`________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________________
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC. and
`LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`TOSHIBA SAMSUNG STORAGE TECHNOLOGY KOREA CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`
`________________________
`
`Case IPR2015-01653
`Patent No. RE43,106
`________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNERS’ DEMONSTRATIVES FOR ORAL HEARING
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owners’ Demonstratives for Oral Hearing Case IPR2015-01653
`
` Patent RE43,106
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b) and the Board’s September 12, 2016 Order
`
`(Paper 36), Patent Owner Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea
`
`Corporation submits the enclosed demonstratives for the oral hearing scheduled for
`
`October 6, 2016.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: October 4, 2016
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Joseph A. Rhoa /
`Joseph A. Rhoa
`Reg. No. 37,515
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Patent Owners’ Demonstratives for Oral Hearing Case IPR2015-01653
`
` Patent RE43,106
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a true copy of the foregoing Patent
`
`Owners’ Demonstratives for Oral Hearing was served on Petitioners LG
`
`Electronics, Inc. and LG Electronics, U.S.A., Inc. on October 4, 2016 by emailing
`
`a copy to counsel at the email addresses listed below:
`
`btollefson@rfem.com
`slieberman@rfem.com
`mbattaglia@rothwellfigg.com
`spanda@rfem.com
`mjones@rfem.com
`
`/Joseph A. Rhoa/
`Joseph A. Rhoa
`Reg. No. 37,515
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Nixon & Vanderhye • nixonvanderhye.com
`
`U.S. Patent RE43, 106
`
`IPR 2015-01653
`
`Demonstratives
`
`Oral Hearing
`
`PATENT OWNER TSST-K
`
`
`
`IPR 2015-01653 -RE43, 106 -Patent Owner TSST ·K -Oral Hearin Demonstrative 2
`
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[IPR2015·01653 ·US RE43,106 Fig. 7]
`
`LENS
`
`OBJECTIVE
`
`REGION
`
`DIFFRACTIVE
`
`FIG. 7
`
`The Reissue '106 Patent
`
`
`
`IPR 2015-01653 -RE43, 106 -Patent Owner TSST ·K -Oral Hearin Demonstrative 3
`
`___ [IPR2015·01653 ·US RE43,106 Fig. 6] ____ [IPR2015·01653 -PO Resp. at 6]~
`
`GROOVE DEPTH
`
`locations in Fig. 6.
`
`·This occurs at most
`
`Ex. 2002at1f 19]
`[Ex. 2003 at pgs. 23, 25-26; and
`vertical axis.
`below 1 on the
`when they are both
`any groove depth
`diffracted in Fig. 6 at
`both beams are being
`both sides agree that
`
`•The experts from
`
`5
`I-
`~ o~~~._._---6.M..~._.._~
`z 0.1 -~--
`~ 0.2
`~ O.J
`Ci) 0.4
`~ 0.5
`w 0.6
` 0.7
`
`4
`
`3
`
`2
`
`1
`
`0
`
`-
`
`1
`
`650 nm
`
`780nm
`
`FIG. 6
`
`The Reissue '106 Patent
`
`z w 0.9 u 0.8
`>- (.)
`
`-~
`
`
`
`IPR 2015-01653 -RE43, 106 -Patent Owner TSST -K -Oral Hearin Demonstrative 4
`
`[Reply at 7]
`orders"
`
`[PO Response at 3-5]
`wavelengths"
`
`into one of the
`
`respective
`
`[Petition at 13]
`
`wavelengths"
`
`respective
`
`energy is diffracted
`
`beam's optical
`"0% to 100% of a
`
`according to their
`second light beams
`"diffract the first and
`
`according to their
`second light beams
`"diffract the first and
`
`REPLY BRIEF
`Construction in
`
`Petitioner's
`
`NEW
`
`Petitioner's Original
`
`Construction
`
`And RELIED On
`
`AGREED To
`Patent Owner
`
`Construction in
`
`PETITION
`
`ORIGINAL
`Petitioner's
`
`second light beams as a function of wavelength" (claim 7)
`
`Construction for "selectively diffract the first and
`
`Claim Construction
`
`
`
`IPR 2015-01653 -RE43, 106 -Patent Owner TSST -K -Oral Hearin Demonstrative 5
`
`• "selectively" emphasizes that the beams are diffracted
`
`according to their wavelengths. (E.g., '106 patent at Fig. 6)
`
`• Agreed to construction is consistent with the specification,
`
`diffracted. (E.g., '106 patent at Fig. 6; Col. 6:20-37)
`which describes embodiments where both beams are
`
`• The claim language expressly requires that BOTH the first
`
`and second light beams be diffracted.
`
`wavelengths" [Petition at 13]
`
`according to their respective
`first AND second light beams
`
`as a function of wavelength"
`first AND second light beams
`
`Agreed To Construction
`
`"diffract the
`Is Correct
`
`"selectively diffract the
`
`Claim Term
`
`The Agreed To Construction Is Correct
`
`
`
`IPR 2015-01653 -RE43, 106 -Patent Owner TSST -K -Oral Hearin Demonstrative 6
`
`• Petitioner's new construction is unreasonably broad and
`
`ignores express limitations recited in claim 7.
`
`• "a beam" ignores the claim's requirement to diffract
`
`TWO beams
`
`removing this claim term.
`covers NO DIFFRACTION (0°/o) of both beams, effectively
`• Petitioner's new construction improperly and unreasonably
`• 0% of anything is nothing.
`• 0°/o improperly reads "diffract" out of the claim.
`
`the orders" [Reply at 7]
`
`energy is diffracted into one of
`"0% to 100% of a beam's optical
`
`as a function of wavelength"
`first AND second light beams
`
`"selectively diffract the
`
`INCORRECT Construction
`
`Petitioner's New
`
`On Reply
`
`Claim Term
`
`Petitioner's New Reply Brief Construction Is Wrong
`
`
`
`IPR 2015-01653 -RE43, 106 -Patent Owner TSST -K -Oral Hearin Demonstrative 7
`
`rewrite the claim.
`
`express claim limitations and
`
`beams is not a reason to ignore
`references fails to diffract both
`
`their chosen combination of
`
`Petitioner's realization that
`
`
`
`IPR 2015-01653 -RE43, 106 -Patent Owner TSST -K -Oral Hearin Demonstrative 8
`
`• Petitioner's new "0°/o" construction unreasonably means
`
`• Petitioner's new construction conflicts with the
`that light that "completely passes" !.§.diffracted.
`
`testimony of its own expert.
`
`at p. 13.]
`passes" IS NOT diffracted. [Ex. 2003 Mansuripur Dep.
`• Petitioner's expert testified that light which "completely
`
`the orders" [Reply at 7]
`
`energy is diffracted into one of
`"0% to 100% of a beam's optical
`
`as a function of wavelength"
`first AND second light beams
`
`"selectively diffract the
`
`INCORRECT Construction
`
`Petitioner's New
`
`On Reply
`
`Claim Term
`
`Petitioner's New Reply Brief Construction Is Wrong
`
`
`
`IPR 2015-01653 -RE43, 106 -Patent Owner TSST -K -Oral Hearin Demonstrative 9
`
`[IPR2015-01653 Ex. 2003 -Mansuripur Dep. at 11:12-21,13:8-17]
`
`being diffracted.
`I think in this context it means that the light goes through without
`
`A
`MR. JONES: Objection, form.
`Q What does completely passes mean to you?
`
`A Same paragraph says, Line 19, starting on Line 19, "The grating 3002
`
`completely passes the 635-nanometer wavelength light."
`
`Q And what does the grating do with respect to the 635-nanometer
`
`wavelength?
`
`A Sure.
`
`Q Can you please review that entire paragraph which goes from Column 17,
`A Yes.
`Q You see that paragraph that begins with "Figure 30A"?
`A Yes.
`Q
`
`In Katayama can you please refer to Column 17, around Line 13?
`
`Line 12 or 13 up to Line 30?
`
`With The Testimony Of Its Own Expert
`Petitioner's New Reply Brief Construction Conflicts
`
`
`
`IPR 2015-01653 -RE43, 106 -Patent Owner TSST -K -Oral Hearin Demonstrative 10
`
`[IPR2015-01653 Ex. 2001 -Excerpt from Webster's Dictionary (1997)]
`
`M:~_""rl.~ i.n. light ~d·ves to a ban·ded p_a·tter~ o~-t9 a. spectru~rL :·
`;):_J;~bstacle, as· an object, sht: .or g~~.Ung, u~ tn~ pa_th· ~f p~opagat~ont'· giving
`::·.-~Jf.~1rac·;tion (~i" (ral«~he~), .. ~· a modu.latiort ~f ~~y~s ~-"-·~esp<?."~ to· ~n:
`
`.·~ . .
`
`=" .·
`
`_
`
`·= • ._
`
`• Petitioner's new construction conflicts with the
`
`definition of diffraction:
`
`the orders" [Reply at 7]
`
`energy is diffracted into one of
`"0% to 100% of a beam's optical
`
`as a function of wavelength"
`first AND second light beams
`
`"selectively diffract the
`
`INCORRECT Construction
`
`Petitioner's New
`
`On Reply
`
`Claim Term
`
`Petitioner's New Reply Brief Construction Is Wrong
`
`
`
`IPR 2015-01653 -RE43, 106 -Patent Owner TSST -K -Oral Hearin Demonstrative 11
`
`[Reply at 7]
`orders"
`· to one oft
`
`[PO Response at 3-5]
`wavelengths"
`
`respective
`
`[Petition at 13]
`
`wavelengths"
`
`respective
`
`cted
`
`ti cal
`
`according to their
`second light beams
`"diffract the first and
`
`according to their
`second light beams
`"diffract the first and
`
`Petitioner's
`
`NEW
`
`Petitioner's Original
`
`Construction
`
`And RELIED On
`
`AGREED To
`Patent Owner
`
`Construction in
`
`PETITION
`
`ORIGINAL
`Petitioner's
`
`second light beams as a function of wavelength" (claim 7)
`
`Construction for "selectively diffract the first and
`
`Claim Construction
`
`
`
`IPR 2015-01653 -RE43, 106 -Patent Owner TSST -K -Oral Hearin Demonstrative 12
`
`[Paper 7 at 5-13]
`
`and Katayama (US 5,696,750)
`
`over APA (' 106 patent at 1 :58-3:29, Figs. 1-2)
`
`The PTAB instituted under §103
`
`Instituted Ground
`
`
`
`IPR 2015-01653 -RE43, 106 -Patent Owner TSST -K -Oral Hearin Demonstrative 13
`
`~21.
`~22
`
`\
`\
`
`I
`I
`
`t
`
`23
`
`26
`
`L/25
`,..,
`
`14
`
`(PRIOR ART)
`FIG. I
`
`19
`
`US RE43,106 l
`
`Sheet 1 of 5
`
`Jan. 17, 2012
`
`U.S. Patent
`
`Admitted Prior Art (APA)
`
`
`
`IPR 2015-01653 -RE43, 106 -Patent Owner TSST -K -Oral Hearin Demonstrative 14
`
`nonnn1.Jg:h
`
`3001
`
`:.
`
`j
`
`01
`
`'.'
`1:
`,
`
`1,
`1·
`
`3002
`
`3003·1
`
`02
`
`Fig. 308
`
`r~pnnnn
`14
`
`2801
`
`I
`
`Fig. 30A
`
`APA.
`objective lens in the
`2801 on an
`limiting element
`used aperture
`obvious to have
`would have been
`contends that it
`Katayama and
`Figures 29-31 of
`
`• Petitioner relies on
`
`Katayama
`
`
`
`IPR 2015-01653 -RE43, 106 -Patent Owner TSST -K -Oral Hearin Demonstrative 15
`
`• This weighs in favor of patentability.
`
`• The examiner twice allowed the challenged
`
`claims over this art.
`
`of the '106 patent.
`by the examiner during original prosecutions
`
`•APA and Katayama were both considered
`
`Claim 7
`The Alleged §103 Combination Fails To Meet
`
`
`
`IPR 2015-01653 -RE43, 106 -Patent Owner TSST -K -Oral Hearin Demonstrative 16
`
`claim 7.
`
`• Even the alleged combination fails to meet
`
`Mansuripur Dep. at 11-13)
`2002, Lebby Dec. at 1J1J 23-30; Ex. 2003 -
`does NOT diffract both light beams. (Ex.
`objective lens in the alleged combination
`
`• The experts from both sides agree that the
`
`Claim 7
`The Alleged §103 Combination Fails To Meet
`
`
`
`IPR 2015-01653 -RE43, 106 -Patent Owner TSST ·K -Oral Hearin Demonstrative 17
`
`claim 7 therefore would not be met. __ [IPR2015·01653 -Ex 2002 Lebby Dec. at 1J27]
`
`objective lens from the APA, only one of the two beams would be diffracted, and
`
`beam. Accordingly, even ifKatayama'e element 2801 were provided on an
`
`Element 2801 in Kayama diffracts one beam, but completely passes the other
`
`diffracted in Katayama, because it "completely passes" through the grating.
`
`Katayama at 16:54-60_ regarding reflection. Thus, the 635 nm beam is not
`
`the 785 nm wavelength light thereby." Katayama at col. 17: 12-27. See also
`
`wavelength light therethrough, while the grating 3002 almost completely diffracts
`
`explains that the grating 3 002 of element 2801 "completely passes the 63 5 nm
`
`is adjusted. Katayama at col. 1 :54-59. Referring to Figs. 28-30, Katayama
`
`beams as called for in claiin 7. Katayama initially explains that "only one" beam
`
`provided on an objective lens in the APA, ele1nent 2801 would not diffract both
`
`lens in the APA, claim 7 still would not be met. If Katayama's ele1nent 2801 were
`
`27. However, ifI<atayama's element 2801 were provided on an objective
`
`Declaration of Dr. Lebby
`
`
`
`IPR 2015-01653 -RE43, 106 -Patent Owner TSST -K -Oral Hearin Demonstrative 18
`
`[IPR2015-01653 Ex. 2003 -Mansuripur Dep. at 11: 12-21, 13:3-17]
`
`d iff ra cted.
`I think in this context it means that the light goes through without being
`
`A
`MR. JONES: Objection, form.
`Q What does completely passes mean to you?
`
`A Same paragraph says, Line 19, starting on Line 19, "The grating 3002
`Q And what does the grating do with respect to the 635-nanometer wavelength?
`
`completely passes the 635-nanometer wavelength light."
`
`A That's what it says in this paragraph. It says, "grating 3002 almost completely
`Q So the 785-nanometer wavelength is diffracted; is that right?
`
`diffracts the 785-nanometer wavelength."
`
`A Sure.
`
`Q Can you please review that entire paragraph which goes from Column 17,
`A Yes.
`Q You see that paragraph that begins with "Figure 30A"?
`A Yes.
`Q
`
`In Katayama can you please refer to Column 17, around Line 13?
`
`Line 12 or 13 up to Line 30?
`
`Testimony of Dr. Mansuripur
`
`
`
`IPR 2015-01653 -RE43, 106 -Patent Owner TSST -K -Oral Hearin Demonstrative 19
`
`beams are not diffracted.
`claim 7, because BOTH
`decision fails to meet to
`
`the petition and institution
`combination discussed in
`
`Even the alleged
`
`Claim 7
`The Alleged §103 Combination Fails To Meet
`
`
`
`IPR 2015-01653 -RE43, 106 -Patent Owner TSST -K -Oral Hearin Demonstrative 20
`
`• These additional new arguments by petitioner on
`
`reply are both incorrect and untimely.
`
`-Fabricating imperfections could result in diffraction of
`
`both beams [Reply at p. 17-19]
`
`-Modifying Katayama to diffract both beams as a matter
`
`of "design choice." [Reply at p. 15-17]
`
`-Changing the 635 nm wavelength in the alleged
`
`combination to 650 nm. [Reply at p. 13-15]
`
`NEW arguments in its Reply Brief:
`argument, Petitioner also makes the following
`
`• In addition to its new claim construction
`
`By Petitioner On Reply
`Additional New And Incorrect Arguments