request the

digitized analog data from the ION node. 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.” (Pucci, p. 232.) A task of the A-to-D application residing on

the ION node “interfaces to the SCSI bus and returns [the] data to the workstation

when requested.” (Pucci, p. 232.)

209. As I described above, the workstation handles the ION node like a

conventional disk drive and thus uses a standard hard disk driver to read files from

the ION node. Pucci describes that the benefit of overcoming issues with prior art

systems which required “[c]onstantly upgrading local workstation based device

drivers to coexist with operating system releases.” (Pucci, p. 218.) 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.)

210. Pucci acknowledges the benefits of using a customary device driver.

“Additionally, since the hardware dependent A-to-D code remains within ION, no

- 117 -

driver changes to the host’s operating system are necessary upon workstation

upgrade.” (Pucci, p. 231 (emphasis added).)

211. Device drivers for conventional disk drives are present in computer

systems because they are integrated into the operating system of the computer.

Silberschatz, p. 385 (“The basic file system needs only to issue generic commands

to the appropriate device driver to read and write physical blocks on the disk”);

p. 384 (describing device drivers as being part of the “lowest level” of an operating

system’s file system).) Based on Pucci’s stated goal and the well-understood

principles of device drivers, a POSITA would conclude that the transfer of Pucci’s

digitized acquired analog data “us[es] [a] customary device driver present for the

customary digital storage device in the host computer,” and does not require “the

user to load the device driver.”

4. The combination of Pucci and Schmidt teaches “wherein the identification parameter is consistent with the ADGPD being responsive to commands issued from a customary device driver.”

212. This limitation is identical to limitation [1F.3]. And, as discussed

above in Section VIII(A)(4)(c), the combination of Pucci and Schmidt teaches that

the identification of Pucci’s ION node as a hard disc in the response to the SCSI

INQUIRY command “is consistent with the ADGPD being responsive to

commands issued from a customary device driver.”

- 118 -

XIII. Ground 6: The combination of Pucci, Schmidt, and Campbell renders claim 45 obvious. 213. Claim 45 narrows claim 43 by adding “wherein the plurality of analog

acquisition channels are independently programmable and further comprising a

plurality of corresponding sample and hold amplifiers configured to

simultaneously sample a plurality of the plurality of analog acquisition channels.”

All of the limitations of claim 45 are substantially found in claim 13 discussed

above. For the same reasons provided with respect to claim 13, the combination of

Pucci, Schmidt, and Campbell renders claim 45 obvious.

XIV. Adequacy of the German Priority Application

214. I have reviewed a translation of the German priority application to

which the ’437 patent claims benefit. The translation was provided to me by

counsel and is listed as Ex. 1050 (“the ’437 German application”). In order to

properly claim priority to the German application (Ex. 1049), I have been informed

by counsel that the specification must provide written description for each claim of

the ’437 patent. I have been further informed that the German application would

provide adequate written description if the written description actually or

inherently disclose the elements of each claim. I have been informed that such

disclosure represents that the inventors possessed the invention. I have also been

informed by counsel that to provide support for a negative limitation, the

“specification must describe a reason to exclude the relevant limitation.”

- 119 -

215. Based on my review of the translation, I conclude that the inventors

did not have possession of certain features of the claims of the ’437 patent. In

particular, I conclude that the translation does not either actually or inherently

disclose at least the following two (bolded) features found in claims 1, 4-6, 9-16,

18, 30, 32, and 34 of the ’437 patent:

• “multi-purpose interface” or “an automatic recognition process... in

which... at least one parameter identifying the analog data generating

and processing device... [is] automatically sent....”

• “(b) without requiring any end user to interact with the computer to

set up a file system in the ADGPD at any time.”

216. For example, the ’437 German Application does not mention the key

terms “multi-purpose” or “multi-purpose interface” even once. Similarly, the key

terms “file system,” “end user,” or “interact” also do not appear in the ’437

German Application even once, in any context that can help explain these ’437

claim terms.

217. In reaching my conclusion, I have also relied on the following chart

provided to me by counsel. Terms in bold indicate differences between the two

applications.

’437 Patent – Application As Filed Corresponding Disclosure in ’437 German Application

- 120 -

’437 Patent – Application As Filed Corresponding Disclosure in ’437 German Application

“When the host device system with

which the interface device according to

the present invention is connected is

booted and a data transmit/receive

device is also attached to the interface

device 10,

usual BIOS routines or multi-purpose

interface programs issue an

instruction,

known by those skilled in the art as the

INQUIRY instruction,

to the input/output interfaces in the host

device.”

(’437 patent, 5:17-23.)

“If the host device system with which

the interface device as per the present

invention is connected for which a data

sending/receiving unit is also linked to

the interface device 10, is booted,

normal BIOS routines output a

command

to each input/output interface available

in the host device

that is recognized among experts as an

“INQUIRY” command.”

(Ex. 1050, p. 3.)

“For persons skilled in the art it is

however obvious that the interface

device 10 is not necessarily signed on

when the computer system is powered

up

but that a special BIOS routine or a

driver for a multi-purpose interface

can also be started on the host device

“However, it is obvious for experts that

the interface device 10 is not

necessarily registered when switching

on the computer

rather than a special BIOS routine

can be started on the host device also

while the computer runs in order to

connect or “mount” the interface

- 121 -

’437 Patent – Application As Filed Corresponding Disclosure in ’437 German Application

during current operation of the

computer system in order to sign on or

mount the interface device 10 as an

additional hard disk.”

(’437 patent, 7:27-33)

device 10 as an additional hard disk.”

(Ex. 1050, p. 4.)

An important advantage of the

interface device 10 of the present

invention is that it also permits

extremely high data transfer rates by

using,

for data interchange,

the host device-own BIOS routines

which are optimized for each host

device by the host device manufacturer

or BIOS system manufacturer, or by

using driver programs which are

normally optimized and included by

the manufacturers of multi-purpose

interfaces.

(’437 patent, 7:57-64.)

“A significant advantage of the

interface device 10 of this invention

also consists of it enabling extremely

high data transfer rates and this already

by using

the host unit’s own BIOS routines,

which the manufacturer of the host unit

or BIOS system has optimized for each

host unit,

for exchanging data.”

(Ex. 1050, p. 5.)

- 122 -

XV. Conclusion.

218. In signing this declaration, I recognize that the declaration will be

filed as evidence in a contested case before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of

the United States Patent and Trademark Office. I also recognize that I may be

subject to cross-examination in the case and that cross-examination will take place

within the United States. If cross-examination is required of me, I will appear for

cross-examination within the United States during the time allotted for cross-

examination.

- 123 -

I hereby declare that all statements made herein of my own knowledge are

true and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true;

and further that these statements were made with the knowledge that willful false

statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both,

under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

Executed this 11th day of October, 2016.

Respectfully submitted,

______________________________ Erez Zadok