`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 37 and 14
`
`February 10, 2015
`
`RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`- - - - - -
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`- - - - - -
`
`PNY TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`vs.
`
`PHISON ELECTRONICS CORP.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`- - - - - - - -
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2013-00472, IPR2014-00150
`
`Patent No. 7,518,879
`
`Technology Center 2800
`
`
`
`Oral Hearing Held: Wednesday, November 12, 2014
`
`Before: KEVIN TURNER (via video link), STEPHEN SIU, RAMA
`
`
`
`G. ELLURU, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday,
`
`
`
`November 12, 2014, at 1:05 p.m., in Hearing Room D, taken at the U.S.
`
`Patent and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MARK E. NIKOLSKY, ESQ.
`
`SANJIV CHOKSHI, ESQ.
`
`TIMOTHY P. HORNLISH, ESQ.
`
`McCarter & English, LLP
`
`Four Gateway Center
`
`100 Mulberry Street
`
`Newark, New Jersey 07102
`
`973-622-4444
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DAVID M. BARKAN, ESQ.
`
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`
`500 Arguello Street, Suite 500
`
`Redwood City, California 94063
`
`650-839-5065
`
`
`
`JOSHUA A. GRISWOLD, ESQ.
`
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`
`1717 Main Street, Suite 5000
`
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`
`214-292-4034
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`JUDGE ELLUR U: Let's go on the record. This is
`
`(1:05 p. m.)
`
`the final hearing in IPR's 2013 -00472 and 2014 -00150,
`
`between PNY Te c hnologies, Inc . as Petitioner and Phison
`
`Electronics Corpo ration as the Pate nt Owner.
`
`Counsel, could yo u please identif y yourselves
`
`starting with Peti tioner.
`
`MR. NI KOLSKY: Good afte rnoon. On behalf of
`
`the Petitioner my na me is M ark Nikolsky fro m the la w fir m of
`
`McCarter & Engli sh.
`
`With me are my c olleagues Sanjiv Chokshi, who is
`
`backup counsel, a nd our associate Ti m Ho mlish, wh o has been
`
`working with us o n this case.
`
`JUDGE ELLUR U: Welco me . And Patent Owner?
`
`MR. BARKAN: Good afternoon, Your Honor.
`
`David Ba rkan, Fi sh & Richardson, for Phison. And with me is
`
`Josh Griswold.
`
`JUDGE ELLUR U: Thank you . I a m Judge Elluru.
`
`I have Judge Siu on my right, and Judge Turner appearing
`
`re mot el y is o n my left. Please take into consideration that
`
`Judge Turner is a ppearing re motel y in making your
`
`presentation.
`
`Judge Turner, can you he ar us?
`
`JUDGE TURNER : I can hear you . Can you hea r
`
`me?
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGE ELLUR U: Yes. This hea r ing covers two
`
`cases and one pat ent. The 472 cas e challenges clai ms in U.S .
`
`Patent No . 7 ,518, 879. The 150 c ase also challenges clai ms of
`
`the '879 patent. We joined the 150 case to the 472 case and
`
`we instituted an i nter partes review of clai ms 1 throu gh 21 of
`
`the '879 patent.
`
`The issues toda y are confined to the grounds set
`
`forth for tri al in our decision to institute in the 450 case. We
`
`instituted review on the ground that clai ms 1 through 4, 8
`
`through 12, and 16 are unpatentable under 35 U. S. C. Section
`
`103 over the co mbination of Minneman and Takahas hi.
`
`And in the 150 c a se we instituted review on the
`
`ground that clai ms 1, 3 through 9, and 11 through 21 are
`
`unpatentable under 35 U. S. C. Sect ion 103 over the
`
`co mbination of El baz and Deng, an d clai ms 2 and 10 are
`
`unpatentable unde r 35 U. S. C. 103 over the co mbination of
`
`Elbaz, Deng, and the ad mitted art .
`
`Each side will have one hour of total ti me to
`
`present argu ment in the two cases. The parties ma y allocate
`
`their 60 minutes between the two c ases as the y se e f it.
`
`But we do ask tha t when you mak e an argu ment
`
`that is specific to a pa rticular c ase or a pa rticular gr ound,
`
`please identif y cl earl y for the r eco rd which of the c ases and
`
`which ground that argu ment is dire cted toward .
`
`PNY Technologies bears the ulti ma te burden of
`
`proof t hat the pat ent clai ms at issue ar e unpatentable, so PNY
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`Technologies will present a rgu ment first, followed by Phison
`
`Electronics.
`
`Mr. Nikolsk y, does P NY Technologies wish to
`
`reserve ti me for r ebuttal?
`
`MR. NI KOLSKY: Yes, the y do. C an we r eserve
`
`15 min utes, pleas e?
`
`JUDGE ELLUR U: Yes. And I ' m g oing to do this
`
`the old -fashioned wa y b y using the clock. So I will give you a
`
`warning at five minutes.
`
`MR. NI KOLSKY: Oka y. Gre at.
`
`JUDGE ELLUR U: Are you read y?
`
`MR. NI KOLSKY: Yes, I a m.
`
`JUDGE ELLUR U: Pl e ase begin.
`
`MR. NI KOLSKY: Thank you , You r Honors. Ma y
`
`it please the Boar d, again, my na me is Ma rk Nikolsky on
`
`behalf of the Peti tioner PNY Te chnologies.
`
`Your Honors, the Petitioners are he re toda y to set
`
`forth that all the clai ms of the '879 patent ar e invalid for the
`
`reasons set forth in the first and se cond petition that P NY has
`
`filed, for the reas ons set forth in th e Board's first and second
`
`decisions, and for the re asons that we will discuss toda y in our
`
`presentation in this hearing.
`
`Your Honors, we have set forth on slide 2 just a
`
`ver y quick overview of what we wo uld like to acco mplish
`
`today. Fi rst, we would like to give you a ve r y brief overview
`
`of the '879 patent and what the te c hnology is at issue.
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`We would then li ke to move to cla i m constru ction
`
`and talk about the three speci fic te r ms that have be en
`
`construed by the Board and wh y P etitioner believes that those
`
`constructions are correct.
`
`And then finall y we would like to move to our
`
`su mmar y of the r eje ctions that are based on the two pri ma r y
`
`referenc es, the fir st one Minne man and the second one Elbaz.
`
`Turning to slide 3, Your Honors, we have provided
`
`a ver y brie f overv iew of the patent . And what we ar e dealing
`
`with, the technology in the '879 pa tent, it r elates to a USB
`
`serial bus plug. And in particular we have shown figures 5
`
`and 6 fro m the pa tent.
`
`And as we can se e fro m figure 5, this is a device ,
`
`and also fro m figure 6, that plugs into the US B port of a
`
`co mputer s yste m. It is di mensioned to specificall y plug into
`
`it.
`
`And in parti cular , if you look at figure 6, which is
`
`the cross -sectional view looking in along line AA of figure 5,
`
`we can see multiple structures that are shown in the ' 879
`
`patent, principally of which are a printed circuit board
`
`asse mbl y 52, which is positioned with in the housing 51. The re
`
`are also what are refer red to as con cave props 512, which
`
`contact the side o f the printed circ uit asse mbl y 52, and there is
`
`also an end c ap, what is refe rred t o as an end cap 54
`
`positioned within the housing.
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`We can see that t he concave props touch against
`
`and contact the pr inted circuit boar d on one side, an d the end
`
`cap touches and c ontacts the printed circuit board on the other
`
`side.
`
`The goal of this p atent, Your Honors, as it is
`
`articulated in the '879 patent, is to replace what is re ferred to
`
`in the prior a rt as a flake spac er. And a flake spac e r is just a
`
`sheet of mat erial that ordinaril y would be positioned between
`
`the printed circui t board and the back wall of the housing, the
`
`side wall that you see the re where t he conc ave props are. But
`
`that was articulat ed as the goal, re placing that.
`
`Your Honors, tur ning now to slides 4 through 6,
`
`we have provided each of the independent clai ms a
`
`reproduction of e ach of the independent clai ms of t he patent.
`
`There are three , indepe ndent clai m 1, independent clai m 9 and
`
`independent claim 17.
`
`And ju mping bac k to slide 4 and i ndependent clai m
`
`1, we can see the li mitations here. And in particular , Your
`
`Honors, we have highlighted the clai m ter ms that ha ve been
`
`construed by the Board. We will g et into those constructions
`
`and wh y we believe that the y ar e p roper.
`
`Of course clai m 1 , I don't have to r ead it to Your
`
`Honors, but the principal object , th e principal contents are a
`
`housing, a plurali t y of orientated i ndentations and concave
`
`props, and the abi lity of the printed circuit board asse mbl y to
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`be disposed within the housing, and it is also r etained within
`
`the US B port of a co mputer once it' s inserted.
`
`And in particular the PCB A is fixe d b y means of
`
`pressing of the pluralit y of con cav e props, and a spa ce
`
`between the housing and the PC BA.
`
`Moving to slide 5, Your Honors, clai m 9 is
`
`essentially coveri ng the sa me concepts as clai m 1. Of course
`
`it is broader and i t has fe wer li mita tions but, again,
`
`structurally we believe the si milar t ype of thing is cl ai med
`
`here.
`
`Wh en we move to clai m 17 , Your Honors, which is
`
`slide 6, in clai m 17, again, the firs t two li mitations are nea rl y
`
`identical to what appears in the pri or clai ms, but the re is also
`
`the addition of what is ref erred to as an LED module as the
`
`last li mitation the re, an LED module having an LED indicator.
`
`Your Honors, we have reproduced on slide 7 a
`
`chart of the depe ndent clai ms . An d in particular we have just
`
`listed the features that appear in e a ch of these dependent
`
`clai ms .
`
`We would note th at since the Paten t Owner has not
`
`independently a rgued for patentabil ity of an y of these
`
`dependent clai ms , and because of ti me considerations in
`
`today's hea ring, we will not go int o the validit y of t hose
`
`clai ms but, suffic e it to sa y, that we believe the y are invalid
`
`for the reasons that were set forth in the two petitions that
`
`Petitioner has file d.
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`Your Honor, on s lide 8 we now mo ve to the issue
`
`of clai m construction. Of course, we are a ware that the Board
`
`has construed the ter m "concave " t o mean curving inwards
`
`fro m the housing. And that is set f orth in the decisi on, the
`
`two decisions that the Court has se t forth in these pr oceedings.
`
`Petitioner sub mit s that that constr uction is correct
`
`and that it should continue to be ap plied b y the Boar d when a
`
`final decision is r endered.
`
`On slide 9, Your Honors, we now s tart to
`
`su mmariz e wh y we believe that construction is corre ct, wh y
`
`we believe that c oncave does mean curving inwards fro m the
`
`housing. And, of course, the fi rst t hing we have to t urn to is
`
`the specification of the patent itsel f. And in particu lar we turn
`
`to the dra wings.
`
`We have reproduc ed figure 6 on slide 9 and we
`
`have highlighted the two structures 512, which ar e r eferred to
`
`as the concave pr ops. And the t wo structures that we believe
`
`are i mportant and we believe that s upport the Board' s
`
`construction are, of course, the con cave props and, o f course,
`
`the housing as we ll, and the fact that the P CB is positioned
`
`and held in place within that housing.
`
`In the Boa rd's - - i n the first instanc e the Boa rd has
`
`construed the ter m "concave" to mean extending inwards fro m
`
`the housing. And we can see that f ro m figure 6 of th e patent.
`
`We can see that t he concave props 512 are not on th e sa me
`
`plane as the side of the met al that for ms the housing itself on
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`the left side the re . The y are in a di fferent plane and the y
`
`extend inwards.
`
`We would sub mit that the '879 pate nt does not
`
`show in figure 6 an actual connect ion between that concave
`
`prop 512 and the rest of the side wall, but ce rtainl y does show
`
`an extension inwa rds fro m the housing. So we belie ve the
`
`Board is cor rect i n construing it that wa y.
`
`With respect to the ter m "concave" and the Board's
`
`construction that this means curving inward, we wou ld agree
`
`with that construction because b y nature of using the word
`
`concave, b y the p atent using that ter m, concave req uires so me
`
`t ype of curvature .
`
`So we think that i s i mportant and t he Board got
`
`right and should continue to construe that ter m to me an
`
`curving inwards f ro m the housing.
`
`Your Honors, tur ning to slide 10, we have also
`
`reproduced fro m t he specification o f the patent , colu mn 4,
`
`lines 28 through 32, and we have h ighlighted particular
`
`language in that e xcerpt which s a ys : " The pluralit y of
`
`concave props 512 can be for med s i multaneo usl y b y me ans of
`
`punching of the housing 51."
`
`We believe that t hat is i mport ant because it goes to
`
`show that the '879 patent conte mpl ates that there co uld be
`
`other wa ys of for ming these props. And because of that
`
`punching is not required. It is not a r equired metho d of
`
`actuall y for ming these concave pro ps.
`
` 10
`
`
`
`
`
`And because of th at it would be i mproper to re ad
`
`in a li mitation of a re cess or so mething else like that, in
`
`particular as the Patent Owner has tried to read in the
`
`li mitation of a r e cess.
`
`Now, we also tur n, Your Honors, t o slide 11 which
`
`we believe provides support in the Board's interpreta tion that a
`
`recess is not required when construing the ter m concave.
`
`There are a nu mb er of things here, the principal of
`
`which, Your Hon ors, is that the word "recess" is not mentioned
`
`an ywhe re in the s pecification of th e '879 patent. Th e words
`
`are not used and certainl y a recess is not shown in t he
`
`drawings itself.
`
`JUDGE ELLUR U: Counsel, when you curve
`
`inwards fro m the housing don't you necessaril y have a r e cess?
`
`MR. NI KOLSKY: Your Honors, when you have a
`
`curving inwards o f mate rial, it depe nds on how that r ecess --
`
`I' m sor r y, ho w th at co mponent is s tructured. If ther e is a
`
`direct connection between, or an in dentation, then, yes, we
`
`would sa y that th ere is a recess.
`
`But unfortunatel y with this patent we don't see
`
`exactl y ho w that connection is ma de. It is not shown in the
`
`drawings. It is just a flat piece of mate rial and then the side
`
`wall of the housing itself.
`
`JUDGE ELLUR U: So you are sa yi ng reces s goes
`
`towards how you for m the concave ?
`
`MR. NI KOLSKY: Cor rect , Your Honor.
`
` 11
`
`
`
`
`
`The se cond point that we would lik e to address
`
`here, Your Honor s, is that the conc ept of a re cess does not
`
`support anything. It is the prop that actuall y does t he
`
`supporting in the '879 patent. That 's the structure of the
`
`actual device that provides the support.
`
`And to i mpart a r ecess require ment into that
`
`construction would be i mparting a me aningless li mit ation. It
`
`is the prop that s upports. It is not a spac e that supp or ts.
`
`Your Honors, we would also point to the Patent
`
`Owne r's dictionar y de finition as we ll, which does not mention
`
`the word recess . It mentions hollow and curved, like the
`
`inside of a hollow ball .
`
`The last thing that we would mention, Your
`
`Honors, and i t is not on the slide but it is supported in the
`
`record is that their expert , P atent Owner's expert, Mr . Visser,
`
`stated in his deposition that pushing or pressing does not
`
`necessaril y -- I' m sorr y, in his decl aration -- does not
`
`necessaril y for m a re cess.
`
`And, in fact , the citation for that i s the Visser
`
`declaration at par agraph 33. And it has been cited b y us
`
`previously in these proceedings.
`
`So we think that i n the totalit y of what is taught
`
`here, Your Honor s, what is i mporta nt is that there is an inw ard
`
`curvature, that the structure or the prop curves inwar d fro m
`
`the housing to support the printed circuit board.
`
` 12
`
`
`
`
`
`Turning now to sl ide 12, Your Honors, the next
`
`ter m that we beli eve the Boa rd has properl y construed is the
`
`ter m "props" and the Board, of course, has construed that as a
`
`structure that supports.
`
`Turning to slide 13 which shows , a gain, this figure
`
`6, we believe that it is cle ar fro m t he drawing that t he concave
`
`prop 512 supports the printed cir cuit board asse mbl y. It
`
`actuall y contacts it. You c an see c ontact that is shown in the
`
`patent on figure 6 . And , in fact, it serves to hold it i n place
`
`along with the en d base in the housing 51.
`
`Now, Your Honors, turning to slide 14, we also
`
`believe that the P atent Owner has a d mitted that a pro p
`
`functions as a support. In fa ct, in t heir Patent Owne r response
`
`the y have said th at a prop must include, and the y d o qualif y it
`
`b y sa ying at l east, what the y do admit, a structure th at
`
`supports.
`
`JUDGE ELLUR U: Wh at is the diff erence bet ween
`
`a structure tha t supports and a support?
`
`MR. NI KOLSKY: I believe, Your Honor, that a
`
`structure that supports -- let me think about this -- a structure
`
`that supports versus a support.
`
`Well, if you a re using the noun term support, then
`
`I believe that they are two si mi la r things. The y are both, you
`
`know, mat erial or that perfor m a fu nction. But support can
`
`also mean a verb , a ve rb tense, so i n that case it would be the
`
`act of doing it. Again, it depends o n the connotation.
`
` 13
`
`
`
`
`
`The onl y other th ing I would menti on, Your
`
`Honors, on slide 14 is to also dra w attention to the Board's
`
`what we believe i s i mportant clai m differentiation ar gu ment
`
`that was cited in t he first decision.
`
`And the Boa rd, I believe, said that , you know,
`
`since clai m 8 reci tes a space bet we en the P CBA and the
`
`housing, and the fact that the conc ave prop is c reati ng that
`
`space between th e housing and the PCB A, that it 's i mproper to
`
`li mit clai m 1 to this concept of su pporting and keeping apart
`
`the PCB A and the housing itself and, rathe r, that tha t is more
`
`proper for clai m 8.
`
`And Petitioner ag rees. Clai m 8 rea lly r ecites mor e
`
`than what cl ai m 1 recites . So that 's wh y we believe t hat it was
`
`proper for the Bo ard not to include or i mpart a construction
`
`that required ther e being a keeping apart o f the two
`
`co mponents -- tha t doesn't support keeping apart the two
`
`co mponents.
`
`JUDGE TURNER : Be fore you go on, can I ask a
`
`question?
`
`MR. NI KOLSKY: Sur e.
`
`JUDGE TURNER : Wh at part of th e prop is
`
`concave? If I go back to slide 13.
`
`MR. NI KOLSKY: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE TURNER : It looks like it i s a convex
`
`prop. So wh y isn't, you know, wh y isn't, the fa ct tha t it is a
`
` 14
`
`
`
`
`
`concave prop, wh y isn't that, you k now, a nonfunctional
`
`descriptive?
`
`MR. NI KOLSKY: Your Honor, we would agre e
`
`that it is nonfunctional, that the wo rd concave reall y does not
`
`i mpart an y functi onal li mitation whatsoever.
`
`We believe what i s i mportant are t wo things. One
`
`is that the Pat ent Owne r chose to be their o wn lexic ographer in
`
`using that ter m, c oncave prop.
`
`And nu mbe r 2 , what is i mport ant a nd wha t I think
`
`the Board got rig ht is the fa ct that there is an inward curvature
`
`that is supporting the device that is positioned on top of it.
`
`So it is the fact t hat it is the prop that is
`
`supporting that is i mportant , not so much the fact that it is
`
`concave. The y ju st labeled it conc ave. Does that an swer Your
`
`Honor's question?
`
`JUDGE TURNER : Yes, it does. If I recall
`
`correctl y, I don't think that was P etitioner's original use, but
`
`apparentl y you c a me around to the Board's wa y of thinking on
`
`concave.
`
`MR. NI KOLSKY: We don't disagree with the
`
`Board, Your Hon or.
`
`JUDGE TURNER : Oka y.
`
`MR. NI KOLSKY: Turning now, Your Honors, to
`
`the ter m "fixed" which I believe is wher e we left off , slide 15,
`
`the Board has construed this ter m t o mean " fastened securel y
`
`in pos ition."
`
` 15
`
`
`
`
`
`And, again, we be lieve the Board is corre ct
`
`because there is n o require ment, we don't believe, as the
`
`Patent Owner see ms to believe, tha t you must have f ixation
`
`and all degrees of fre edo m and in a ll directions.
`
`We believe the B oard got it right t hat so mething
`
`could be fastened in a position, yet re movable, and you could
`
`have so mething that is re movable. But when it is in its one
`
`position it could be fixed in position.
`
`And in support of that, Your Honor , we would also
`
`point to slide 16 which i s the t ranscript of a colloquy with
`
`Patent Owner 's ex pert, M r. Visser, and wherein we a sked hi m
`
`the question, the h ypothetical, if you were to position yourself
`
`in a ca r with a se atbelt on, would you be fixed in p osition?
`
`And he said , well , yeah , I would be fixed in
`
`position. But he said here: I guess in the sense that when you
`
`are buckled, you are se cured.
`
`We think that goe s to highlight and support the
`
`construction that we don't have to have co mpl ete
`
`nonre movable, pe r manent fixation. So mething can b e fixed
`
`relative to anothe r obje ct, but there can be so me pla y
`
`involved.
`
`And, in fact , the f ollow -up question that we had
`
`asked their expert , you know, is the re an y pla y that 's
`
`per missible of the obje ct? And while he qualified his answer ,
`
`ulti matel y he said: I don't think that fixed me ans ab solutely
`
`no potential move ment in there .
`
` 16
`
`
`
`
`
`So we think that also supports the Board's vie w
`
`that we don't hav e to necessa ril y have fixation in all directions
`
`and no move ment whatsoever .
`
`Your Honors, tur ning now to the g rounds of
`
`rejection that hav e been advanced, we would like to address
`
`the grounds that are based on Minne man, and we bel ieve that
`
`the y a re proper a nd that the y should continue to be - - and the
`
`clai ms should be held invalid in view of Minne man .
`
`We ha ve reproduc ed the abstract of Minne man
`
`ver y quickl y in figures 3 and 4. What we ar e dealin g with
`
`with the Minne ma n refe rence is a USB flash me mor y device.
`
`You can see the d evice labeled gen erall y 10 and
`
`the housing is element 25. The pri nted circuit bo ard is
`
`ele ment 40, whic h is positioned within that housing 25. There
`
`are a nu mber of c hips and co mpone nts, including me mor y,
`
`flash me mor y, et cetera , which ar e ele ment 23.
`
`And what I would like to do, Your Honors, is just
`
`go through clai m- ele ment -b y- clai m-ele ment with res pect to
`
`clai m 1, where we think we see ea ch of these li mita tions, and
`
`then briefl y take you through the r e maining clai ms and
`
`then move to Elbaz.
`
`So turning to slide 18, Your Honor s, the first
`
`li mitation is a housing. And we be lieve th at Minneman
`
`teaches that. In f act, we have sho wn it is ele ment 2 5, which is
`
`disclosed as the housing of the device. It can be for med of
`
`metal or another co mponent, accor ding to Minne ma n.
`
` 17
`
`
`
`
`
`And in particular , Your Honor, we would note,
`
`before we go throug h all of these li mitations, it is the
`
`Petitioner's position that structurally Minne man discloses
`
`ever y li mitation of clai m 1 with the exception of the express
`
`words concave . And we take that teaching fro m Ta kahashi, a
`
`ver y li mited teac hing fro m Takaha shi, but it is r eally
`
`Minne man that ha s all of the struct ure that we believe
`
`invalidates the clai ms .
`
`Turning to slide 19, Your Honors, t he next
`
`li mitation, of cou rse, is a pluralit y of orientated inde ntations.
`
`Those corr espond to ele ment 28 in Minne man, whi ch is
`
`identified as the openings that engage the springs of a US B
`
`port.
`
`The next li mitati on, Your Honors, is on slide 20,
`
`which is a pluralit y of concave props. And we have identified
`
`two, actuall y thre e excerpts o f Min ne man which we t hink are
`
`i mportant .
`
`The first, o f cour se, is the stand -of fs 45. The y ar e
`
`labeled as stand -offs. The y a re str uctures that are p ositioned
`
`between the printed circuit board 40 and the botto m of the
`
`housing 25.
`
`And we have also cited in our petition colu mn 9,
`
`line 65, thr ough c olu mn 10, line 6, and colu mn 10 , li ne 48
`
`through line 61 -- the y are all cited there and the y ar e in the
`
`record - - bec ause the y establish tha t captivating -- a nd
`
`Minne man disclo ses this -- that ca ptivating indentations could
`
` 18
`
`
`
`
`
`be for med in the housing and could also be used to support the
`
`printed circuit board asse mbl y. So we believe that b oth of
`
`those structures r ead on the li mitat ion of the plurality of
`
`concave props.
`
`Your Honors, the next li mitation is on slide 21,
`
`wherein the plura lity of orientat ed indentations facilitates the
`
`USB me mor y plu g to be connected while the USB me mor y
`
`plug is inserted into a fe ma le USB socket.
`
`We believe that t hat is taught, agai n, in colu mn 9 ,
`
`line 65, through c olu mn 10, line 6. And in particular
`
`Minne man sa ys that that is what the se openings do. The y
`
`receive the springs of a USB port o f a co mputer to re tain it in
`
`place. It is the sa me function and i t is the sa me stru cture.
`
`On slide 22, Your Honors, the next li mitation is
`
`printed circuit board asse mbl y disc losed in the housing. I
`
`believe that that i s clear . That is s hown in Minne ma n as
`
`ele ment 40, whic h is the actual cir cuit board asse mb l y, the
`
`circuit board, and ele ment 44 , whic h is a subasse mbl y that
`
`includes the chips and the other things that you see there. So
`
`we believe that th at li mitation is ta ught.
`
`The next li mitati on -- and we ar e getting close to
`
`the end of clai m 1 -- the PC BA is fixed b y means of pressing
`
`of the pluralit y of concave props.
`
`Here , Your Honor s, we have cited c olu mn 10, lines
`
`52 throu gh line 61. And in pa rticular this is the dis closure of
`
`Minne man that sa ys that captivating indentations could be
`
` 19
`
`
`
`
`
`for med. And that in particular at t he end of the cita tion they
`
`sa y that the y ma y be used to position or retain the
`
`subasse mbl y 44 therein b y mechan ical interfer ence, friction fit
`
`and/or b y pr ess fi t.
`
`So the ver y words , pressing, are tau ght by
`
`Minne man, that if you have that str ucture of a c aptivating
`
`indentation, it wi ll press and it wil l hold a cir cuit board
`
`asse mbl y in plac e in the housing .
`
`The last li mitatio n, Your Honors, o n slide 24 is
`
`that a space is for med betwe en the housing and the P CBA. We
`
`believe that that i s clear fro m the d rawing. On figure 4, you
`
`can see that there is, b y virtue of t hose stand -offs a ppearing
`
`there, the re is a s pace in bet ween t hat's provided and there is
`
`also space, of cou rse, on top of the PCB as well.
`
`Turning to the ob viousness combin ation, the
`
`secondar y te achings, Your Honors, on slide 25. Agai n, as I've
`
`said before, the o nly li mited tea ching that we ar e tak ing fro m
`
`Takahashi is that you could have a prop and it could be
`
`curved. You could have a curved p rop.
`
`And, in fact , the Takahashi re feren ce talks about
`
`an IC card -- and I will just ver y br iefl y go over the
`
`technology on tha t one -- an IC car d. A nd figure 20A we have
`
`reproduced fro m Takahashi. And i n figure 20A we s ee a base
`
`card 11, and we see a botto m portion 13. And that bottom
`
`portion 13 receives an integrated c ircuit card.
`
` 20
`
`
`
`
`
`32 are the protrusions that are discl osed in
`
`Takahashi. And i n pa rticular Taka hashi states that the
`
`integrated circuit card sits on and r ests on those protrusions
`
`32.
`
`Yes, there is adhe sive that is inserted underneath
`
`that once the y res t on there so that you have a bond with it,
`
`but what we belie ve is i mportant is the tea ching that there is a
`
`propping structure that is taught he re and that propping
`
`structure could be shaped to be cur ved.
`
`Your Honors, on slides 26 forward , we then go
`
`through clai m 9 a nd clai m 17. In t he interest of ti me, since
`
`there ar e such si milari ties betwee n clai m 9 and clai m 1, we a re
`
`going to just ver y briefl y flip throu gh these slides, if we can ,
`
`and then focus, I think, on clai m 1 7 which talks abo ut the last
`
`li mitation of an LED module.
`
`So ver y brie fl y, Your Honors, on slide 26 we have
`
`mapped the printe d circuit board asse mbl y li mitation to
`
`ele ments 40 and 4 1 which we have discussed earlier.
`
`On slide 27 we ha ve shown the hou sing and, again,
`
`that corresponds to ele ment 25 of Minne man which we
`
`discussed, again.
`
`The next li mitati on is a plur alit y o f concave props.
`
`And we would ref er, again, to the e le ments 45 which are the
`
`stand -offs, as wel l as the captivating indentations that are
`
`expressly disclosed in the Minne man ref erence at colu mn 9
`
`and also colu mn 10. We have the citations there.
`
` 21
`
`
`
`
`
`On slide 29, agai n, the next li mitat ion, PCB A
`
`disposed in the housing. That is c lear. We have sh own that to
`
`you that the PCB A 40 is positioned within the housing 25.
`
`Slide 30, pluralit y of concave props protrude
`
`inward to fix the PCBA. We have quoted column 10, line 52
`
`through line 61. And in particular , in support of tha t
`
`li mitation there , Your Honors, that sa ys protrude in ward to fix
`
`it, it expressl y di scloses here in th at excerpt that ca ptivating
`
`indentations ma y be for med b y pushing or pressing on the
`
`outside of the housing.
`
`So it is ver y explicit and sa ys that you have got to
`
`push something inwards and it has got to protrude i nwards to
`
`fix the circuit bo ard asse mbl y. We think Minne man is ver y
`
`clear on that .
`
`Clai m 9, the last li mitation is the s pace and, of
`
`course, we see th at fro m the diagra m here . There is a space
`
`between the printed circuit board 40 and the botto m of the
`
`housing.
`
`Once again on slide 32, Your Honors, we have
`
`only taken Takah ashi for that na rr ow proposition that you
`
`could h ave a conc ave prop. And wi th that we believe that
`
`independent claims 1 and 9 are invalid in view of Minne man
`
`and Takahashi an d, of course, the dependent clai ms that are
`
`associated with it and have be en ch allenged.
`
`We would like to move now to the Elbaz refe rence ,
`
`if we could, and s ort of walk throu gh in si milar fash ion wh y
`
` 22
`
`
`
`
`
`we believe that th is refer ence also i nvalidates and should be
`
`held to invalidate the clai ms .
`
`So, Your Honors, on slide 33 we h ave reproduced
`
`portions of the El baz patent publication. And Elbaz , ver y
`
`briefl y, it discloses a dongle which is intended to be connected
`
`to the port of a te leco mmunications device, and in pa rticular
`
`the specification mentions that this co mponent can b e inserted
`
`into the port, like a US B port of a co mputer s ys te m or a
`
`teleco mmunicatio ns device.
`
`And we think that figures 10A through 10C are the
`
`most r elevant for purposes of this proceeding. Figures 10A
`
`through 10C show an e mbodi ment of this invention whereb y
`
`you have an adapt er 514. It 's discl osed that that ada pter could
`
`be for med b y met al or b y pr essing or punching or bending.
`
`And it specificall y receives what is ref erred to in the patent, in
`
`the Elbaz patent a pplication, as a module 5.
`
`That module 5 is shown in sequence here being
`
`inserted into the adapt er. So figur e 10C shows you the final
`
`position where it is inserted into the adapter .
`
`I would like to go through, if I c an now, Your
`
`Honors, the specific li mitations of clai m 1 and appl y it with
`
`Elbaz, and then move through and give so me further detail of
`
`what Elbaz disclo ses.
`
`On slide 34, of course, the first li mitation with
`
`referenc e to clai m 1 is a housing. Elbaz has a housing.
`
`Petitioner sub mit s that it does. It is the adapter 514. It
`
` 23
`
`
`
`
`
`operates as a