United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC. AND LG
`ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`TOSHIBA SAMSUNG STORAGE TECHNOLOGY
`KOREA CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2015-01653
`Patent RE43,106
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits for October 6, 2016 Oral
`Argument
`
`
`Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC. AND LG
`ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`TOSHIBA SAMSUNG STORAGE TECHNOLOGY
`KOREA CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2015-01653
`Patent RE43,106
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits for October 6, 2016 Oral
`Argument
`
`
`
`Instituted Ground
`
`Accordingly,it is
`
`Instituted Ground
`
`obviousness of claims 7-19 over APA and Katayama;
`
`
`
`ORDEREDthat pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4, an
`
`inter partes review hereby1s instituted as to the proposed ground of
`
`2
`
`
`
`Background (Admitted
`Prior Art) of the ‘106
`patent
`
`3
`
`
`
`Conventional Optical Pickup
`Apparatus
`
`11, 21 – laser light source
`12, 22 – collimating lens
`13, 23 – beam splitter
`14 – interference filter prism
`15 – quarter-wave plate
`16 – variable aperture
`17 – objective lens
`18 – DVD
`24 – converging lens
`25 – CD - R
`26 – photodetector
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 1:62-2:50)
`
`4
`
`
`
`Conventional Optical Pickup Apparatus
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 1:47-61, emphasis added)
`
`(See also Petition at 4-5)
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 1:62-67, emphasis added)
`
`5
`
`
`
`Spherical Aberrations
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 2:37-48, emphasis added)
`
`(See also Petition at 7-8, 19-20;
`Ex. 1012 at ¶¶ 41-50 )
`
`6
`
`
`
`Spherical Aberration Solution
`
`(Petition at 5-6)
`
`7
`
`
`
`Spherical Aberration Solution
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 2:48-66, emphasis added)
`(See also Petition at 6-7)
`
`8
`
`
`
`Spherical Aberration Solution
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 2:60-66, emphasis added)
`
`(See also Petition at 6-7)
`
`9
`
`
`
`Conventional Solution Reduced Spherical
`Aberration (only difficult to mass-produce)
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 3:13-30, emphasis added; see also Petition at 7-8)
`
`10
`
`
`
`Overview of the ‘106
`patent
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`Claims 7-19 of the ’106 patent are challenged under 35 U.S.C. §
`103 over the APA and Katayama
`
`Claim 7 is the only challenged independent claim
`
`Claims 8-19 are dependent from claim 7
`
`12
`
`
`
`’106 patent – Claim 7
`
`‘106 patent — Claim 7
`
`
`
`References Cited
`
`sy
`
`WITHA
`
`Loe, Ryanggi-Do (RR
`
`Appl. New:
`Filed
`
`De
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UneStes
`. An objective lens to form beam spots of different sizes
`ee
`using correspondingfirst and secondlight beams of respec-
`
`
`
`manatee TE tively differentwavelengths. the objective lens comprising:
`
`
`108) Coben
`Se ee Aae
`S1mt Opn
`*
`:
`:
`
` ATENT DOCUM
`oa
`ak
`
`AnMEEaMeeUNAa i : a / a a ee oi)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11489,60
`2
`noses
`a a
`
`Sep. 4, 2007
`ee
`whek?VE |
`:
`Petes
`
` uments
`aaaIS fe
`fe
`.
`Related US. Patent
`4
`
`¥. Romina, sta
`ee
`dink” Oph
`
`4c
`
`ee eee aay oele Ak :
`
`nn
`i
`
`ee:
`
`reya
`A
`
`7661May 16,
`
`
`
`
`nwo mar» Examiner—Mun abas AtOCamlOntoaTTStOo: eeeeen
`
`
`
`74)
`,
`ie
`
`
`pickup appar
`|
`:
`1 ogtleal
`18, 1999, naw
`recording
`are
`eee
`Y
`.
`opdlcad
`types
`af
`
`tion of
`spp
`respective differemwaver
`
`
`oe moat
`thformtina,he opcical picks paral
`2.elii
`Pat
`
`
`
`eign Applicution F
`Homale
`=OHAL iafol
`iE
`i
`LE A ai ws!
`Li!ih
`ig aA
`
`ge ekebeng
`eae8.Ae
`os A Gua.
`1.
`i
`a4 eas
`igh sources
`cli
`7
`(KR
`
`
`Inch
`Wo cs heit boas ped hoi
`i 0
`Jens on the respect
`ein
`so
`pes ofthe apt
`
`Us.cb ‘pte psofthefh boas
`mation recording surfaces ofthe optics
`
`58)
`Field of Clas
`sresponaang
`"=
`
`See
`applicationfle fir complete sear history
`62.Cluims, § Drawing8
`
`
`
`eeee
`neoeos
`egenononerinionomninnnugunonongeaeenceaseseseeeeeeeee-
`aS
`ae
`ee i
`i _ = i
`oe
`ISISSITESSTIESTSCLeIIE1ESgEAGUSee1er010rEOEEO
`
`ceasie
`AAA
`rTP
`
`OAS | oO™ AQ
`Poe a.
`Or kt
`ee
`ee
`_
`olPad
`eee rere’
`erence
`
`a7ae
`f
`:::
`-
`:
`:
`
`ooes
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`The APA discloses all the features
`of Claim 7 except the “diffractive
`region”
`
`(‘106 patent, Fig. 2)
`
`(Petition at 17-18)
`
`14
`
`
`
`The APA discloses all the features of
`Claim 7 except the “diffractive region”
`
`[I]f one were to replace the word “diffractive” with the word “reflecting” in claim 7, it
`would merely be a description of the conventional, thin-film variable aperture 16
`integrated with objective lens 17 of the “PRIOR ART” system in FIGS. 1 and 2:
`
`7. An objective lens to form beam spots of different sizes using corresponding
`first and second light beams of respectively different wavelengths, the objective lens
`comprising:
`an inner region including an optical center of the objective lens which has an
`optical property optimized to focus the first light beam onto a first optical recording
`medium of a first thicknesses and to focus the second light beam onto a second optical
`recording medium of a second thickness other than the first thickness; and
`a diffractive reflecting region surrounding said inner region and comprising
`an optical property optimized so as to selectively diffract reflect the first and second
`light beams as a function of wavelength so as to change a numerical aperture of the
`objective lens.
`
`(Petition at 17-18)
`
`15
`
`
`
`The APA discloses all the features
`of Claim 7 except the “diffractive
`region”
`
`f
`reflective
`
`f
`reflect
`
`(‘106 patent, Fig. 2)
`
`(Petition at 17-18)
`
`16
`
`
`
`’106 patent – Diffractive Grating
`
`objective lens
`
`inner region
`
`objective lens
`
`inner region
`
`diffractive grating
`(“diffractive region”)
`
`diffractive grating
`(“diffractive region”)
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 5:11-6:52; see also Petition at 9)
`
`17
`
`
`
`’106 patent – Diffractive Grating
`
`reflective region
`
`inner region
`
`objective lens
`
`inner region
`
`diffractive grating
`(“diffractive region”)
`
`(Petition at 9)
`
`18
`
`
`
`’106 patent – Diffractive Grating
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 5:6-10, emphasis added)
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 5:31-39, emphasis added)
`(See also Petition at 8-10)
`
`19
`
`
`
`’106 patent – Diffractive Grating
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 6:8-15, emphasis added)
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 6:24-27, emphasis added)
`
`(See also Petition at 8-10)
`
`20
`
`
`
`Overview of the ’106 patent
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 6:53-63; see also Reply to POR at 5-6)
`
`21
`
`
`
`’106 patent – Diffractive Grating
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 6:53-63, emphasis added)
`(See also Reply to POR at 5-6)
`
`22
`
`
`
`The combination of the
`APA and Katayama
`render invalid claims
`7-19 of the ’106 patent
`
`23
`
`
`
`Institution Decision Findings
`
`“Under the broadest reasonable construction standard, claim
`terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would
`be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of
`the entire disclosure… We determine that no express
`construction of any terms is required at this time.”
`
`(Institution Decision at 6, emphasis added, citations omitted)
`
`24
`
`
`
`The APA discloses all the features
`of Claim 7 except the “diffractive
`region”
`
`(‘106 patent, Fig. 2)
`
`(Petition at 17-18)
`
`25
`
`
`
`Katayama discloses the
`“diffractive region”
`
`diffractive grating
`
`diffractive grating
`
`(Katayama, Fig. 30A)
`
`(Katayama, Fig. 30B)
`
`(See Petition at 21)
`
`26
`
`
`
`Katayama discloses the
`“diffractive region”
`
`(Katayama, Fig. 30A)
`
`(See Petition at 29 )
`
`27
`
`
`
`Katayama discloses the “diffractive region”
`
`(Ex. 1002 at 17:13-30, emphasis added)
`
`28
`
`
`
`Katayama discloses the “diffractive region”
`
`Katayama
`
`‘106 Patent
`
`(Ex. 1002 at 17:13-30, emphasis added)
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 6:53-63, emphasis added)
`
`29
`
`
`
`Katayama discloses the “diffractive region”
`
`(Ex. 1002 at 17:31-43, emphasis added)
`
`30
`
`
`
`Katayama discloses the “diffractive region”
`
`(Ex. 1002 at 18:31-44, emphasis added)
`
`31
`
`
`
`Katayama discloses the “diffractive region”
`
`(Ex. 1002 at 18:45-54, emphasis added)
`
`32
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Claim Construction Reads Out
`Preferred Embodiment
`
`“TSST-K’s construction requires both the first and second beams
`to be entirely diffracted outside of the zeroth order beam (e.g.,
`both beams have less than 100% transmission through the
`zeroth order beam).”
`
`(Reply to POR at 4-5)
`
`“Petitioner’s construction covers any diffraction of light according
`to wavelength.”
`(Reply to POR at 4-5)
`
`“TSST-K’s construction reads the word ‘hardly’ from the
`specification into the claims and is only supported by cherry-
`picked data which excludes the preferred embodiment.”
`(Reply to POR at 1)
`
`33
`
`
`
`“selectively diffract,” properly construed, covers
`any amount of diffraction in the 0th order
`
`The diffractive elements described in the ’106 patent are
`wavelength selective –they “selectively diffract[] the incident
`light beam according to the wavelength thereof.” See, e.g.,
`Ex. 1001, 5:6-10. That is, the fractional amount of
`diffraction (ranging anywhere from 0% to 100%) of
`an incident light beam into one or more of the various
`diffracted orders depends on the wavelength of the
`incident light beam. For instance, one wavelength may
`have a zeroth-order transmissive efficiency of ~ 100%,
`while a second wavelength has a zeroth-order transmissive
`efficiency of essentially 0%.
`
`(Ex. 1012 at ¶ 53, emphasis added)(see also Petition at 11-13)
`
`34
`
`
`
`“selectively diffract,” properly construed, covers
`any amount of diffraction in the 0th order
`
`When a beam passes through a diffractive optical element, it
`emerges as multiple beams propagating in different, albeit
`well-defined, directions. The beam that continues to
`travel in the same direction as the incident beam is
`called the zeroth-order diffracted beam. The beams
`that are nearest to (in terms of their propagation direction)
`and on opposite sides of the zeroth-order beam are the plus
`and minus first orders of diffraction. The next nearest
`beams (to the zeroth-order beam) constitute the plus and
`minus second-order beams, and so on.
`
`(Ex. 1012 at ¶ 53 n.2, emphasis added)(see also Petition at 11-13)
`
`35
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s construction requires less
`than 100% diffraction in the 0th order
`
`Q … Say the transmittance is 99.9995 percent.
`Would you consider the light to be hardly
`diffracted?
`MR. RHOA: Objection form.
`A What we can say is the majority of light
`passes through, but what it said in this patent is
`that the light completely passes through. That’s
`a hundred percent. That’s not 99.99. That’s
`-- that's completely passed.
`(Lebby Dep. at 194:22 –195:14).
`
`(Reply to POR at 10)(quoting Ex. 1021 at 194:22-195:14)
`
`36
`
`
`
`Dr. Lebby acknowledges that Katayama’s
`diffractive grating 3002 would diffract less than
`100% in the 0th order if parameters changed
`Q Okay, so if we changed lambda in
`this equation from 635 nanometers
`to 650 nanometers, then psi would
`no longer be six pi. It would be some
`different number, and the
`transmittance would no longer be
`100 percent, correct?
`
`(Ex. 1002 at 17:31-43)
`
`A It would certainly change.
`
`(Reply to POR at 15)(quoting Ex. 1021 at 182:2-7)
`
`37
`
`
`
`Dr. Lebby acknowledges that Katayama’s
`diffractive grating 3002 would diffract less than
`100% in the 0th order if parameters changed
`
`“[W]hen the wavelength is varied
`such that Φ is not a multiple of π, the
`transmittance level of the beam in
`the zeroth order drops below 100%
`(i.e., the beam is at least partially
`diffracted into an order higher than
`the zeroth order).”
`
`(Reply to POR at 14)
`
`(Ex. 1002 at 17:31-43)
`
`38
`
`
`
`Dr. Lebby acknowledges that Katayama’s
`diffractive grating 3002 would diffract less than
`100% in the 0th order if parameters changed
`
`If λ is changed from 635 nm to 650
`nm, the transmittance changes from
`100% to approximately 95%, and
`thus, there is less than 100%
`diffraction in the zeroth order for both
`beams.
`
`(Reply to POR at 14)
`
`(Ex. 1002 at 17:31-43)
`
`39
`
`
`
`Modifying Katayama to partially diffract the 635
`nm wavelength into the first order would have
`been an obvious design choice
`Q So if I had asked you to design for me a diffraction grating
`that would allow a 635 nanometer wavelength laser light to
`entirely pass through it while nearly preventing or almost
`entirely diffracting a 780 nanometer wavelength light, would
`you be able to do that?
`
`MR. RHOA: Objection form.
`
`A What you're asking is a hypothetical. What we have
`available today is Figure 6 of the '106 patent. Figure 6 of the
`’106 patent shows diffraction grating with two different
`wavelengths of light, and depending on the design of the
`groove depths, you can diffract different amounts of the
`light from each wavelength.
`
`(Reply to POR at 16)(quoting Ex. 1021 at P. 178:13 – 179:4, emphasis added)
`
`40
`
`
`
`Modifying Katayama to partially diffract the 635
`nm wavelength into the first order would have
`been an obvious design choice
`
`“[T]he amount of light that is diffracted is merely a matter of
`design that was well within skill of one of ordinary skill in the
`art. As such, modifying the grating 3002 of Katayama such
`that less than 100% of the 635 nm wavelength is transmitted
`into the zeroth order would have been an obvious design
`choice.”
`
`(Reply to POR at 17)
`
`41
`
`
`
`Diffractive gratings do not perform exactly as
`designed
`Q If you were asked to design a grating that adjusted laser
`light, how much diffraction would be required to adjust laser
`light?
`
`A Depends on the design of the grating. Let's say you
`design a grating for argument's sake hypothetically, and you
`may have slits at a certain thickness apart, slits and
`spaces, but when you fabricate it, they don't come out
`exactly the same, the performance of that grating could
`change. So there are variances in both design and the
`formation of gratings that will change the performance,
`but as it's stated in this patent, '750 patent, column 17, 635
`light seems to be designed to completely pass that light
`through the aperture in element 2801.
`
`(Reply to POR at 18)(quoting Ex. 1021 at P. 193:7-21, emphasis added)
`
`42
`
`
`
`Dependent Claims 8-12 and 14-19
`
`“Dependent claims 8-12 and 14-19 depend from independent
`claim 7. TSST-K did not present any additional arguments for
`dependent claims 8-12 and 14-19….Thus, the combination of the
`APA and Katayama renders dependent claims 8-12 and 14-19
`unpatentable for at least the reasons discussed in the petition.”
`
`(Reply to POR at 22)
`
`43
`
`
`
`’106 patent – Claim 13
`
`106 patent — Claim 13
`
`os United States
`a2 Reissued Patent
`Yooet
`
`0100000800
`:
`imPatent Number:
`US RE43,106 E
`45) Date of Rei
`Jan, 17,2012
`
`tor the first optical recording medium.
`
`13. The objective lens of claim 7, wherein the diffractive
`_) region is optimized to selectively diffract the first and second
`light beams such that the numerical aperture of the objective
`lens is greater for the second optical recording medium than
`
`44
`
`
`
`The APA and Katayama Render Claim 13
`Invalid
`
`“TSST-K contends that claim 13 requires the diffractive region to
`diffract both the first and second light beams).”
`
`(Reply to POR at 20-21)
`
`“[F]or at least the reasons discussed … [for claim 7], the
`combination of the APA and Katayama discloses that ‘the
`diffractive region is optimized to selectively diffract the first and
`second light beams.”
`
`(Reply to POR at 21)
`
`45
`
`
`
`The APA and Katayama Render Claim 13
`Invalid
`“TSST-K further contends that Dr. Mansuripur alleges in ¶ 122 of
`his declaration (Ex. 1012) that the numerical aperture for the
`second optical recording medium is already greater than for the
`first optical recording medium, and therefore, one of ordinary
`skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify
`Katayama or combine the APA with Katayama to disclose the
`features of claim 13… TSST-K appears to misinterpret claim
`13.”
`(Reply to POR at 21, emphasis added)
`
`“[C]laim 13 is directed to the numerical aperture of the
`objective lens, not the numerical apertures of storage discs
`such as DVD or CD-R.”
`
`(Reply to POR at 22, emphasis added)
`
`46
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s construction requires less
`than 100% diffraction in the 0th order
`
`650 nm
`0th
`order
`650 nm
`1st
`order
`
`650 nm
`0th
`order
`650 nm
`1st
`order
`
`According to patent owner,
`Claim 7 is not invalid if
`Katayama’s diffractive grating
`diffracts 100% of 650 nm
`wavelength in the 0th order
`
`According to patent owner,
`Claim 7 is invalid if Katayama’s
`diffractive grating diffracts
`99.95% of 650 nm wavelength
`in the 0th order (orange) and
`.05% of the 650 nm wavelength
`in the first order (red)
`(See e.g., Reply to POR at 10-11)
`
`47
`
`
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
