UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________________
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`________________________
`
`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
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
