Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 72
`Entered: January 28, 2014
`
`RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`LKQ CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`
`CLEARLAMP, LLC
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00020
`Patent 7,297,364
`___________________
`
`Oral Hearing Held January 2, 2014
`____________
`
`Before SALLY MEDLEY, KEVIN F. TURNER (VIA VIDEO HOOKUP)
`AND JOSIAH C. COCKS, Administrative Patent Judges
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`JASON A. ENGEL
`K&L GATES, LLP
`70 West Madison Street, Suite 3100
`Chicago, Illinois 60602-4207
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`MATTHEW L. CUTLER and
`BRYAN K. WHEELOCK
`Harnes, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C.
`7700 Bonhomme, Suite 400
`St. Louis, Missouri 63105
`
`1 
`
`2 
`3 
`
`4 
`5 
`6 
`7 
`8 
`9 
`10 
`11 
`12 
`13 
`14 
`15 
`16 
`17 
`18 
`19 
`20 
`21 
`22 
`23 
`24 
`25 
`
`26 
`
`27 
`28 
`29 
`30 
`31 
`32 
`33 
`34 
`35 
`36 
`37 
`38 
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00020
`Patent 7,297,364
` 
`
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Good afternoon. This is the hearing for
`IPR2013-00020 between Petitioner LKQ Corporation and Patent Owner
`Clearlamp, LLC.
`At this time, we would like the parties to please introduce
`themselves and who you have with you beginning with the Petitioner.
`MR. ENGEL: Thank you, Your Honors, Jason Engel on behalf
`of the Petitioner. With me is lead counsel, Allen Barry and backup counsel,
`Benjamin Weed and Viren Soni.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Will you be arguing?
`MR. ENGEL: I will be arguing, Your Honor.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Thank you. And for the Patent Owner?
`MR. CUTLER: Good afternoon, Your Honors, Matthew Cutler
`on behalf of Patent Owner Clearlamp, LLC. And with me is backup counsel,
`Bryan Wheelock and Doug Robinson. And also with me is the CEO of
`Clearlamp, Mr. Michael Celtor.
`I’ll be doing the argument with regard to the Petition, and my
`backup counsel, Mr. Wheelock, will be arguing regarding the motion to
`amend.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Great. Thank you very much. Per the
`December 12th hearing order, each party will have 60 minutes of total time to
`present arguments.
`Petitioner, you will begin with the presentation of your case that
`the Patent Owner’s claims at issue in this review are unpatentable. And then
`the Patent Owner may respond to Petitioner's presentation and at that time,
`present its own case with respect to its motion to amend claim.
`2
`
` 
`
`1 
`
`2 
`
`3 
`
`4 
`
`5 
`
`6 
`
`7 
`
`8 
`
`9 
`
`10 
`
`11 
`
`12 
`
`13 
`
`14 
`
`15 
`
`16 
`
`17 
`
`18 
`
`19 
`
`20 
`
`21 
`
`22 
`
`23 
`
`24 
`
`25 
`
`26 
`
`27 
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00020
`Patent 7,297,364
` 
`
`Petitioner may reserve rebuttal time to respond to Patent
`Owner's presentation in all matters, and then Patent Owner also may reserve
`rebuttal time, but may only address issues with respect to its motion to amend
`the claims.
`
`The Board received the parties' demonstratives. In accordance
`with the conference call that was held on December 30, Patent Owner filed its
`demonstrative Exhibits Nos. 2031 and 2032 as substitutes for demonstrative
`Exhibits Nos. 2028 and 2029.
`As such, it is ordered that demonstrative Exhibits Nos. 2028
`and 29 will be expunged from the record in due course. Is there an objection
`to that order?
`MR. CUTLER: No, Your Honor.
`MR. ENGEL: No, Your Honor.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Thank you. Counsel for the Petitioner,
`you may proceed. And would you like to reserve rebuttal time?
`MR. ENGEL: I would like to.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: All right.
`MR. ENGEL: A half hour?
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Thank you. You may begin.
`MR. ENGEL: Do you need paper copies of the demonstratives
`or do you have copies?
`JUDGE MEDLEY: I do. Thank you.
`MR. ENGEL: You're welcome. Shall I begin?
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Yes, please.
`MR. ENGEL: Thank you for the time today, Your Honors.
`We're here today to talk about the '364 Patent and why -- the reasons why the
`Petitioner believes it is unpatentable and of record.
`3
`
` 
`
`1 
`
`2 
`
`3 
`
`4 
`
`5 
`
`6 
`
`7 
`
`8 
`
`9 
`
`10 
`
`11 
`
`12 
`
`13 
`
`14 
`
`15 
`
`16 
`
`17 
`
`18 
`
`19 
`
`20 
`
`21 
`
`22 
`
`23 
`
`24 
`
`25 
`
`26 
`
`27 
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00020
`Patent 7,297,364
` 
`
`It is important to think about the '364 Patent in the context of
`what it teaches. It is a method of refurbishing a headlamp.
`It's pretty straightforward, we believe, and it’s important to look
`at the art in that same record, because the Kuta reference, the primary
`reference the Petitioner uses, is also a method of refurbishing a headlamp.
`And it's important to keep that in mind as you go through because this isn't
`disparate art. This is very close art recognized by such as the Patent Owner.
`So if we could go to Slide 2, please? Again, introducing the
`primary reference, the Kuta reference, Exhibit 1002.
`Kuta is a method that's a step-by-step process for removing
`damage from a headlamp to restore it to like-new condition without the
`relatively high cost of replacement. And we will hear some argument today
`about original equipment position or OEM condition, and we believe like new
`is trying to approximate that. Just to the extent that limitation is part of the
`claims, which we don't believe it is, but if it is, Kuta's trying to address the
`same problem.
`Go to Slide 2.
`Now, we will hear an argument today that it's about different
`markets, an OEM market and a consumer market. I don't know if that's a
`non-analogous art argument, but they’re not non-analogous art and I don't
`think they address different markets. If you look, the Patent Owner in the
`specifications specifically listed the Kuta reference as related art. They
`recognized this is the closest art that they knew about at the time they filed.
`When they were talking about the Kuta reference, if we turn to
`Slide 4, the thing that they noted were some of the problems in Kuta. And
`those problems stemmed in the Patent Owner's mind from the headlamp still
`being in the vehicle and working on the headlamp while it was in the vehicle.
`4
`
` 
`
`1 
`
`2 
`
`3 
`
`4 
`
`5 
`
`6 
`
`7 
`
`8 
`
`9 
`
`10 
`
`11 
`
`12 
`
`13 
`
`14 
`
`15 
`
`16 
`
`17 
`
`18 
`
`19 
`
`20 
`
`21 
`
`22 
`
`23 
`
`24 
`
`25 
`
`26 
`
`27 
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00020
`Patent 7,297,364
` 
`And so they said this method is undesirable because it uses it while the
`headlamp is still mounted in the motor vehicle.
`Now that’s important to keep in mind as we go through this
`because we're not arguing that the Kuta reference by itself discloses the
`method. We're arguing that once you take the headlamp outside of the
`vehicle, the Kuta process is the same process as the '364 Patent. So we'll hear
`a lot about the limited access corners in Kuta. We don't have to worry about
`that. The prior art we have talks about taking the headlamp out of the vehicle.
`And as the Board recognized in its decision, Kuta also teaches that as an
`alternative.
`
`Now, obviously, the Kuta publication is directed to doing it in
`the car, but recognized you could take it out for refurbishment.
`Now, if we go to Slide 5, I think it's also important to note that
`the examiner in the underlying prosecution recognized that Kuta was the
`closest prior art. It took the Patent Owner's admission that it was related art
`and found that to be the closest prior art.
`Now the examiner, if we can go to Slide 6, did find that Kuta
`teaches away from the step of removing it from the vehicle and, as such,
`allowed it for that reason. Now, it's important to note that Kuta doesn't teach
`away -- Kuta does not say that if take this lens out of the motor vehicle, my
`method will not work. To teach away, you have to make that statement.
`That's not made anywhere in the Kuta reference.
`Now, if we could go to Slide 8 really quickly?
`Slide 8 talks about the reasons for allows. It says it is the same
`as previously set forth under the Office action, which was that Kuta does not
`teach removing the lens from the headlamp or teaches away.
`
`1 
`
`2 
`
`3 
`
`4 
`
`5 
`
`6 
`
`7 
`
`8 
`
`9 
`
`10 
`
`11 
`
`12 
`
`13 
`
`14 
`
`15 
`
`16 
`
`17 
`
`18 
`
`19 
`
`20 
`
`21 
`
`22 
`
`23 
`
`24 
`
`25 
`
`26 
`
` 
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00020
`Patent 7,297,364
` 
`
`Now, the Patent Owner never made any arguments that Kuta
`did not disclose the remaining element of the claim. In fact, on Slide 9, there
`is a late IDS that was submitted after allowance. This IDS ultimately was not
`considered, but there's an important point in the IDS. The Patent Owner
`submitted a number of references, one of which is the Zuk reference
`highlighted here on Slide 9. And the Patent Owner felt it's important to note
`that Zuk does not teach the removal of lamps from the motor vehicle to repair
`the same.
`
`So as allowed and as the prosecution history shows, the public
`notice function looking at the prosecution history was that this was allowed
`because the process was not disclosed outside of the car. You know, it's the
`removal that was the novel feature that was patentable.
`Now, as the Board found, Kuta does teach that as an alternative,
`but we did submit new art with our petition, one of which is the Butt reference
`on Slide 10. And in this patent, Exhibit 1003, they talk about it being
`generally more convenience to remove the lamp or lighting unit from the
`vehicle for refurbishment purposes for the exact --
`JUDGE COCKS: Counsel?
`MR. ENGEL: Sure.
`JUDGE COCKS: Was this referenced before the examiner
`during prosecution?
`MR. ENGEL: I believe this reference was before the examiner.
`JUDGE COCKS: Okay.
`MR. ENGEL: Now, there was also a secondary reference that
`stands for pretty much the same proposition, which is on Slide 11, which is
`the Eastwood reference. And this is a forum talking about refurbishment and
`
`1 
`
`2 
`
`3 
`
`4 
`
`5 
`
`6 
`
`7 
`
`8 
`
`9 
`
`10 
`
`11 
`
`12 
`
`13 
`
`14 
`
`15 
`
`16 
`
`17 
`
`18 
`
`19 
`
`20 
`
`21 
`
`22 
`
`23 
`
`24 
`
`25 
`
`26 
`
` 
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00020
`Patent 7,297,364
` 
`restoring cars. And here, the user recognizes "I took the headlights out of my
`Mustang to do them because I didn't want to risk any damage to the car."
`Now, that's an important point to note because damage to the
`car is ones of the problems identified with Kuta by the Patent Owner and so
`those of skill in the art doing restoration at this time understood that you could
`remove the lamp. You might want to remove it to have better access to it.
`You might want to avoid damage to the car.
`So we introduced two secondary references that we believe lay
`out the motivation or knowledge of skill in the art that one could remove the
`lamp to perform the Kuta method on the lamp.
`We also submitted a declaration from Mr. Frank Yarde, that
`was Exhibit 1009, and Mr. Yarde has done headlamp refurbishments. He
`knew in the 2000 to 2005 time period to remove a headlamp from the vehicle
`to refurbish it. So he demonstrates the skill of one in the art.
`He also examined the Butt reference, the Eastwood reference
`and the Kuta reference and found that they do teach removing it for
`refurbishment purposes and that one of skill in the art reading Kuta would not
`understand that you could not perform the Kuta method on a headlamp
`removed from the vehicle.
`So it's in that context that we look at the claims. And before we
`go into an analysis of the elements of the claim, I would like to go to Slide 16
`if we could.
`
`Now, one of the issues that came up in this proceeding was
`claim construction. And when we originally filed the petition, based on
`things that had happened in the underlying district court litigation, we did not
`believe there was a dispute. There was some discovery and contentions that
`
`1 
`
`2 
`
`3 
`
`4 
`
`5 
`
`6 
`
`7 
`
`8 
`
`9 
`
`10 
`
`11 
`
`12 
`
`13 
`
`14 
`
`15 
`
`16 
`
`17 
`
`18 
`
`19 
`
`20 
`
`21 
`
`22 
`
`23 
`
`24 
`
`25 
`
`26 
`
` 
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00020
`Patent 7,297,364
` 
`were exchanged, so we did not believe there was a dispute as to the claims at
`issue.
`
`We believe they should all be accorded their plain ordinary
`meaning. The Board, based on looking at the preliminary responses filed by
`Clearlamp, found no disputes and did say you were going to construe them as
`having their ordinary and customary meaning. We think that that should still
`be the case. And we think some of the claim constructions proposed by the
`Patent Owner are unduly narrow and aren't the broadest reasonable
`construction. And so it’s with that context we look at the elements of the
`claim.
`
`So we've listed in our presentation today the primary features of
`the independent claims and are prepared to walk through those. Obviously if
`the Board has any questions about the other claims, we would be happy to
`answer them, and they’re obviously laid out in our papers.
`Now this claim chart it done with the idea that headlamp has
`been removed. So we talk about Kuta teaching the remaining limitations. So
`we accepted the prior art teaches that Butt, Eastwood both talk about
`removing. Once it’s removed, the Kuta method does teach the remaining
`limitations.
`
`The preamble of Claim 1 is the method for refurbishing a lamp
`surface of a lamp having surface damage. And as we discussed earlier with
`respect to the Kuta reference, it teaches an apparatus that is suited to
`removing the outer damaged surface on an existing lens and a method for
`doing so.
`
`And highlighted at the bottom of this call out on page 17 is that
`Kuta also restores the optical clarity and light output to the level of new lenses
`again approximating, if you accept the claim construction on the original
`8
`
` 
`
`1 
`
`2 
`
`3 
`
`4 
`
`5 
`
`6 
`
`7 
`
`8 
`
`9 
`
`10 
`
`11 
`
`12 
`
`13 
`
`14 
`
`15 
`
`16 
`
`17 
`
`18 
`
`19 
`
`20 
`
`21 
`
`22 
`
`23 
`
`24 
`
`25 
`
`26 
`
`27 
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00020
`Patent 7,297,364
` 
`equipment condition, that it does approximate the level of original equipment
`condition. The optical clarity of the light output to the level of a new lens.
`Going to Slide 18.
`And it's important, I think, the elements on Slides 18, 19 and
`20. These are three steps that are sort of related. You know, the first step
`is -- on 18 is removing an original clear coat finish from the lamp surface.
`The step on 19 is evening the lamp surface and on 20, it is
`grinding swirls and scratches out of the lamp surface. In the '364 Patent the
`removing and evening and grinding are done by applying a 320 grit sandpaper
`to remove and even the lens, and then applying a 600 grit sandpaper to grind
`out the scratches and swirls. So I think it's important to look at Kuta in that
`same vein, because Kuta discloses the identical grits for the exact same
`purpose.
`
`On Slide 18, we'll see the use of 320 grit sandpaper is used to
`remove the factory-installed hard coating from the lens.
`And if you look at Slides 19 and 20, you'll see that the sanding
`process continues until you get to page 20, which has the 600 grit sandpaper,
`which as disclosed in the '364 Patent grinds out the swirls and the scratches.
`Now the same -- the identical language is not used in Kuta to
`say why -- you know, exactly why the 600 grit sandpaper is being used, but
`it's performing the same purpose. You're trying to even the lens, level the lens
`and then you're trying to grind out any remaining scratches and
`swirls -- swirls and scratches.
`JUDGE COCKS: Counsel, can you go back to Slide 18? I
`have a question.
`MR. ENGEL: Sure.
`
`1 
`
`2 
`
`3 
`
`4 
`
`5 
`
`6 
`
`7 
`
`8 
`
`9 
`
`10 
`
`11 
`
`12 
`
`13 
`
`14 
`
`15 
`
`16 
`
`17 
`
`18 
`
`19 
`
`20 
`
`21 
`
`22 
`
`23 
`
`24 
`
`25 
`
`26 
`
` 
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00020
`Patent 7,297,364
` 
`
`JUDGE COCKS: I don't mean to jump the gun here, but
`having read the responses I know that the other side is saying that step means
`that the clear coat has to be fully removed. Do you disagree with that?
`MR. ENGEL: I disagree with that construction. I don't think
`there is any disclosure in the '364 Patent that says remove the entire clear
`coating so that it can be properly applied later. There is some declaration
`testimony that says you need to do that for it to adhere. But even if it is fully
`removed, there is no dispute that once the lamp has been removed from the
`car, Kuta does teach removing the entire clear coat. There are no limited
`access corners.
`JUDGE COCKS: So then as far as the prior art goes, even if
`we were to accept their construction, it doesn't matter if it’s optional in this
`case, it's still obvious?
`MR. ENGEL: That's correct, Your Honor. Yeah. I think the
`only place there is a, you know, if the lamp remains in the lens in Kuta -- or
`the lamp remains in the car in Kuta, it's possible you could have those limited
`access corners and not the entire coat would be removed. But that's why I
`said early on that's not the premise we're operating from. The lamp has been
`removed from the car.
`Now with respect to the step of evening, there was some
`discussion by the Petitioner that that construction should be smoothing
`out -- let me see if I can find the exact -- smoothing out the lamp surface to
`minimize any troughs created through the removal of the damage.
`And we think that an unduly narrow construction. You know,
`it's possible that smoothing out is similar to evening. Leveling is similar to
`evening. But to add all of that additional language we don't think is the
`broadest reasonable construction.
`
`10
`
`1 
`
`2 
`
`3 
`
`4 
`
`5 
`
`6 
`
`7 
`
`8 
`
`9 
`
`10 
`
`11 
`
`12 
`
`13 
`
`14 
`
`15 
`
`16 
`
`17 
`
`18 
`
`19 
`
`20 
`
`21 
`
`22 
`
`23 
`
`24 
`
`25 
`
`26 
`
`27 
`
` 
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00020
`Patent 7,297,364
` 
`
`We do believe that even if that construction is adopted, the 320
`grit sandpaper is used in Kuta just like it is in the '364 Patent, so we believe it
`would also be disclosed. But we do think that is an unduly narrow
`construction.
`
`JUDGE COCKS: Counsel, let me ask you what does it mean to
`even it? What does that mean?
`MR. ENGEL: I think it means to level the surface of the lens.
`If you look in the patent, there is a figure, I think -- I believe, Figure 5, that
`talks about level of the lamp surface. And meaning -- that's what I would
`understand evening to be.
`I think it's also important to remember that the steps of Kuta are
`the same as the steps of the '364 Patent. So adding additional descriptive
`functional language at the end I don't think changes what the element actually
`is. It's still the same grit of sandpaper being applied for essentially the same
`purpose.
`
`JUDGE COCKS: The five steps in the three sandpaper
`
`applications.
`
`MR. ENGEL: Yes. If we could go to Slide 21? This step is
`buffing the lamp surface. And in Kuta, there is a discussion of buffing using a
`buffing compound until a high gloss is achieved. I don't believe there is a
`dispute over this limitation.
`Slide 22 is cleaning the lamp surface. And, again, there is a
`discussion in Kuta of using water to clean the lamp surface, you know, during
`this process. I don't believe there is a dispute as to this one, but I'm sure
`Patent Owner's counsel will correct me if I'm wrong.
`Now, Slide 23 is another one of the ones that's in dispute. I
`don't think there is a dispute over the claim construction here, but it's spraying
`11
`
` 
`
`1 
`
`2 
`
`3 
`
`4 
`
`5 
`
`6 
`
`7 
`
`8 
`
`9 
`
`10 
`
`11 
`
`12 
`
`13 
`
`14 
`
`15 
`
`16 
`
`17 
`
`18 
`
`19 
`
`20 
`
`21 
`
`22 
`
`23 
`
`24 
`
`25 
`
`26 
`
`27 
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00020
`Patent 7,297,364
` 
`a replacement clear coating material over the lamp surface. And in Kuta there
`is a disclosure of a preferred hard coating that's used and it is says it is
`applied.
`
`Now the Patent Owner has submitted a declaration saying that
`that would only be brushed or wiped and during --Mr. Katsamberis is the
`gentleman who submitted the declaration. He doesn't know anything about
`the product that's described in Kuta, so we really think it’s supposition for him
`to say that it would only be brushed or wiped. But the important thing to
`remember is skill in the art. We're looking at someone who's skilled in
`refurbishing headlamps. And they're applying a coating. There's a finite
`number of ways to apply the coating. Of course, brushing and wiping might
`be one of them. I don’t -- positive spraying would definitely be one of them,
`as well. And Mr. Katsamberis confirmed that he was aware that you would
`spray hard coatings on the lamps prior to the filing of the 2005 patent.
`So -- or prior to the filing of the '364 Patent. So one of skill in
`the art reading Kuta seen in the disclosure of hard coat understands that the
`hard coat could be sprayed to apply it over the lamp surface.
`The next step, Slide 24, is curing the replacement of clear coat
`material. Now in the Kuta reference there’s a disclosure of UV curable
`coating, the preferred coating being a Tomco Finishing Products coating.
`And that is UV cured. So again, I don't think there is a dispute that the
`coating in the Kuta reference is cured.
`Now Slide 25 has an additional limitation for Claim 13. So
`Claim 1 and Claim 13 are identical, but the statically neutralizing step up on
`Slide 25 right now is the additional step for Claim 13 that is above and
`beyond what's in Claim 1.
`
`1 
`
`2 
`
`3 
`
`4 
`
`5 
`
`6 
`
`7 
`
`8 
`
`9 
`
`10 
`
`11 
`
`12 
`
`13 
`
`14 
`
`15 
`
`16 
`
`17 
`
`18 
`
`19 
`
`20 
`
`21 
`
`22 
`
`23 
`
`24 
`
`25 
`
`26 
`
` 
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00020
`Patent 7,297,364
` 
`
`Now this talks about statically neutralizing debris on the lamp
`surface to facilitate removal of all of the debris on the lamp surface.
`Now there is a dispute as to whether or not Kuta teaches this
`element, but it's only as to the timing. So in page 32 of the Patent Owner's
`response they conceded that Kuta teaches static neutralization. They have an
`issue with the timing.
`Now I don't believe in this method claim there is any
`requirement of timing of when the steps are done. And to give it its broadest
`reasonable construction, I think you have to leave open doing steps in a
`different order to the extent they can be done in a different order.
`So we believe that Kuta teaches static neutralization. And we
`also believe one of skill in the art would understand that Kuta does even teach
`the static neutralization in the timing proposed by the Patent Owner. Now
`with respect to --
`JUDGE COCKS: Counsel, I'm sorry. Where does Kuta say
`that? I believe the position is it is after all the grinding and buffing steps.
`MR. ENGEL: Yeah, I think --
`JUDGE COCKS: Can you give a cite where Kuta states it?
`MR. ENGEL: Sure. I don't think there's a specific disclosure
`in Kuta that is done at this step. I think Kuta discloses static neutralization.
`The Patent Owner concedes that.
`The Patent Owner's expert, to support this, they have submitted
`declarations that say one of skill in the art would have known that you have to
`say we neutralize immediately before applying the clear coat. If that's the
`case, then if someone of skill in the art knew before the patent was filed that
`you would have so statically neutralize before applying the clear coat, then we
`think one of skill in the art of reading Kuta would know it does disclose static
`13
`
` 
`
`1 
`
`2 
`
`3 
`
`4 
`
`5 
`
`6 
`
`7 
`
`8 
`
`9 
`
`10 
`
`11 
`
`12 
`
`13 
`
`14 
`
`15 
`
`16 
`
`17 
`
`18 
`
`19 
`
`20 
`
`21 
`
`22 
`
`23 
`
`24 
`
`25 
`
`26 
`
`27 
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00020
`Patent 7,297,364
` 
`neutralization and that you would do it before the step of doing the clear
`coating to the extent that's required for your application.
`That's all I had on the affirmative case. I don't know if you
`have any further questions for me. If not, I would like to reserve, I guess, the
`remaining time for my rebuttal, as well.
`JUDGE TURNER: I have one quick question.
`MR. ENGEL: Sure, Judge Turner.
`JUDGE TURNER: Claims 11 and 12 talk about infrared
`radiation. Is it Petitioner's argument that there is support for that in Kuta or
`the supporting reference?
`MR. ENGEL: I believe with respect to the infrared radiation,
`again it’s one of skill in the art reading Kuta and the '364 Patent. The '364
`Patent talks about a preferred coating that's MAGNI 700 coating, and in there
`it says that it's infrared cured. It says, alternately, the way to do it is UV
`curing.
`
`And in the Kuta reference, there’s a UV coating that's used.
`That's the preferred coating. The curing process depends on the type of
`coating used. If you use an UV-curable coating, it's cured using UV. If you
`use one that uses infrared, it's cured using infrared. And so the Patent Owners
`experts have talked about a product that is chemically similar to the MAGNI
`700 product, this AS 4000 product. Mr. Katsamberis discussed this is prior
`art coating used on lamps well before the '364 Patent. And when it's applied
`originally to create the OEM lamps, it's using infrared energy.
`So our position is that if the Kuta reference teaches all those
`elements, it teaches the coating. If someone were to use a coating that
`required infrared, it is inherently disclosed that you would cure it the way it is
`cured.
`
` 
`
`14
`
`1 
`
`2 
`
`3 
`
`4 
`
`5 
`
`6 
`
`7 
`
`8 
`
`9 
`
`10 
`
`11 
`
`12 
`
`13 
`
`14 
`
`15 
`
`16 
`
`17 
`
`18 
`
`19 
`
`20 
`
`21 
`
`22 
`
`23 
`
`24 
`
`25 
`
`26 
`
`27 
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00020
`Patent 7,297,364
` 
`
`JUDGE TURNER: It's inherently disclosed?
`MR. ENGEL: I believe one of skill in the art reading the Kuta
`reference would understand that if you used a hard coating that required
`infrared curing, it would be cured using infrared and not UV. They're
`different wavelengths of light that cure different chemical materials.
`JUDGE TURNER: Right. But just to be clear, I think you're
`relying on your declaration testimony to say where you're showing, because I
`don't think you can be relying on the '364 Patent to show that, right?
`MR. ENGEL: We're not relying on the '364 Patent to show it.
`What we're relying on the '364 Patent to discuss -- it talks about a MAGNI
`700 product and it talks about how it's cured using infrared. It says it can also
`be cured using UV. So I think the '364 Patent recognizes what those of skill
`in the art know. There's different ways to cure them and there's alternatives.
`And when we talked to the expert, Mr. Katsamberis, he admitted that the prior
`art AS 4000 product, the product he had worked with and they used to support
`the Patent Owner's position, it was an infrared-cured coating.
`So if you apply the Kuta method and chose not to use their
`preferred coating, but used a -- this AS 4000, a prior art product for the same
`use it's being used for, it would be an infrared cure.
`JUDGE TURNER: Okay. But just to be clear, we don't have
`any discussion of anybody using the coatings, you're just saying it would have
`been obvious based on what your declarant says? Is that correct or are you
`saying -- I'm still slightly fuzzy. Maybe I'm belaboring the point.
`MR. ENGEL: No, I understand your point. I think the position
`that we've taken is that Kuta, being read by one of skill in the art, they would
`understand the preferred coating is the Tomco one that they list in there. They
`don't list all of the coatings you could use on the headlamp. So, if you were of
`15
`
` 
`
`1 
`
`2 
`
`3 
`
`4 
`
`5 
`
`6 
`
`7 
`
`8 
`
`9 
`
`10 
`
`11 
`
`12 
`
`13 
`
`14 
`
`15 
`
`16 
`
`17 
`
`18 
`
`19 
`
`20 
`
`21 
`
`22 
`
`23 
`
`24 
`
`25 
`
`26 
`
`27 
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00020
`Patent 7,297,364
` 
`skill in the art and performed the Kuta method and used, you know, publically
`available coating that required infrared, it would have been obvious to use
`something for its intended purpose and cure it in the intended way.
`JUDGE TURNER: Okay. But no specific disclosure in the
`printed publication of an infrared coating, is that correct?
`MR. ENGEL: That's correct. Not a specific cite that I can
`
`point you to.
`
`JUDGE TURNER: All right. Thank you.
`MR. ENGEL: Any further questions?
`JUDGE TURNER: No
`MR. ENGEL: Thank you, Your Honor.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Thank you.
`MR. CUTLER: Good afternoon, Your Honors. Matt Cutler on
`behalf of the Patent Owner Clearlamp LLC. And if I may approach the
`bench, I do have a hard copy for Your Honor.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Thank you.
`MR. CUTLER: Good afternoon, Your Honors. Now that
`we've had the benefit of the petition that was filed by Petitioner and also the
`presentation today, I think what we have here is a situation where a lot of
`glossing over of the details that are required of a rigorous obviousness
`analysis.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Can I interrupt you real quickly?
`MR. CUTLER: Yes.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: How much time would you like to reserve
`for the (indiscernible).
`MR. CUTLER: I would like to reserve 10 minutes, Your
`
`Honor.
`
` 
`
`16
`
`1 
`
`2 
`
`3 
`
`4 
`
`5 
`
`6 
`
`7 
`
`8 
`
`9 
`
`10 
`
`11 
`
`12 
`
`13 
`
`14 
`
`15 
`
`16 
`
`17 
`
`18 
`
`19 
`
`20 
`
`21 
`
`22 
`
`23 
`
`24 
`
`25 
`
`26 
`
`27 
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00020
`Patent 7,297,364
` 
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Ten minutes.
`MR. CUTLER: Thank you for asking.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Thank you.
`MR. CUTLER: The petition that was filed had a singular
`focus. And that singular focus was the very first element of the claims,
`namely removing the headlamp from the motor vehicle.
`And LKQ relies both in this petition and today upon what the
`examiner did. The examiner looked at that first limitation. Found that Kuta
`did not disclose the removing of the headlamp from the motor vehicle
`limitation. And then went further to say it would be improper to combine any
`references that showed that it was -- like the Butt reference because of the
`teaching away.
`And what -- but that's all the examiner had to do. That was his
`only obligation was to look and find whether the claims were patentable.
`LKQ, on the other hand, had a bigger obligation in this
`proceeding. They needed to go through all the elements and find that all of
`the elements are found in the prior art. And our submission is they did not do
`that.
`
`To try to -- several times in my presentation we will talk about
`the times where in the -- just now happened in the presentation or in the reply
`brief that was filed, LKQ has introduced new evidence in the proceeding.
`And I'm just going to point those out to the Board just so you're aware of what
`our position is on those. But generally speaking, we have a problem with that
`because the way these proceedings are set up, we have the petition. We have
`an opportunity to respond to the petition, which we did.
`When we responded to the petition, we had a couple experts.
`They had one expert that was directed solely to the issue of removing from
`17
`
` 
`
`1 
`
`2 
`
`3 
`
`4 
`
`5 
`
`6 
`
`7 
`
`8 
`
`9 
`
`10 
`
`11 
`
`12 
`
`13 
`
`14 
`
`15 
`
`16 
`
`17 
`
`18 
`
`19 
`
`20 
`
`21 
`
`22 
`
`23 
`
`24 
`
`25 
`
`26 
`
`27 
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00020
`Patent 7,297,364
` 
`the -- from the vehicle, the headlamp from the vehicle. What they did is they
`took the deposition of our expert after we filed a response. And in the reply
`brief, you'll see a lot of citations of what our expert said about various things.
`That's new evidence and something we haven't had a vehicle to respond to.
`And furthermore, we believe it's not actually prior art that's relevant in this
`case.
`
`At the end of the day, there are two different paths here in the
`automotive industry in 2005 when the '364 Patent was developed. The first
`path is Kuta in the art of record, which is to say, I'm a mechanic in my garage
`or I'm a body shop guy. I came up with a way, you bring your foggy lamps to
`my shop, I'm going to clean them up. It's the "pretty good is good enough"
`type of prior art.
`What happened, though, is that the inventors of the '364 Patent
`had a different idea. Their idea was "perfection can be achieved." And in
`doing so, what they -- what they did was they found a second path to these
`headlamps. Instead of taking headlamps that were being brought off these
`wrecked cars or otherwise brought -- you know, salvaged one way or another
`and throwing them in the landfill, these inventors said, "Hey, we can achieve
`perfection in the refurbishing."
`Perfection is very well known in the art that of the automobile
`repair business. It's called original equipment. Everybody started with an
`OEM and original equipment manufacturer.
`The '364 Patent uses these magic words in the industry.
`Original equipment condition. Original equipment lamp assembly. What
`they're trying to do, what the investors realized is, we can go down a different
`path than the first path. The closest prior art -- I'll make an analogous
`argument here. Kuta was the closest art that our client was aware of at the
`18
`
` 
`
`1 
`
`2 
`
`3 
`
`4 
`
`5 
`
`6 
`
`7 
`
`8 
`
`9 
`
`10 
`
`11 
`
`12 
`
`13 
`
`14 
`
`15 
`
`16 
`
`17 
`
`18 
`
`19 
`
`20 
`
`21 
`
`22 
`
`23 
`
`24 
`
`25 
`
`26 
`
`27 
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00020
`Patent 7,297,364
` 
`time. But it's different art. It is the garage mechanic art versus hey, let's go
`down the road for perfection.
`JUDGE COCKS: Counsel, can I ask a question?
`