`Declaration of Katherine Hall, Ph.D. (Exhibit 1003)
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`
`
`
`
`FINISAR CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`THOMAS SWAN & CO. LTD.
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,664,395
`
`_____________________
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No. Unassigned
`_____________________
`
`DECLARATION OF KATHERINE HALL, PH.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`FINISAR 1003
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,664,395
`Declaration of Katherine Hall, Ph.D. (Exhibit 1003)
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I. OVERVIEW ......................................................................................................... 1
`
`II. MY BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ............................................. 2
`
`III. LIST OF DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED IN FORMULATING MY
`OPINION ................................................................................................................... 6
`
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................. 7
`
`V. STATE OF THE ART AS OF SEPTEMBER 3, 2001 ....................................... 8
`
`VI. THE ’395 PATENT SPECIFICATION ........................................................... 13
`
`VII. THE CLAIMS OF THE ’395 PATENT ......................................................... 16
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................... 17
`
`IX. LEGAL STANDARDS .................................................................................... 19
`A. Anticipation .................................................................................................... 19
`B. Obviousness .................................................................................................... 20
`
`
`X. ANALYSIS OF INVALIDITY GROUNDS .................................................... 24
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1 through 17, 20, and 24 through 27 are rendered obvious
`by the combination of Parker Thesis and Warr Thesis and Tan Thesis ............... 28
`B. Ground 2: Claims 18, 19, 21 through 23 are rendered obvious by the
`combination of Parker Thesis and Warr Thesis and Tan Thesis and
`Crossland ’787 ....................................................................................................102
`
`
`XI. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................109
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,664,395
`Declaration of Katherine Hall, Ph.D. (Exhibit 1003)
`
`I, Katherine Hall, hereby declare as follows.
`
`OVERVIEW
`1.
`
`I am over the age of eighteen (18) and otherwise competent to make
`
`this declaration.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained as an expert witness on behalf of Finisar
`
`Corporation for the above captioned inter partes review (IPR). I am being
`
`compensated for my time in connection with this IPR at my standard consulting
`
`rate, which is $400 per hour. I understand that the petition for inter partes review
`
`involves U.S. Patent No. 7,664,395 (“the ’395 patent”), Ex. 1001. The ’395 patent
`
`is part of a family of patents that originated from UK Patent Application No.
`
`0121308.1, filed on September 3, 2001. PCT Application No. PCT/GB02/04011
`
`was then filed on September 2, 2002. Upon attaining national stage in the United
`
`States on September 10, 2004, U.S. Patent Application No. 10/487,810 was
`
`prosecuted. That application led to a restriction requirement and a divisional
`
`application, No. 11/514,725, was filed on September 1, 2006. This application led
`
`to the issuance of the ’395 patent. I further understand that, according to USPTO
`
`records, the ’395 patent is currently assigned to Thomas Swan & Co. Ltd.
`
`(“Thomas Swan”).
`
`3.
`
`In preparing this Declaration, I have reviewed the ’395 patent and
`
`considered each of the documents cited herein, in light of general knowledge in the
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`art. In formulating my opinions, I have relied upon my experience in the relevant
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,664,395
`Declaration of Katherine Hall, Ph.D. (Exhibit 1003)
`
`art. In formulating my opinions, I have also considered the viewpoint of a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art (i.e., a person of ordinary skill in the field of optical
`
`communications, defined further below in Section IV) prior to September 3, 2001.
`
`I am familiar with the technology at issue as of the September 3, 2001 filing date
`
`of the ’395 patent. I am also familiar with the level of a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art with respect to the technology at issue as of the September 3, 2001 filing
`
`date.
`
`II. MY BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`4.
`I am an expert in the field of optical communications, high-speed
`
`optical switches, and free space optics, and I have been an expert in this field since
`
`prior to 2001. Throughout the remainder of this declaration, I will refer to the field
`
`of optical communications, optical switches, and free space optics as the relevant
`
`field or the relevant art. In formulating my opinions, I have relied upon my
`
`training, knowledge, and experience in the relevant art. A copy of my current
`
`curriculum vitae is provided as Ex. 1004, and it provides a comprehensive
`
`description of my academic, employment, and publication history.
`
`5.
`
`As an expert in the field of optical communications, high-speed
`
`optical switches, and free space optics since prior to 2001, I am qualified to
`
`provide an opinion as to what a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`known or concluded as of 2001. Since 1984, I have accumulated significant
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,664,395
`Declaration of Katherine Hall, Ph.D. (Exhibit 1003)
`
`training and experience in the field and I have extensive knowledge and experience
`
`relating to techniques and reasoning used in the field.
`
`6.
`
`I received a B.A. degree in Physics from Wellesley College in 1984.
`
`After working in the Lightwave Systems Research Department at AT&T Bell
`
`Laboratories from 1984-1987, I attended graduate school at the Massachusetts
`
`Institute of Technology where I received a M.S. degree in Electrical Engineering
`
`and Computer Science in 1990 and a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering and
`
`Computer Science in 1993. During that time, my post-baccalaureate and doctoral
`
`work focused on the development of optical fiber communication systems, short
`
`pulse lasers, novel optical spectroscopic techniques and identifying, characterizing,
`
`and utilizing non-linear effects in optical fibers and semiconductor amplifiers.
`
`7.
`
`In 1993 I went to work in the Advanced Networks Group at M.I.T.
`
`Lincoln Laboratory, where I led an effort to develop optical time division
`
`multiplexing (OTDM) technologies including high bit rate data sources, clocking
`
`techniques and processors based on high speed all optical switches. I also worked
`
`on terrestrial and space-based wavelength division multiplexing (WDM)
`
`telecommunication components, sub-systems, and test beds being developed by
`
`Lincoln Laboratory at that time. In 1999 I left Lincoln Laboratory to found an
`
`optical networking company called PhotonEx. As the Chief Technology Officer at
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`PhotonEx, I led the teams that developed the first commercially available 40 Gb/s
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,664,395
`Declaration of Katherine Hall, Ph.D. (Exhibit 1003)
`
`long-haul wavelength division multiplexed systems, which were successfully field-
`
`trialed by Deutsche Telekom in 2002. After PhotonEx, I founded Wide Net
`
`Technologies, a small company developing novel technologies for high speed
`
`WDM optical telecommunications systems and high speed quantum cryptographic
`
`systems. In 2007, I joined WiTricity Corporation, a supplier of wireless power
`
`solutions, as the CTO. I have continued to perform technical consulting on topics
`
`related to optical networking, components and systems since founding Wide Net
`
`Technologies in 2003.
`
`8.
`
`I am a Fellow of the Optical Society of America (OSA), a distinction
`
`that is awarded to less than 10% of the membership, and I am a Senior Member of
`
`the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). In addition to serving
`
`on numerous conference program committees and reviewing articles submitted to
`
`peer reviewed journals such as the IEEE Journal of Lightwave Technology, IEEE
`
`Photonics Technology Letters, and Electronics Letters, I was the Program Chair of
`
`the IEEE/LEOS Annual Meeting in 2000 and the General Chair in 2002 and an
`
`Organizer of the National Academy of Engineering’s Frontiers in Engineering
`
`Conference in 2004. In addition I have served on the Board of Governors for both
`
`the OSA and for the IEEE Lasers and Electro-Optics Society (now the IEEE
`
`Photonics Society) and was an Assessment Panel Member for the National
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`Research Council reviewing activities at the National Institute of Science and
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,664,395
`Declaration of Katherine Hall, Ph.D. (Exhibit 1003)
`
`Technology (NIST) from 2002-2006. I was an associate editor of IEEE Photonics
`
`Technology Letters from 1996 to 2008. I have published over 100 journal articles
`
`and conference proceedings, a book chapter entitled “Nonlinearities in Active
`
`Media” and I am an inventor on 35 issued U.S. Patents. I have published papers
`
`describing novel lasers, optical amplifiers, optical memories and non-linear optical
`
`switches with titles such as “Ultrafast Optical TDM Networking: Extension to the
`
`Wide Area,” “Architectures and Technologies for High-Speed Optical Data
`
`Networks” and “Interferometric All-Optical Switches for Ultrafast Signal
`
`Processing.” I have also been invited to give overviews of the state of the art of
`
`high-speed optical networking and optical communications techniques. I have
`
`served as a faculty opponent for a graduate student in Sweden and I have
`
`supervised MIT graduate and undergraduate students performing research on
`
`optical devices and communication systems. In addition to being named a Fellow
`
`of the OSA last year, I was recently awarded the NCWIT Symons Innovator
`
`Award by the National Center for Women and Information Technology.
`
`9.
`
`Additional contributions of mine to the field are set forth in my
`
`current curriculum vitae (Ex. 1004).
`
`10. Accordingly, I am an expert in the field of optical communications,
`
`optical switches, and free space optics and I have been since prior to 2001.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,664,395
`Declaration of Katherine Hall, Ph.D. (Exhibit 1003)
`
`
`III. LIST OF DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED IN FORMULATING MY
`OPINION
`11.
`
`In formulating my opinion, I have considered any documents cited in
`
`this declaration, specifically including the following documents:
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,145,710
`U.S. Patent No. 7,664,395
`U.S. Patent No. 8,089,683
`U.S. Patent No. 8,335,033
`U.S. Patent No. 6,549,865
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 7,145,710
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 7,664,395
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,089,683
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,335,033
`U.S. Patent Application No. 2001/0050787 (“Crossland 787”)
`Michael Charles Parker, Dynamic Holograms for Wavelength Division
`Multiplexing, Thesis at University of Cambridge, November 1996 (“Parker
`Thesis”)
`Kim Leong Tan, Dynamic Holography Using Ferroelectric Liquid Crystal on
`Silicon Spatial Light Modulators, Thesis at University of Cambridge, February
`1999 (“Tan Thesis”)
`Stephen Thomas Warr, Free Space Switching for Optical Fibre Networks, Thesis
`at University of Cambridge, July 1996 (“Warr Thesis”)
`W.A. Crossland, et al., “Holographic Optical Switching: The ‘ROSES’
`Demonstrator,” Journal of Lightwave Technology, Vol. 18, No. 12, pp. 1845-
`1854, December 2000
`Melanie Holmes, et al., “Low Crosstalk Devices for Wavelength-Routed
`Networks,” IEE, pp. 2/1-2/10, 1995
`Mathias Johansson, et al., “Computer-controlled, adaptive beam steering,
`implemented in a FLC-SLM free-space optical switch,” Diffractive Optics and
`Micro-Optics, T. Li, ed., Vol. 41 OSA Trends in Optics and Photonics, pp. 347-
`349, Optical Society of America, June 2000 (“Johansson”)
`Screenshot of Optics Info Base, OSA’s Digital Library, Mathias Johansson, et
`al., “Computer-controlled, adaptive beam steering, implemented in a FLC-SLM
`free-space optical switch,” Diffractive Optics and Micro-Optics, T. Li, ed., Vol.
`41 OSA Trends in Optics and Photonics, pp. 347-349, Optical Society of
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,664,395
`Declaration of Katherine Hall, Ph.D. (Exhibit 1003)
`
`Description
`
`America, June, 2000
`Paul F. McManamon, et al., “Optical Phased Array Technology,” IEEE, Vol. 84,
`No. 2, pp. 268-298, February 1996
`Letter from Louise Clarke of Cambridge University, February 24, 2014
`Biography of Prof. Crossland, http://www-
`g.eng.cam.ac.uk/photonics_sensors/people/bill-crossland.htm
`Listing of Publications from Photonics & Sensors group, http://www-
`g.eng.cam.ac.uk/photonics_sensors/publications/index.htm
`W.J. Tomlinson, et al., “Technologies and Architectures for Multiwavelength
`Optical Cross-connects,” LEOS, pp. 53-54, 1995
`Robert J. Mears, et al., “Telecommunications Applications for Ferroelectric
`Liquid-Crystal Smart Pixels,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Quantum
`Electronics, Vol., 2, No. 1, pp. 35-46, April 1996
`“Array,” Chambers Science and Technology Dictionary, 1988
`“Wave plate,” McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms,
`Fourth Edition, 1989
`“Arbitrary,” Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, Deluxe Second
`Edition, 1983
`
`
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`12.
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is one who is
`
`presumed to be aware of all pertinent art, thinks along conventional wisdom in the
`
`art, and is a person of ordinary creativity. A person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“PHOSITA”) would have had knowledge of the literature concerning optical
`
`switches and related arts as of 2001.
`
`13. Based on my review of the patent specification and file history, in my
`
`opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have at least a Ph.D., or
`
`equivalent experience, in optics, physics, electrical engineering, or a related
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`field, including at least three years of experience designing, constructing, and/or
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,664,395
`Declaration of Katherine Hall, Ph.D. (Exhibit 1003)
`
`testing optical systems. I would have been a person of ordinary skill in the art at
`
`least by 1993.
`
`V.
`
`STATE OF THE ART AS OF SEPTEMBER 3, 2001
`14. Once the loss of optical fibers became low enough that optical signals
`
`could travel distances of a few tens of kilometers before the signals needed to be
`
`received, electronically regenerated, and retransmitted, optical transmission
`
`systems began to replace wired electrical transmission systems in multiple back-
`
`bone communication routes throughout the United States. With the success of
`
`these first systems, researchers began to investigate ways to increase the distance
`
`the optical signals could travel before they needed to be electronically regenerated,
`
`because the costs of the electronic regenerators dominated the total system costs.
`
`In the late 1980s, the discovery of the erbium doped fiber amplifier (EDFA), which
`
`many people credit with driving the incredible adoption of optical networking
`
`equipment, was made. The EDFA not only enabled a single wavelength optical
`
`data signal to propagate over hundreds of kilometers before it required electronic
`
`regeneration, but it also enabled simultaneous amplification of multiple different
`
`wavelength signals all traveling on a single fiber. Initially EDFAs were used to
`
`extend the optical propagation distance and number of wavelengths, or data
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`channels, that could be carried on a single fiber, but along fixed routes and without
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,664,395
`Declaration of Katherine Hall, Ph.D. (Exhibit 1003)
`
`a great deal of network flexibility or reconfigurability.
`
`15.
`
`It didn’t take long, however, for researchers to realize that while the
`
`EDFA could be used to overcome losses accumulated as optical signals traveled
`
`along optical fibers, they could also be used to compensate for losses in optical
`
`components that could be inserted into an optical network to make it more flexible,
`
`more reconfigurable, and ultimately, more able to respond to varying traffic
`
`demands and requirements in a cost effective manner. One of the optical
`
`components receiving a great deal of attention early on was the optical cross-
`
`connect switch. These switches could be used to route optical signals from an
`
`input fiber to different output fibers, similar to the electrical cross-bar switches that
`
`were well known in electrical networks. And while first applications focused on
`
`cross-bar type switches that could be used to switch all the signals traveling on one
`
`fiber to another, it wasn’t long before it was realized that by placing wavelength
`
`multiplexing and demultiplexing components around those optical cross-connects,
`
`individual control of each wavelength could be realized and that the switches could
`
`route all or only certain wavelength channels from one port to another (See for
`
`example, M.J. Holmes et al., “Low-Crosstalk Devices for Wavelength Routed
`
`Networks”, IEE Proceedings, Savoy Place, London, 1995). Another variation
`
`researchers discovered fairly early on was that certain wavelengths could be added
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`or dropped at a node and electronically processed, while other wavelengths
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,664,395
`Declaration of Katherine Hall, Ph.D. (Exhibit 1003)
`
`“bypassed” the node. That is, ”bypass” wavelength signals could remain in the
`
`optical domain and travel on to other nodes in the optical network. With the ability
`
`to individually process individual wavelength channels from multiple wavelength
`
`multiplexed signals, researchers began to demonstrate devices such as dynamic
`
`gain equalizers, tunable lasers, tunable filters, and wavelength selective switches.
`
`All of this technology was well-known at the time Dr. Holmes submitted her
`
`original Great Britain patent application.
`
`16. While Dr. Holmes discloses “It has previously been proposed to use
`
`so-called spatial light modulators to control the routing of light beams within an
`
`optical system”, she must have known that it had not only been proposed, but also
`
`demonstrated, for many years, by many different groups using a variety of
`
`technologies. In a review article by W.J. Tomlinson, “Technologies and
`
`Architectures for Multiwavelength Optical Cross-Connects”, 8th Annual Meeting
`
`Conference Proceedings, Vol. 1, IEEE Lasers and Electro-Optics Society Annual
`
`Meeting (1995), (Ex. 1012) Tomlinson highlights optical cross-connects based on
`
`various switching technologies including “micro-optic devices using mechanical
`
`motion”, “multiple electro-optic switch elements”, “semiconductor switch
`
`elements”, and “liquid-crystal switch elements”. Concentrating on the switch
`
`technology proposed by Dr. Holmes, Dr. Mears et al., in “Telecommunications
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`Applications of Ferroelectric Liquid-Crystal Smart Pixels”, IEEE J. Selected
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,664,395
`Declaration of Katherine Hall, Ph.D. (Exhibit 1003)
`
`Topics in Quantum Electron., vol. 2, no. 1, 1996, (Ex. 1013) reviewed
`
`demonstrations of “ferroelectric liquid crystal (FLC) over silicon technology” as of
`
`1996 which he described as “giving rise to a number of useful switching
`
`applications” including “fiber-to-fiber space and wavelength switches”. As
`
`discussed in the sections that follow, the research groups led by Dr. Crossland and
`
`Dr. Mears were very active publishing demonstrations of liquid crystal based
`
`optical devices including switches, wavelength selective switches, filters, dynamic
`
`gain equalizers and beam aligners, and Dr. Holmes co-authored some of that work.
`
`Clearly, by the mid-to-late-1990s, there were already many reports in the literature
`
`of free-space optical cross-connects and wavelength switches based on liquid
`
`crystal devices. It is not clear why Dr. Holmes summarized the state-of-the-art at
`
`the time by saying that such devices had simply been “proposed” when it is quite
`
`clear from the publications available at that time that many of the devices had
`
`already been demonstrated and many of the draw-backs she describes had already
`
`been addressed.
`
`17.
`
`In the “Background” section of her application, Dr. Holmes also
`
`points to problems in optical switches owing to issues with misalignment, beam
`
`aberration, and cross-talk and points out that for reconfigurable switches, these
`
`problems may be exacerbated by the fact that the path an optical beam follows may
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`be variable. She seems to recognize that many of these issues had already been
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,664,395
`Declaration of Katherine Hall, Ph.D. (Exhibit 1003)
`
`addressed in “adaptive optical components in the field of astronomical devices” but
`
`she inaccurately states that such solutions “have been proposed”, whereas in fact,
`
`they had already been demonstrated for many years, and she discounts the
`
`importance of those solutions stating that the “constraints are different to the
`
`present field”, but that is not necessarily true. In “Optical Phased Array
`
`Technology” by McManamon et al., Proc. of the IEEE, vol. 84, no. 2, February
`
`1996, (Ex. 1020) McManamon discloses that “[l]aser communication, whether
`
`effected with directed beams in free space or by switching guided beams within
`
`fiber links is another application area” of his adaptive optical components.
`
`McManamon at 269. Here McManamon is stating that the constraints may not be
`
`that different to Holmes’ “present field” and he describes applying the liquid
`
`crystal SLM technology he has developed and demonstrated to optical
`
`communication systems throughout his paper. Interestingly, McManamon’s paper
`
`published in 1996 describes that “two dimensional beam steering can be achieved”
`
`and that “any optical distortion that is separable in Cartesian coordinates can be
`
`fully compensated.” McManamon at 272. He also discloses that “[t]he concepts
`
`underlying operation of optical phased array are identical to those for microwave
`
`arrays. Orders-of-magnitude differences in wavelength between the microwave
`
`and optical worlds has resulted on a different implementation of practical phased
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`arrays than that taken with microwave arrays.” McManamon at 274. Here,
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,664,395
`Declaration of Katherine Hall, Ph.D. (Exhibit 1003)
`
`McManamon is crediting much older work with some of the ideas that have been
`
`adapted for use in optical systems rather than electrical systems. Dr. Holmes
`
`seems to have dismissed this prior art related to free-space adaptive optics systems,
`
`and in so doing failed to realize that much of what she went on to claim, was
`
`already well known. In yet another example, McManamon discloses that “[t]he
`
`programmable, dynamic nature of the diffractive element offers significant
`
`advantages over fixed element systems. Dynamic pointing and focus control
`
`enables real-time compensation in optical systems that experience variations with
`
`temperature or other environmental variables. Such control will also be useful for
`
`auto-alignment in systems for which it may be difficult or impossible to maintain
`
`alignment manually.” McManamon at 281-82. Dr. Holmes is incorrect to
`
`characterize the state of the art as not having addressed some of the issues she
`
`raises as problematic for free-space reconfigurable optical devices. In fact multiple
`
`solutions had already been disclosed in the prior art. Certainly the solutions she
`
`has claimed were already known, and in many cases, had been for years.
`
`VI. THE ’395 PATENT SPECIFICATION
`18.
`I have considered the disclosure of the ’395 patent in light of the
`
`knowledge of a PHOSITA as of the claimed priority date of the ’395 patent, which
`
`I understand to be September 3, 2001.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,664,395
`Declaration of Katherine Hall, Ph.D. (Exhibit 1003)
`
`19. The ’395 patent is “relate[d] to the general field of controlling one or
`
`more light beams by the use of electronically controlled devices.” (Ex. 1001 at
`
`1:18-20). As specific examples, the specification identifies the fields of
`
`communications and spectroscopy. (Ex. 1001 at 37:59-62).
`
`20. The central element of the claimed devices is a “spatial light
`
`modulator” or “SLM.” The SLM is a device made up of a two-dimensional array
`
`of “phase modulating elements” – e.g. liquid crystal pixels. (Ex. 1001 at Abstract;
`
`2:48-49; 3:30-31; 6:4-6). The specification describes grouping the phase
`
`modulating elements such that light beams that are incident on particular groups
`
`are controllable independently of each other. (Ex. 1001 at 2:52-62). The
`
`specification further suggests that the size, shape and position of groups of those
`
`phase-modulating elements need not be fixed and can, if need be, be varied. (Ex.
`
`1001 at 11:24-26).
`
`21. The specification teaches that the SLM is able to modify, in a
`
`controlled manner, the direction, power, focus, aberration, or beam shape of a light
`
`beam. (Ex. 1001 at 11:36-40). That modification is achieved through the display
`
`of a “hologram” at each group of pixels. (Ex. 1001 at 11:26-31). A “hologram” is
`
`displayed by applying certain voltages to each pixel of the group. (Ex. 1001 at
`
`22:1-3). The applied voltage affects the orientation of the liquid crystal. (Ex. 1001
`
`at 11:66-12:3). When the light strikes the liquid crystal, the phase of the light at
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`each pixel is “modulated” or modified based on the orientation of the liquid
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,664,395
`Declaration of Katherine Hall, Ph.D. (Exhibit 1003)
`
`crystal. (Ex. 1001 at 12:11-14).
`
`22. One functionality described in the specification is routing. (Ex. 1001
`
`at Fig. 28; 42:5-31). Routing is described in connection with Figure 28:
`
`
`23. Figure 28 shows a multiwavelength input beam, 601 that originates
`
`from input port 611 and is incident upon grating 620. (Ex. 1001 at 42:6-8). The
`
`grating splits beam 601 into three single wavelength beams, 605, 606, and 607,
`
`respectively. (Ex. 1001 at 42:17-20). The three beams pass through lens 621
`
`which refracts them so that they emerge parallel as beams 615, 616, and 617,
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`respectively, as they head towards the SLM 622. (Ex. 1001 at 42:21-23). Each
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,664,395
`Declaration of Katherine Hall, Ph.D. (Exhibit 1003)
`
`beam is incident upon a different group of pixels, 623, 624, or 625, where different
`
`holograms are displayed. (Ex. 1001 at 42:21-23). The displayed holograms each
`
`provide a different angle of reflection to the respective beams such that the beams
`
`are routed to one of the output ports, 612, 613, or 614. (Ex. 1001 at 42:29-31). In
`
`the example in Figure 28, beams 605 and 607 are routed to output port 614, and
`
`beam 607 is routed to output port 612. (Ex. 1001 at 42:29-31). However, the
`
`specification teaches that the depending on the selection of the hologram to be
`
`displayed at each group, the light can be routed differently. (Ex. 1001 at 42:32-
`
`40).
`
`VII. THE CLAIMS OF THE ’395 PATENT
`24. The claims of the ’395 patent are directed to optical routing modules
`
`or devices that have an input, an output, a dispersion device, an SLM, and circuitry
`
`to display certain holograms. The independent claims are directed to a device that
`
`routes light beams with an ensemble of different channels through a dispersion
`
`device that disperses light of differing frequencies. These channels are then
`
`incident on a groups of pixels of a two dimensional “spatial light modulator
`
`(SLM).” There is circuitry constructed and arranged to display holograms on the
`
`SLM in order to route the channels to the desired output port. The dependent
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`claims address other design choices of the optical setup, concerning the specifics of
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,664,395
`Declaration of Katherine Hall, Ph.D. (Exhibit 1003)
`
`the dispersion device, the SLM, the circuitry, and the output results.
`
`25. As described more fully below, the claimed methods and devices in
`
`the ’395 patent were known to PHOSITAs well before September 3, 2001. By that
`
`time, the device architecture, hologram mathematics, and adaptive nature of the
`
`devices were well understood and described in the art. Thus, the claims of the ’395
`
`patent represent nothing more than the obvious combination or rearrangement of
`
`teachings from others—especially those at the University of Cambridge—who
`
`preceded the ’395 patent.
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`26.
`I understand that the challenged claims must be given their broadest
`
`reasonable interpretations in light of the specification of the ‘395 patent, which
`
`means that the words of the claims should be given their broadest possible meaning
`
`consistent with the specification of the ‘395 patent.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that Finisar has proffered the following constructions of
`
`terms in the ’710 patent:
`
` Array: “an assembly of two or more individual elements,
`
`appropriately spaced and energized to achieve desired directional
`
`properties”
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,664,395
`Declaration of Katherine Hall, Ph.D. (Exhibit 1003)
`
` Phase-modulating elements: “components, such as pixels, which can
`
`change the phase of incident light under certain conditions created by
`
`circuitry, such as application of voltage”
`
` Pixel: “a component of a polarisation-independent reflective SLM
`
`which on one end consists of an electrode connected to circuitry and
`
`on the other a common electrode covered by glass, with several layers
`
`between the electrodes including liquid crystal material, alignment
`
`layers, and a quarter-wave plate”
`
` Hologram: “a set of modulation values for achieving the desired
`
`change in incident light”
`
` dispersion device: “a device that separates a light beam having
`
`different wavelengths into its constituent spectral components based
`
`on wavelength.”
`
` Spatial light modulator or SLM: “a polarisation-independent device
`
`that acts on a light beam or beams incident on the device to provide
`
`emerging light beams, which are controlled independently of one
`
`another”
`
` Wave plate: “a thin sheet of doubly refracting crystal material of such
`
`thickness as to introduce a phase difference of one quarter-cycle
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,664,395
`Declaration of Katherine Hall, Ph.D. (Exhibit 1003)
`
`between the ordinary and the extraordinary components of light
`
`passing through, which results in converting polarisation of the light.”
`
` Arbitrary shape: “any discretionary shape”
`
`28.
`
`I have applied the constructions above throughout my declaration. I
`
`agree that the above constructions are correct.
`
`IX. LEGAL STANDARDS
`A. Anticipation
`
`29.
`
`It is my understanding that a reference anticipates a claim if it
`
`discloses each and every element recited in the claim, arranged as in the claim, so
`
`as to enable one of skill in the art to make and use the claimed invention without
`
`the need for undue experimentation in light of the general knowledge available in
`
`the art. I understand that in order to anticipate an invention, a prior art reference
`
`must be enabling to one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that the express and inherent disclosures of a prior art
`
`reference may be relied upon. However, I understand that the fact that a certain
`
`result or characteristic may occur or may be present in the prior art is not sufficient
`
`to establish the inherency of that result or characteristic.
`
`31. The factors that I have considered in determining whether a reference
`
`sets forth the elements of a claim in a sufficient manner such that a PHOSITA
`
`could have readily made and used the claimed invention without undue
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`experimentation include: the breadth of the claim, the nature of the invention, the
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,664,395
`Declaration of Katherine Hall, Ph.D. (Exhibit 1003)
`
`state of the prior art, the level of one of ordinary skill, the level of predictability in
`
`the art, the amount of direction provided by the reference, the existence of working
`
`examples, and the quant