throbber
LUMENTUM HOLDINGS, INC., LUMENTUM, INC., LUMENTUM OPERATIONS, LLC,
`CORIANT OPERATIONS, INC., CORIANT (USA) INC., CIENA CORPORATION,
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., AND FUJITSU NETWORK COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
`Petitioners
`v.
`CAPELLA PHOTONICS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`________________________________
`
`IPR2015-007311 Patent RE42,368
`IPR2015-007392 Patent RE42,678
`
`1 IPR2015-01969 has been joined with this proceeding
`2 IPR2015-01971 has been joined with this proceeding
`_______________________________
`
`Petitioners’ Oral Hearing Demonstratives
`
`* The word-for-word identical paper is being filed in each proceeding identified in the heading
`** All references herein to IPR papers and associated exhibits are to those in IPR2015-00739 unless otherwise noted
`
`PETITIONERS LUMENTUM HOLDINGS
`Exhibit 1056, IPR2015-00739
`
`

`
`Table of Contents
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`Introduction……………………………………………………………………………….…………………3
`Overview of Adopted Challenge Bases………………………………..…….……...………...7
`Response to PO’s Arguments……………………………………………………………..…..…..15
`Challenge Basis Does Not Combine Disparate Elements of Bouevitch……….…..…..15
`It Was Obvious to Combine Sparks’ Two-Axis Mirrors with Bouevitch Fig. 11……..20
`Bouevitch Does Not Teach Away From Misalignment for Power Control………..….23
`Bouevitch and Sparks are Not Incompatible Technologies……………………….…………25
`Bouevitch and Dueck are Not Incompatible Technologies……………………...…………..26
`Bouevitch Teaches Multiple Fiber Collimators Providing Ports………….…….………….28
`1.
`Bouevitch’s Collimators “Provide” the Ports………………………,…………..29
`2.
`“Ports” Include Circulator Ports………………………………….…..….…………..34
`3.
`PO Did Not Disavow Circulator Ports……………………………...…….………..35
`Bouevitch Reflects Light Into the Ports………………………………………………….…..………38
`Continuous Control of Two-Axis Mirrors Was Obvious………………………….…..….…..39
`It Was Obvious to Combine Sparks and Lin……………………………………………….……….44
`It Was Obvious to Use Sparks’ Servo Control in Bouevitch……………….………………..46
`PO’s Evidence of “Industry Adoption” is Irrelevant……………………………..……………..47
`
`2
`
`PETITIONERS LUMENTUM HOLDINGS
`Exhibit 1056, IPR2015-00739
`
`

`
`I. Introduction
`
`►Challenged claims (“xx” = independent claims)
` IPR2015-00731 / RE 42,368: 1-6, 9-13, 15, 16, 17-22
` IPR2015-00739 / RE 42,678: 1-4, 9, 10, 13, 17, 19, 20, 21-23,
`27, 29, 44-46, 53, 61-65
`
`►Prior art: Bouevitch, Sparks, Lin, Dueck
`
`►Related Proceedings: IPR2014-01166 (RE 42,368) / IPR2014-
`01276 (RE 42,678)
` Identical challenged claims
` Prior art: Bouevitch, Smith, Lin, Dueck
` Final Written Decisions finding all claims unpatentable
`
`3
`
`PETITIONERS LUMENTUM HOLDINGS
`Exhibit 1056, IPR2015-00739
`
`

`
`I. Introduction
`
`Representative claims for discussion:
`RE 42,678 Claims 1, 3, 17
`
`Include key limitations
`Encompass all key issues
`
`4
`
`PETITIONERS LUMENTUM HOLDINGS
`Exhibit 1056, IPR2015-00739
`
`

`
`I. Introduction
`
`►Claim 1:
`A wavelength-separating-routing apparatus, comprising:
`“multiple fiber collimators, providing an input port … and a plurality of
`output ports” i.e.,
` collimators providing ports
`
`“a spatial array of channel micromirrors … being pivotal about two axes
`and … continuously controllable to reflect … received spectral
`channels into any selected ones of said output ports … to control the
`power of said received spectral channels” i.e.,
` 2-axis mirrors that are
`continuously controllable
`•
`for switching
`•
`to control power
`•
`
`Ex. 1001, p. 21
`
`5
`
`PETITIONERS LUMENTUM HOLDINGS
`Exhibit 1056, IPR2015-00739
`
`

`
`I. Introduction
`
`►Dependent Claim 3:
`The wavelength-separation-routing apparatus of claim 2
`wherein
`
`“said servo-control assembly comprises … a processing unit … for
`providing control of said channel micromirrors”
` servo-control
`►Dependent Claim 17:
`The wavelength-separating-routing apparatus of claim 1
`wherein
`
`“said wavelength-separator comprises … ruled diffraction grating”
` ruled diffraction grating
`
`Ex. 1001, p. 21-22
`
`6
`
`PETITIONERS LUMENTUM HOLDINGS
`Exhibit 1056, IPR2015-00739
`
`

`
`II. Overview of Adopted Challenge Bases
`
`Bouevitch Patent
`
`RE 42,678 Claim 1
`
`microlenses 12a, 12b
`
`multiple fiber collimators
`
`E.g., Petition, pp. 24-25; Decision, pp. 13-14
`
`7
`
`PETITIONERS LUMENTUM HOLDINGS
`Exhibit 1056, IPR2015-00739
`
`

`
`II. Overview of Adopted Challenge Bases
`
`Bouevitch Patent
`
`RE 42,678 Claim 1
`
`IN port 1
`
`input port
`
`E.g., Petition, p. 25; Decision, pp. 13-14
`
`8
`
`PETITIONERS LUMENTUM HOLDINGS
`Exhibit 1056, IPR2015-00739
`
`

`
`II. Overview of Adopted Challenge Bases
`
`Bouevitch Patent
`
`RE 42,678 Claim 1
`
`OUT EXPRESS port 3
`OUT DROP port 3
`
`plurality of output ports
`
`E.g., Petition, p. 25-26; Decision, pp. 13-14
`
`9
`
`PETITIONERS LUMENTUM HOLDINGS
`Exhibit 1056, IPR2015-00739
`
`

`
`II. Overview of Adopted Challenge Bases
`
`Bouevitch Patent
`
`RE 42,678 Claim 1
`
`diffraction grating 20
`
`wavelength-separator
`
`E.g., Petition, p. 26; Decision, pp. 15-17
`
`10
`
`PETITIONERS LUMENTUM HOLDINGS
`Exhibit 1056, IPR2015-00739
`
`

`
`II. Overview of Adopted Challenge Bases
`
`Bouevitch Patent
`
`RE 42,678 Claim 1
`
`spherical reflector 10
`
`beam-focuser
`
`E.g., Petition, pp. 26-27; Decision, pp. 15-17
`
`11
`
`PETITIONERS LUMENTUM HOLDINGS
`Exhibit 1056, IPR2015-00739
`
`

`
`II. Overview of Adopted Challenge Bases
`
`Bouevitch Patent
`
`RE 42,678 Claim 1
`
`reflectors 51, 52 of MEMS array 50
`
`micromirrors
`• for switching
`
`E.g., Petition, pp. 26, 28; Decision, pp. 15-17
`
`12
`
`PETITIONERS LUMENTUM HOLDINGS
`Exhibit 1056, IPR2015-00739
`
`

`
`II. Overview of Adopted Challenge Bases
`Sparks Patent
`RE 42,678 Claim 1
`
`micromirrors (16, 26) capable
`of two axis movement
`• for switching
`• for power control
`• continuously controllable
`
`micromirrors … pivotal
`about two axes
`• for switching
`• to control the power
`• continuously controllable
`
`E.g., Petition, p. 19, 29-31; Decision, pp. 15-17
`
`13
`
`PETITIONERS LUMENTUM HOLDINGS
`Exhibit 1056, IPR2015-00739
`
`

`
`II. Overview of Adopted Challenge Bases
`
`Lin Patent
`
`RE 42,678 Claim 1
`
`mirror 42
`• continuously controllable
`
`micromirrors
`• continuously controllable
`
`E.g., Petition, p. 31-37; Decision, pp. 15-17
`
`14
`
`PETITIONERS LUMENTUM HOLDINGS
`Exhibit 1056, IPR2015-00739
`
`

`
`III. Response to PO’s Arguments
`
`►Challenge Basis Does Not Combine Disparate Elements of
`Bouevitch
` Fig. 11 of Bouevitch discloses all features of claim 1 except:
`Two Axis Mirrors for Power Control
`•
`• Continuous Control of the Mirrors
`
` However:
`• Per Ground 1, Sparks discloses
` Two Axis Mirrors for Switching and Power Control
` Continuous Control of Mirrors
`
`• Per Ground 2, Lin Discloses
` Continuous Control of Mirrors
`
`Petition, pp. 19, 24-29, 31-37; Decision, pp. 13-17; Pet. Reply § II.A.1., pp. 1-2
`
`15
`
`PETITIONERS LUMENTUM HOLDINGS
`Exhibit 1056, IPR2015-00739
`
`

`
`III. Response to PO’s Arguments
`
`►Challenge Basis Does Not Combine Disparate Elements of
`Bouevitch
` Petitioner points to Sparks for two-axis mirrors for power control:
` “Thus, to the extent Bouevitch does not disclose 2-axis mirrors and
`their intended use for power control, Sparks does.” Petition, pg. 19
`
` “To any extent that Bouevitch does not teach continuous control,
`Sparks does and such continuous control would be obvious to
`implement in the MEMS mirrors of Bouevitch.” Petition, pg. 30
`
` “Sparks discusses 2-axis (two dimensional) mirror actuation for
`both switching [ ] and power control.” Petition, pg. 35
`
`Petition, pp. 19, 24-29, 31-37; Decision, pp. 13-17; Pet. Reply § II.A.1., pp. 1-2
`
`16
`
`PETITIONERS LUMENTUM HOLDINGS
`Exhibit 1056, IPR2015-00739
`
`

`
`III. Response to PO’s Arguments
`
`►Challenge Basis Does Not Combine Disparate Elements of
`Bouevitch
` Petitioner also points to Lin for continuous control of MEMS
`mirrors:
` “Under Ground 2, [Lin] also teaches continuous, analog control of
`MEMS mirrors…. As discussed below, it would have been obvious
`to combine Lin’s continuous, analog control with Bouevitch and
`Sparks.” Petition, pg. 31
`
`Petition, pp. 19, 24-29, 31-37; Decision, pp. 13-17; Pet. Reply § II.A.1., pp. 1-2
`
`17
`
`PETITIONERS LUMENTUM HOLDINGS
`Exhibit 1056, IPR2015-00739
`
`

`
`III. Response to PO’s Arguments
`
`►Challenge Basis Does Not Combine Disparate Elements of
`Bouevitch
` References to other Bouevitch embodiments are in addition to and
`ancillary to Fig. 11 challenge bases
` Presented generally as additional support of rationale for combining
`Bouevitch and power control feature of Sparks
` “Referring now to [Bouevitch] FIG. 1, an optical device for rerouting and
`modifying an optical signal … is shown that is capable of operating as a
`Dynamic Gain/Channel Equalizer (DGE) [i.e., for power control] and/or a
`Configurable Optical Add/Drop Multiplexer (COADM) [i.e., for switching]”
`Bouevitch, col. 5, ll. 15-20 (emphasis added)
`
`Petition, pp. 19, 24-37, 39-40; Decision, pp. 13-17; Pet. Reply § II.A.1., pp. 1-2
`
`18
`
`PETITIONERS LUMENTUM HOLDINGS
`Exhibit 1056, IPR2015-00739
`
`

`
`III. Response to PO’s Arguments
`
`►Challenge Basis Does Not Combine Disparate Elements of
`Bouevitch
` References to other Bouevitch embodiments are in addition to and
`ancillary to Fig. 11 challenge bases
` Presented generally as additional support of rationale for combining
`Bouevitch and power control feature of Sparks
` “[Bouevitch]FIG. 5 is a schematic diagram of another embodiment … which
`is particularly useful when the device is used as a DGE…. The degree of
`attenuation [i.e., power control] is based on the degree of deflection
`provided by the reflector… Accordingly, each sub-beam of light follows a
`first optical path to the modifying means where it is selectively switched.”
`Bouevitch, col. 7, ll. 23-60.
`
`Petition, pp. 19, 24-37, 39-40; Decision, pp. 13-17; Pet. Reply § II.A.1., pp. 1-2
`
`19
`
`PETITIONERS LUMENTUM HOLDINGS
`Exhibit 1056, IPR2015-00739
`
`

`
`III. Response to PO’s Arguments
`
`►It Was Obvious to Combine Sparks’ Two-Axis Mirrors with
`Bouevitch Fig. 11
` “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
`reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
`reference…. Rather, the test is what the combined teaching of those
`references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”
`In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)
` PO’s assertion that two-axis mirrors were complex and hard to
`implement is irrelevant under the proper obviousness test.
` PHOSITAS were capable of overcoming problems presented by technical
`issues.
`McLaughlin Depo Transcript, Ex. 2032, 125:18 – 126, ln. 10; pg. 134, ll. 11-
`19; pg. 137, ll. 16-23
`
`Petition, pp. 19-23, 28-31; Pet. Reply § II.A.2., pp. 3-4
`
`20
`
`PETITIONERS LUMENTUM HOLDINGS
`Exhibit 1056, IPR2015-00739
`
`

`
`III. Response to PO’s Arguments
`
`►It Was Obvious to Combine Sparks’ Two-Axis Mirrors with
`Bouevitch Fig. 11
` PO’s arguments ignore express statements in Sparks of
`advantages of using two-axis mirrors for power control.
` “Utilizing an optical switch in this format alleviates the
`requirement for separate optical attenuators ….” Sparks, Ex.
`1004, col. 2, ll. 28-30
` “Such attenuation is achieved without incorporating separate
`attenuator(s) within the system.” Id., col. 4, ll. 55-58
`
`Petition, pp. 19-23, 28-31; Pet. Reply § II.A.2., pp. 3-4
`
`21
`
`PETITIONERS LUMENTUM HOLDINGS
`Exhibit 1056, IPR2015-00739
`
`

`
`III. Response to PO’s Arguments
`
`►It Was Obvious to Combine Sparks’ Two-Axis Mirrors with
`Bouevitch Fig. 11
` Obvious to try
` Two-axis mirrors among a small number of known beam directing
`technologies. McLaughlin Decl., Ex. 1028, ¶ 32
` High expectation of combination success. McLaughlin Decl., Ex.
`1028, ¶ 32
`
`22
`
`PETITIONERS LUMENTUM HOLDINGS
`Exhibit 1056, IPR2015-00739
`
`

`
`III. Response to PO’s Arguments
`
`►Bouevitch Does Not Teach Away From Misalignment for Power
`Control
` PO’s Bouevitch FIG. 9 embodiment illustrates a DGE for power control having modifying
`means 950 having liquid crystal array 930 and flat mirror 940. Bouevitch, col. 12, ll. 18-37
`
` Alternative Bouevitch FIG. 9 embodiment has a modifying means comprising a MEMS
`array. Bouevitch, col. 12, ll. 35-39. Alternative embodiment with MEMS array is
`
` Substantially similar in structure to COADM switch of FIG. 11 embodiment
` Uses MEMs mirrors (instead of liquid crystal array) for power control
`McLaughlin Depo Transcript, Ex. 2032, pg. 105, ln. 6 – pg. 106, ln. 21
`
`Petition, pp. 18-23; Pet. Reply § II.B, pp. 4-5
`
`23
`
`PETITIONERS LUMENTUM HOLDINGS
`Exhibit 1056, IPR2015-00739
`
`

`
`III. Response to PO’s Arguments
`
`►Bouevitch Does Not Teach Away From Misalignment for Power
`Control
` Alternative Bouevitch FIG. 9 embodiment
` Is a DGE using MEMS
` Uses MEMs mirrors (instead of liquid crystal array) for power control
`McLaughlin Depo Transcript, Ex. 2032, pg. 105, ln. 6 – pg. 106, ln. 21
` “The prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not
`constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such
`disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution
`claimed in the application. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
`
`Petition, pp. 18-23; Pet. Reply § II.B, pp. 4-5
`
`24
`
`PETITIONERS LUMENTUM HOLDINGS
`Exhibit 1056, IPR2015-00739
`
`

`
`III. Response to PO’s Arguments
`
`►Bouevitch and Sparks are Not Incompatible Technologies
` Alternative PO’s Contention that Bouevitch and Sparks are
`incompatible because they perform attenuation “at opposite
`ends of the optical system” is untenable in view of contrary
`evidence
` Alternative Bouevitch FIG. 9 embodiment (DGE with MEMS)
`performs power control by angular misalignment of the
`mirrors
` Sparks expressly states that two-axis mirrors can be used for
`both switching and power control
`Sparks, Abstract
`
`Petition, pp. 18-23, 29-31; Pet. Reply § II.C, pp. 6-7
`
`25
`
`PETITIONERS LUMENTUM HOLDINGS
`Exhibit 1056, IPR2015-00739
`
`

`
`III. Response to PO’s Arguments
`
`►Bouevitch and Dueck are Not Incompatible Technologies
` PO’s Contention that Bouevitch and Dueck are incompatible is based
`substantially, if not solely, on the angles of light beams shown in Figs. 1A
`and 1B of Dueck and Fig. 1 of Bouevitch.
`
` However, “it is well established that patent drawings do not define the
`precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied upon to show
`particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue.”
`Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Grp. Int’l, 222 F.3d 951, 956 (Fed.
`Cir. 2000)
`
`Petition, pp. 18-23; Pet. Reply § II.D, pp. 7-8
`
`26
`
`PETITIONERS LUMENTUM HOLDINGS
`Exhibit 1056, IPR2015-00739
`
`

`
`III. Response to PO’s Arguments
`
`►Bouevitch and Dueck are Not Incompatible Technologies
` Dueck shows that ruled diffraction gratings are in a small set
`of known interchangeable choices of wavelength separators
`
` “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
`secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
`structure of the primary reference…. Rather, the test is what
`the combined teaching of those references would have
`suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”
`In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)
`
`Petition, pp. 18-23; Pet. Reply § II.D, pp. 7-8
`
`27
`
`PETITIONERS LUMENTUM HOLDINGS
`Exhibit 1056, IPR2015-00739
`
`

`
`III. Response to PO’s Arguments
`
`►Bouevitch Teaches Multiple Fiber Collimators Providing Ports
` PO’s contention that Bouevitch does not teach or suggest
`the claimed ports is based on assertions that
`
`1. Bouevitch’s collimators do not “provide” ports
`
`2. The “circulator ports” in Bouevitch are not the claimed
`“ports”
`
`3. The challenged patents disavow circulator ports
`
` Each contention is at odds with substantial evidence
`
`Petition, pp. 18, 24-26; Pet. Reply § II.E, p. 9
`
`28
`
`PETITIONERS LUMENTUM HOLDINGS
`Exhibit 1056, IPR2015-00739
`
`

`
`III. Response to PO’s Arguments
`
`►Bouevitch Teaches Multiple Fiber Collimators Providing Ports
`1. Bouevitch’s Collimators “Provide” the Ports
`
` Ordinary Meaning of “Providing”: “to supply or make
`available.” Webster’s, Ex. 1052, pg. 948
`
` PO offers no express definition of “providing”
`Implicitly argues it requires a 1:1 correspondence between
`•
`collimators and ports
`
`Petition, pp. 18, 24-26; Pet. Reply § II.E, p. 9-10
`
`29
`
`PETITIONERS LUMENTUM HOLDINGS
`Exhibit 1056, IPR2015-00739
`
`

`
`III. Response to PO’s Arguments
`
`►Bouevitch Teaches Multiple Fiber Collimators Providing Ports
`1. Bouevitch’s Collimators “Provide” the Ports
` Bouevitch ‘s microlenses 12a and 12b are fiber collimators
`McLaughlin Decl., Ex. 1028, ¶ 43
` Microlens 12a provides input port IN in conjunction with waveguide 99a
`and circulator 80a
` Microlens 12a provides output port OUT EXPRESS in conjunction with
`waveguide 99a and circulator 80a
` Microlens 12b provides output port OUT DROP in conjunction with
`waveguide 99b and circulator 80b
`
`Petition, pp. 18, 24-26; Pet. Reply § II.E, p. 10-11
`
`30
`
`PETITIONERS LUMENTUM HOLDINGS
`Exhibit 1056, IPR2015-00739
`
`

`
`III. Response to PO’s Arguments
`
`►Bouevitch Teaches Multiple Fiber Collimators Providing Ports
`1. Bouevitch’s Collimators “Provide” the Ports
` PO’s argument that Bouevitch does not disclose fiber collimators
`that “provide” the ports is
`Based on the drawing figures of the challenged patent
`•
`Based on an interpretation requiring a 1:1 correspondence between
`•
`the collimators and the ports
` PO’s argument is
`X At odds with plain and ordinary meaning of “providing”
`X At odds with the law that “it is improper to read limitations from a
`preferred embodiment described in the specification-even if it is the
`only embodiment-into the claims absent a clear indication in the
`intrinsic record that patentee intended the claims to be so limited.”
`Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 913 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
`
`Petition, pp. 18, 24-26; Pet. Reply § II.E, p. 11-12
`
`31
`
`PETITIONERS LUMENTUM HOLDINGS
`Exhibit 1056, IPR2015-00739
`
`

`
`III. Response to PO’s Arguments
`
`►Bouevitch Teaches Multiple Fiber Collimators Providing Ports
`1. Bouevitch’s Collimators “Provide” the Ports
` PO’s argument is at odds with RE 42,678, as it would exclude the Fig. 9
`embodiment of the incorporated ‘217 provisional application that shows input
`(i.e., “Add”) and output (i.e., “Drop”) ports supplied or made available through
`both physical ports and circulators (i.e., has no 1:1 relationship between ports
`and collimators)
` Such a claim interpretation that would exclude a disclosed embodiment “is
`rarely, if ever, correct and would require highly persuasive evidentiary support.”
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996)
`
`Petition, pp. 18, 24-26; Pet. Reply § II.E, p. 12-13
`
`32
`
`Provisional Appl. No. 60/277,217, Fig. 9
`
`PETITIONERS LUMENTUM HOLDINGS
`Exhibit 1056, IPR2015-00739
`
`

`
`III. Response to PO’s Arguments
`
`►Bouevitch Teaches Multiple Fiber Collimators Providing Ports
`1. Bouevitch’s Collimators “Provide” the Ports
` The claims do not recite “collimator ports”
` The challenge patents do not equate the term “port” to “collimator”
`Terms “input/output ports,” “input port” and “output ports” are used
`•
`throughout the RE 42,678 specification
`(e.g., Ex. 1001, col. 6, ll. 54-63; col. 8, ll. 17-20; col. 9, ll. 44-54)
`Term “collimator” is used separately from “port”
`(e.g., Ex. 1001, col. 6, ll. 54-63; col. 9, ll. 44-54)
` Term “collimator” is not found in RE 42, 678 challenged claims 61-65
`“It is settled law that when a patent claim does not contain a certain limitation
`•
`and another claim does, that limitation cannot be read into the former claim in
`determining either validity or infringement.”
`SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp., 775 F.2d 1107, 1122 (Fed. Cir. 1958)
`
`•
`
`Petition, pp. 18, 24-26; Pet. Reply § II.E, p. 13-14
`
`33
`
`PETITIONERS LUMENTUM HOLDINGS
`Exhibit 1056, IPR2015-00739
`
`

`
`III. Response to PO’s Arguments
`
`►Bouevitch Teaches Multiple Fiber Collimators Providing Ports
`2. “Ports” Include Circulator Ports
` Bouevitch explicitly refers to the “IN,” “IN ADD,” “OUT DROP” and
`“OUT EXPRESS” ports on the circulators shown in Fig. 11 as “ports.”
`Bouevitch, Ex. 1003, col. 14, ll. 27-36
` Articles and textbooks use the generic term “port” to define the
`points at which light enters and exits circulators.
`Ex. 1053, “Al-Assawi,” pp. 127-129
` “A three-port circulator”
`Ex. 1054, “Ramaswami,” pp. 113, 127
` “circulators: (a) three-port and
`(b) four-port”
`
`Petition, pp. 18, 24-26; Pet. Reply § II.E, p. 14
`
`34
`
`PETITIONERS LUMENTUM HOLDINGS
`Exhibit 1056, IPR2015-00739
`
`

`
`III. Response to PO’s Arguments
`
`•
`
`►Bouevitch Teaches Multiple Fiber Collimators Providing Ports
`3. PO Did Not Disavow Circulator Ports
` An intention to disavow claim scope must meet high standards
`“[M]ust be clear.”
`•
`Conoco, Inc. v. Energy & Envtl. Int’l, L.C., 460 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
`Can be demonstrated by “expression of manifest exclusion or restriction,
`representing clear disavowal of claim scope.”
`Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002)
` PO’s evidence falls short of this heavy burden, and only
`Asserts the ‘217 provisional application “criticized” the use of circulators.
`•
`PO Response, pg. 38
`Refers to its expert testimony that RE 42,678 “teaches away from the use of
`circulators.” Ex. 2022, ¶ 179
`Cites to its own press release (Business Wire, Ex. 2002) and product brochure
`(WavePath, Ex. 2003), neither of which mention “circulators”
`Cites to a publication summarizing PO’s product (Holliday R-OADMs, Ex. 2008)
`that does not mention “circulators”
`Petition, pp. 18, 24-26; Pet. Reply § II.E, pp. 14-15
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`35
`
`PETITIONERS LUMENTUM HOLDINGS
`Exhibit 1056, IPR2015-00739
`
`

`
`III. Response to PO’s Arguments
`
`►Bouevitch Teaches Multiple Fiber Collimators Providing Ports
`3. PO Did Not Disavow Circulator Ports
`The ‘217 provisional application that is incorporated into RE 42,678 undermines PO’s
`contentions that it disavowed circulator ports:
` Fig. 9 of the ‘217 provisional application shows circulators to provide ports
`
`Provisional Appl. No. 60/277,217, Fig. 9
`
` The ‘217 provisional application:
`Used the terms “add/drop ports” when referring to ports with circulators
`•
`Used the term “physical input/output ports” for ports without circulators. Ex. 1008, pg. 3
`•
` But the patentee chose not to use the word “physical” in connection with the
`claimed “ports” (i.e., did not distinguish between “circulator ports” and other
`“ports”)
`
`Petition, pp. 18, 24-26; Pet. Reply § II.E, pp. 14-16
`
`36
`
`PETITIONERS LUMENTUM HOLDINGS
`Exhibit 1056, IPR2015-00739
`
`

`
`III. Response to PO’s Arguments
`
`►Bouevitch Teaches Multiple Fiber Collimators Providing Ports
`3. PO Did Not Disavow Circulator Ports
` PO contends that the claim preambles exclude circulators because
`They require all elements to be either in a “wavelength-separating-
`•
`apparatus” or an “optical apparatus”
`• Which a PHOSITA would have understood to never include circulators
`Patent Owner Response, pp. 40-41
` Contention is at odds with PO’s own expert, who testified that
`“Bouevitch discloses a ‘Configurable Optical Add/Drop Multiplexer’
`[that] constitutes a ‘wavelength-separating-routing apparatus.’”
`Ex. 1028, ¶ 40
`• And the Bouevitch apparatus includes circulators.
`Bouevitch, Ex. 1003, Fig. 11
`
`Petition, pp. 18, 24-26; Pet. Reply § II.E, pp. 16
`
`37
`
`PETITIONERS LUMENTUM HOLDINGS
`Exhibit 1056, IPR2015-00739
`
`

`
`III. Response to PO’s Arguments
`
`►Bouevitch Reflects Light into the Ports
` PO contends that Bouevitch teaches reflecting a light beam to a lens 90, and having the
`light beam pass through a waveguide 99a or 99b, before propagating to the port. PO
`Response, pp. 45-46
`X
`In effect, PO’s argument implies a requirement that the beam be directly reflected to an
`output port
` However, PO’s contention is
`X
`Not supported by any express construction of “to reflect” that excludes propagation or
`deflection following reflection
`Inconsistent with ordinary meaning of “reflect” which includes “to throw back light.”
`Webster’s. Ex. 1052, pg. 989
`Inconsistent with RE 42,678, that shows an embodiment in Fig. 1A having a light beam that
`reflects off micromirror 103, then propagates back through both focusing lens 102 and
`quarter-wave plate 104 before being directed to an output port.
`
`X
`
`X
`
`Petition, pp. 18, 29-30; Pet. Reply § II.F, pp. 16-17
`
`RE 43,678 Fig. 1A
`
`38
`
`PETITIONERS LUMENTUM HOLDINGS
`Exhibit 1056, IPR2015-00739
`
`

`
`III. Response to PO’s Arguments
`
`►Continuous Control of Two-Axis Mirrors Was Obvious
` PO mischaracterizes the challenge bases presented in the petition and
`adopted by the Board by its arguments that Bouevitch, Sparks and Lin do
`not teach “micromirrors being pivotal about two axes and being
`continuously controllable.” PO Response, pp. 47-53
` Both the Petition and the Decision point only to Sparks as teaching MEMS
`mirrors movable in two dimensions.
`“[T]he only portion of the second part of element 1[d] not taught by
`•
`Bouevitch is a micromirror ‘pivotable about two axes.’ …. But … Sparks
`discloses such a micromirror.” Petition, pg. 33
`“Petitioner relies on the description in Sparks of a 2-axis beam deflecting
`element.” Decision, pg. 16
` There are no contentions that rely on either Bouevitch or Lin alone to
`disclose continuous control in two dimensions.
`
`•
`
`Petition, pp. 28-33; Pet. Reply § II.G, p. 17-18
`
`39
`
`PETITIONERS LUMENTUM HOLDINGS
`Exhibit 1056, IPR2015-00739
`
`

`
`III. Response to PO’s Arguments
`
`►Continuous Control of Two-Axis Mirrors Was Obvious
`
` Construction of “Continuously Controllable”
`• Board determined that no express construction was
`necessary
`Decision, pg. 10
`• Board determined that “continuously controllable” means
`“under analog control such that it can be continuously
`adjusted” in related proceeding
`IPR2014-01276, Final Written Decision, Paper 40, pg. 13
`
`Petition, pp. 28-33; Decision, p. 10; Pet. Reply § II.G, p. 17-18
`
`40
`
`PETITIONERS LUMENTUM HOLDINGS
`Exhibit 1056, IPR2015-00739
`
`

`
`III. Response to PO’s Arguments
`
`►Continuous Control of Two-Axis Mirrors Was Obvious
` Sparks teaches continuous control. McLaughlin Decl., Ex. 1028, ¶ 57
` “[C]ontrolled misalignment of the optical beam path so as to achieve a
`predetermined optical output power.”
`Sparks, Ex. 1004, col. 2, ll. 22-35
` “[E]ach of the channels passing through the switch may be attenuated to
`whatever degree necessary to achieve the desired effect.”
`Id., col. 2, ll. 22-35
` Mirrors are actuatable “to achieve any desired optical beam power output
`less than the maximum.”
`Id., col. 4, ll. 54-55
`
` PO offers no substantive contrary arguments. Says only that Sparks
`“[D]oes not necessarily teach or suggest” a continuously controllable mirror
`•
`Is “not sufficient to show,” a continuously controllable mirror.
`•
`PO Response, pp. 49-50
`
`Petition, pp. 28-33; Pet. Reply § II.G, pp. 18-19
`
`41
`
`PETITIONERS LUMENTUM HOLDINGS
`Exhibit 1056, IPR2015-00739
`
`

`
`III. Response to PO’s Arguments
`
`►Continuous Control of Two-Axis Mirrors Was Obvious
` Lin teaches continuous control. McLaughlin Decl., Ex. 1028, ¶ 59
`
` Spatial light modulator is:
` “[O]perable in analog mode for light beam steering or scanning applications.” Lin, Ex.
`1010, Abstract
` “This analog operating range is represented as angle θ, as shown in FIG. 3A. This
`corresponds to an input voltage of between 0 and 20 volts. As pixel 42 deflects angle θ,
`incident light is steered through a range of 2θ.” Id., col. 6, ln 67 – col. 7, ln. 4; Fig. 3A
` “With an address voltage being applied … from 0 to 20 volts, mirror 42 is deflected
`proportional to the address voltage.” Id., col. 7, ll. 13-15.
` Fig. 3B shows continuous relationship between deflection and applied voltage with
`the device operating range. McLaughlin Decl., Ex. 1028, ¶ 51
`Petition, pp. 28-33; Pet. Reply § II.G, pp. 19-20
`
`42
`
`PETITIONERS LUMENTUM HOLDINGS
`Exhibit 1056, IPR2015-00739
`
`

`
`III. Response to PO’s Arguments
`
`►Continuous Control of Two-Axis Mirrors Was Obvious
` Lin teaches continuous control. McLaughlin Decl., Ex. 1028, ¶ 59
`
` PO’s contention is that continuous control cannot be shown by input signal alone,
`and that it would be necessary to look at how the voltage of the input signal
`affects movement of the mirror (PO’s Response, pg. 52)
`Contention is at odds with Lin, which expressly addresses control and
`•
`movement:
` “To operate the device as a … light switch, it is desirable to precisely control the
`degree of deflection as so [sic] to precisely steer incident light.”
`Lin, Ex. 1010, col. 3, ll. 46-49
`Contention is unpersuasive in view of above-described disclosures of Lin and
`Petitioners’ expert testimony
`Petition, pp. 28-33; Pet. Reply § II.G, pp. 19-20
`
`•
`
`43
`
`PETITIONERS LUMENTUM HOLDINGS
`Exhibit 1056, IPR2015-00739
`
`

`
`III. Response to PO’s Arguments
`
`►It Was Obvious to Combine Sparks and Lin
`Petitioners have shown that it would have been obvious to substitute
`Sparks’ two-axis mirrors for the one-axis mirrors of Bouevitch for both
`switching and power control. E.g.:
` “The PHOSITA would be motivated to use the 2-axis system of Sparks
`within the system of Bouevitch for power control. “ Petition, pg. 36
` Sparks expressly states that an advantage of optical switches with two-
`axis mirrors is that attenuation (i.e., power control) can be achieved
`without the need for separate attenuators in the system. Sparks, Ex.
`1004, col. 2, ll. 28-30
` Two-axis mirrors were among a small number of well-known and
`predictable solutions for beam steering. McLaughlin Decl., Ex. 1028, ¶32
` The test for obviousness does not require a “bodily incorporation”
`standard. In re Keller, Id.
`
`Petition, pp. 20, 31-37; Pet. Reply § II.A-C, H, pp. 1-7, 20-21
`
`44
`
`PETITIONERS LUMENTUM HOLDINGS
`Exhibit 1056, IPR2015-00739
`
`

`
`III. Response to PO’s Arguments
`
`►It Was Obvious to Combine Sparks and Lin
`Petitioners have shown that it would have been obvious to incorporate Lin’s
`continuous control features into the Bouevitch and Sparks device (to the
`extent Sparks is found not to disclose that feature) E.g.:
` “[I]t would be obvious to combine Lin’s continuous, analog control with
`Bouevitch and Sparks.” Petition, pg. 31
` “Lin specifically teaches that its analog, continuous MEMS mirrors would
`be useful in optical switching applications like Bouevitch’s and Sparks’.”
`Petition, pg. 32
` The combination of Bouevitch, Sparks and Lin “would provide predictable
`results” and “would be obvious to try.” McLaughlin Decl., Ex. 1028, ¶¶ 60,
`63
` PO has not provided persuasive evidence why such a combination would
`be beyond the skills of a PHOSITA
`
`Petition, pp. 20, 31-37; Pet. Reply § II.H, pp. 21-22
`
`45
`
`PETITIONERS LUMENTUM HOLDINGS
`Exhibit 1056, IPR2015-00739
`
`

`
`III. Response to PO’s Arguments
`
`►It Was Obvious to Use Sparks’ Servo Control in Bouevitch
` Petitioners provided extensive evidence on why and how it was obvious to
`incorporate Sparks’ servo control into Bouevitch. Petition, pp. 37-44, 51, 55, 58-59.
`E.g.:
` A “PHOSITA would appreciate that the feedback-driven control of Sparks would
`improve the precision of the mirror-based switching system of Bouevitch.”
` The combination “would be straightforward and predictable.”
` “It would have been obvious to the PHOSITA to try.” McLaughlin Decl., ¶¶ 86, 93,
`78
` PO’s contentions are in conflict with express statements to the contrary in RE
`42,678:
` “The electronic circuitry and the associated signal processing algorithm/software
`for such processing unit in a servo-control system are known in the art. A skilled
`artisan will know how to implement a suitable spectral monitor along with an
`appropriate processing unit to provide a servo-control assembly in a WSP-S
`apparatus according to the present invention.” Ex. 1001, col. 12, ll. 9-15
`
`Petition, pp. 37-44, 51, 55, 58-59; Pet. Reply § II.I, pp. 22-23
`
`46
`
`PETITIONERS LUMENTUM HOLDINGS
`Exhibit 1056, IPR2015-00739
`
`

`
`III. Response to PO’s Arguments
`
`►PO’s Evidence of “Industry Adoption” is Irrelevant
` PO’s arguments regarding “industry adoption” are legally
`insufficient to overcome the strong prima facie case of obviousness
` PO offers no support that “industry adoption” constitutes evidence
`of secondary considerations.
`“[O]bjective evidence of non-obviousness [] includes factors such as
`•
`‘commercial success, long-felt but unresolved need, failure of others,
`copying and unexpected results.’” ABT Sys. LLC v. Emerson Elec. Co.,
`797 F.3d 1350, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`• PO’s arguments do not refer to “secondary considerations” or
`“objective indicia of non-obviousness”
`• PO does not cite any legal authority
`
`Pet. Reply § II.J, pp. 23
`
`47
`
`PETITIONERS LUMENTUM HOLDINGS
`Exhibit 1056, IPR2015-00739
`
`

`
`III. Response to PO’s Arguments
`
`►PO’s Evidence of “Industry Adoption” is Irrelevant
` Secondary considerations require demonstration of a nexus
`between the evid

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket