throbber
Case IPR2016-00013
`Patent No. 7,128,988
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Attorney Docket No. LMBTH M.10-001
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL
`
`__________________
`
`TDK CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`LAMBETH MAGNETIC STRUCTURES LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`__________________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. 2016-00013
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,128,988
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO PETITION
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,128,988
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00013
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iii
`
`EXHIBIT LIST ........................................................................................................ iv
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`OVERVIEW OF U.S. PATENT 7,128,988 .................................................... 3
`
`III.
`
`PETITIONER’S BURDEN ............................................................................. 7
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 8
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`V.
`
`PETITIONER FAILED TO PROVIDE A PROPER
`INHERENCY ANALYSIS FOR EACH OF ITS GROUNDS ..................... 13
`
`VI. GROUNDS .................................................................................................... 15
`
`A. Ground 1: Shen In View Of Dill Does Not Invalidate
`
`Standard For Claim Construction ................................................................... 9
`“Uniaxial” ............................................................................................................. 10
`Claims 1 And 27 ................................................................................................. 17
`
`1.
`
`Shen Does Not Disclose A “bcc-d” Layer That Is
`“Uniaxial” ................................................................................. 17
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Dill Does Not Remedy Shen’s Lack Of Disclosure
`Of A “bcc-d” Layer That Is “Uniaxial” Because
`Dill Also Lacks Such Layer ...................................................... 24
`
`Shen Does Not Disclose A “Symmetry Broken
`Structure” .................................................................................. 28
`
`A Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art Would Not
`Modify Shen With The Teachings Of Dill To
`Create The Claimed “Uniaxial” “bcc-d Layer”
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00013
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`Because The Teachings Of Shen And Dill Are
`Incompatible .............................................................................. 33
`
`Ground 2: Dill In View Of Shen Does Not Invalidate
`Claims 1, 3, 6-11, 13, 14, 17-19, 22, 24, 27-30, 34, and
`38 for failure to disclose a “bcc-d layer” which is
`
`“Uniaxial” ............................................................................................................. 38
`
`1.
`
`Dill Does Not Disclose An Interface Layer Having
`“bcc-d” Structure....................................................................... 38
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Dill Does Not Disclose An Interface Layer That Is
`Uniaxial ..................................................................................... 51
`
`Shen Does Not Remedy Dill’s Failure to Disclose
`A Symmetry Broken Structure.................................................. 51
`
`A Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art Would Not
`Modify Shen With The Teachings Of Dill To
`Create The Claimed “Uniaxial” “bcc-d Layer”
`Because The Teachings Of Shen And Dill Are
`Incompatible .............................................................................. 52
`
`Ground 3: Dill, Shen And Heim Do Not Invalidate
`Claims 12, 15, 16, 21, And 23 Because Heim Does Not
`Remedy The Deficiencies Of Dill And Shen, And
`
`D. Ground 4: Dill, Shen And Lambeth I Do Not Invalidate
`Claims 2, 25, 26, And 31 Because Lambeth I Does Not
`Remedy The Deficiencies Of Dill And Shen, And
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`E.
`
`
`
`Would Also Not Be Combined With Them .............................................. 53
`Would Also Not Be Combined With Them .............................................. 54
`Combined With Them ...................................................................................... 55
`
`Ground 5: Dill, Shen And Noguchi Do Not Invalidate
`Claim 39 Because Noguchi Does Not Remedy The
`Deficiencies Of Dill And Shen, And Would Also Not Be
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00013
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`VII. DEFICIENCIES WITH THE PETITION WARRANTING
`DENIAL OF GROUNDS 1-5 ........................................................................ 57
`
`for Adopting Redundant Grounds of Rejection. ...................................... 57
`
`A.
`
`The Petition Fails to Identify Any Compelling Rationale
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 60
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00013
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`CASES
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. C-Cation Tech, LLC,
`IPR2014-00454 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2014) ........................................................... 8
`
`Page(s)
`
`Epistar, et al. v. Trustees of Boston University,
`IPR2013-00298 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 15, 2103) ......................................................... 37
`
`Illumina, Inc. v. Trustees of Columbia Univ.,
`IPR2012-00006 (P.T.A.B. May 10, 2013) ......................................................... 57
`
`Intellicall, Inc. v. Phonometrics, Inc., 952 F.2d 1384, 1387-88,
`21 U.S.P.Q.2d 1383, 1386 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ....................................................... 10
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 9
`
`In re Oelrich,
`666 F.2d 578, 581 (C.C.P.A. 1981) .................................................................... 15
`
`Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co.,
`CBM 2012-00003 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2012) ...................................................... 57
`
`OSRAM Sylvania, Inc. v. Am. Induction Techs., Inc.,
`701 F.3d 698 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................ 38
`
`Par Pharma., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc.,
`773 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ...................................................................passim
`
`In re Paulsen,
`30 F.3d 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1994) .............................................................................. 9
`
`Sandoz Inc. v. EKR Therapeutics, LLC,
`IPR2015-00007, (P.T.A.B. Apr. 24, 2015) ......................................................... 14
`
`STATUTES, RULES & OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................................................................................. 17, 38
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00013
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ..................................................................................................... 2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) ................................................................................................. 7
`
`35 U.S.C. § 313 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314 .......................................................................................................... 3
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ..................................................................................................... 7
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................ 9
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) ............................................................................................ 7
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107 ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b) .................................................................................................. 58
`
`Manual of Patent Examining Procedures § 2111 ...................................................... 9
`
`Standing Order ¶ 121.5.2 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 8, 2011) ..................................................... 8
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00013
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`Exhibit # Description
`J. Shen et al., “Magnetic Moment of fcc Fe(111) Ultrathin Films by
`2001
`Ultrafast Deposition on Cu(111),” Physical Review Letters, Vol. 80,
`No. 9, 2 March 1998
`S. Chikazumi, “Physics of Ferromagnetism,” pp. i-xii, 249-342
`[chapters 12-13], Second Edition, 1997
`C. Boelgin et al., “In-plane magnetocrystalline anisotropy observed
`on Fe/Cu(111) nanostructures grown on stepped surfaces," Physical
`Review B Vol. 66, 014439, July 2002
`T. P. Drüsedau et al., "Energy transfer into the growing film during
`sputter deposition: An investigation by calorimetric measurements
`and Monte Carlo simulations," Journal of Vacuum Science &
`Technology A 17, 2896, 1999
`2005 M. T. Kief and W. F. Egelhoff, Jr., "Growth and structure of Fe and
`Co thin films on Cu(111), Cu(100), and Cu(110):A comprehensive
`study of metastable film growth" Physical Review B Vol 47, No. 16,
`15 APRIL 1993-II
`J. Shen et al., "TOPICAL REVIEW” “The effect of spatial
`confinement on magnetism: films, stripes and dots of Fe on
`Cu(111)", J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 15, pages R1–R30, 2003
`J. Shen et al. "Magnetism in one dimension: Fe on Cu(111),"
`Physical Rev. B VOL 56, No. 5, p2340, 1 Aug. 1997-I
`J.A.Thornton “Influence of apparatus geometry and deposition
`conditions on the structure and topography of thick sputtered
`coatings,” Journal of Vacuum Science and Technology, vol. 11,
`issue 4, p. 666, 1974
`F. Pan et al., “Magnetic properties of fcc iron in Fe fcc metal
`multilayers,” Thin Solid Films, 334, pages 196-200, 1998
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00013
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Patent Owner Lambeth Magnetic Structures, LLC (“Lambeth”) submits the
`
`following preliminary response (“Preliminary Response”) to the Petition in
`
`IPR2016-00013 (the “Petition”) filed by TDK Corporation (“Petitioner” or
`
`“TDK”) for Inter Partes Review of claims 1-3, 6-19, 21-31, 34, 38, and 39 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,128,988 (“the ‘988 Patent” Exh.1001). As the Patent Trial And
`
`Appeal Board (“PTAB”) filed the Notice Of Filing Date Accorded To Petition
`
`(Paper No. 3) on October 15, 2015, this Preliminary Response is timely under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 313 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.107.
`
`Petitioner raises five obviousness grounds in its Petition seeking to
`
`invalidate claims 1-3, 6-19, 21-31, 34, 38, and 39 of the ‘988 Patent: (1) Ground 1
`
`relies on Shen (Exh. 1011) as a primary reference and Dill (Exh. 1009) as a
`
`secondary reference; and (2) Grounds 2 – 5 rely on Dill as a primary reference and
`
`Shen, along with three other references, as secondary references (Heim, Lambeth I
`
`and Noguchi). (See Pet. 15) Each of Petitioner’s grounds with respect to each
`
`challenged independent claim relies on drawing undisclosed conclusions based on
`
`the information disclosed in the art.
`
`Despite the fact that certain claim limitations are not explicitly disclosed in
`
`both Shen and Dill—neither Shen nor Dill disclose the “uniaxial” limitation, Shen
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00013
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`does not disclose the “symmetry broken structure” limitations, and Dill does not
`
`disclose the “bcc-d layer” limitation – Petitioner erroneously draws the conclusion
`
`that the art teaches these limitations. That is, Petitioner must rely upon the
`
`doctrine of inherency to make its case, which requires that undisclosed features of
`
`the claimed invention must be “necessarily present” in the single reference at issue
`
`or the “natural result” of an obviousness combination. As discussed below,
`
`Petitioner does not, and cannot, show that these missing features are inherent in
`
`Shen and Dill, and for that reason alone, inter partes review should not be
`
`instituted.
`
`Additionally, each of Petitioner’s grounds relies on an improper claim
`
`construction. As is explained in detail below, the inventor specifically defined the
`
`“uniaxial” limitation in the specification, which Petitioner ignores.
`
`Moreover, one skilled in the art would not have been motivated to combine
`
`Shen and Dill. The pertinent question in any obviousness analysis is not whether
`
`the claimed elements were each independently known, but rather, “if the
`
`differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the
`
`claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing
`
`date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which
`
`the claimed invention pertains.” 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (emphasis added). Each of
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00013
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`Petitioner’s grounds fails under that standard because Petitioner does not provide
`
`any legitimate rationale for combining the references in question. Accordingly, for
`
`the reasons discussed in this response (which are not meant to be exhaustive),
`
`Lambeth respectfully submits that Claims 1-3, 6-19, 21-31, 34, 38 and 39 are
`
`patentable over each of Petitioner’s proffered obviousness combinations. The
`
`Board should therefore not institute inter partes review of the challenged claims
`
`because Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that it would
`
`prevail with respect to any of the claims challenged in the Petition. See
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314.
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF U.S. PATENT 7,128,988
`
`The inventor of the ‘988 Patent, Dr. David Lambeth, is a professor emeritus
`
`of Electrical and Computer Engineering and Material Science and Engineering
`
`Departments at Carnegie Mellon University. Dr. Lambeth holds a Bachelor of
`
`Science degree in Electrical Engineering from the University of Missouri, 1969, as
`
`well as a Ph.D in solid state physics from the Physics Department of Massachusetts
`
`Institute of Technology, 1973. Dr. Lambeth’s Ph.D thesis was on critical
`
`phenomena of magnetic materials. In total, Dr. Lambeth has worked in the field of
`
`magnetism, magnetic materials, and data storage for over 45 years. He is an
`
`inventor on over 40 U.S. Patents and an author of over 100 reviewed publications.
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00013
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`Dr. Lambeth was also an associate director of the Data Storage Systems Center at
`
`Carnegie Mellon University, which is a world leading academic research
`
`institution in data storage technology including magnetic data storage technology
`
`for the hard disk drive application as well as optical disk storage technology and
`
`emerging solid-state memory technologies. After obtaining his Ph.D. and working
`
`in industrial research and management for over 15 years, Dr. Lambeth joined
`
`Carnegie Mellon University. There he taught undergraduate and graduate level
`
`courses for over 20 years, including graduate level courses in the physics of
`
`magnetism, magnetic materials and applied magnetism.
`
`Because of his experience, Dr. Lambeth is very knowledgeable in the field
`
`of magnetic materials and he recognized that he was not inventing in a vacuum.
`
`Accordingly, the specification of the ‘988 Patent details prior art technology,
`
`literature, and patents that existed prior to the August 29, 2001 effective filing date
`
`in order to explain the benefits of the inventions claimed in the ‘988 Patent over
`
`that prior art. (Exh.1001, at cols.1-12.) The focus and theme of much of that
`
`description is the challenge associated with controlling the magnetic orientation or
`
`anisotropy directions of magnetic thin films to achieve a desired in-plane uniaxial
`
`anisotropy resulting in improved magnetic device properties. (See, e.g., id. at 1:35-
`
`53, 12:67-13:2.)
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00013
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`Magnetic anisotropy (anti-isotropic) generally refers to the property of a
`
`magnetic material to have its magnetization oriented along a preferred direction or
`
`directions, but more importantly not having its orientation along other non-
`
`preferred directions when there is no applied magnetic field. (Id. 1:31-38.) When
`
`the magnetization is oriented along a preferred direction, the magnetic anisotropic
`
`energy of the system is at a minimum. When the magnetization is oriented along a
`
`non-preferred direction the magnetic anisotropy energy of the system is at a
`
`maximum. (Id. 1:35-42.) The preferred and non-preferred directions are generally
`
`referred to as magnetic easy axes and hard axes, respectively. (Id. 1:39-42.)
`
`“Uniaxial” anisotropy is a very special case of anisotropy and is defined in the
`
`‘988 Patent “to exist if the anisotropy energy function only contains a single
`
`maximum and single minimum as the magnetization angle, θ, is rotated by 180
`
`degrees from a physical axis.” (Id. 1:56-60.)
`
`Another property of magnetic films relates to the concept that “thin films
`
`prefer to grow with the atoms arranged on the thin film surface to minimize the
`
`atomic bonding energy.” (Id. 9:15-17.) In this regard, the crystalline structure of a
`
`second material that is grown on an underlayer of a first material can be controlled
`
`by the crystalline structure of the first material. (Id. 9:38-10:23.) The underlying
`
`first material is commonly referred to as a template.
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00013
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`When a second material having a body centered cubic (bcc) lattice structure
`
`(or a bcc derivative) is grown upon a first material having a face centered cubic
`
`(fcc) lattice structure with (111) crystalline texture (or a hexagonal close packed
`
`(hcp) lattice with (0002) crystalline texture) (i.e., a hexagonal atomic template),
`
`there are a limited number of ways that the bcc material is structurally oriented on
`
`the template material. (Id. 10:39-41.) One set of possible structural orientations of
`
`the first material is referred to as the six crystallographic “variants” (also known as
`
`Kurdjumov–Sachs (KS) or crystalline domains). (Id.) These six possible variants
`
`are the focus of ‘988 Patent. When all six of these variants occur in equal volumes
`
`on a template, the structure is said to be symmetrical. When less than six variants
`
`occur or when the volumes of the variants are not all equal, the structure is said to
`
`be symmetry broken. (Id. 23:38-41.) Each independent claim of the ‘988 Patent;
`
`namely, claims 1 and 27, captures the unique aspects of Dr. Lambeth’s invention
`
`of a uniaxial magnetic “bcc-d layer” with a “symmetry broken structure,” in accord
`
`with the definition in the ‘988 Patent of “uniaxial.”
`
`Claim 1 is illustrative and recites:
`1. A magnetic material structure comprising:
`a substrate;
`at least one bcc-d layer which is magnetic, forming a uniaxial symmetry
`broken structure; and
`at least one layer providing a (111) textured hexagonal atomic template
`disposed between said substrate and said bcc-d layer.
`6
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00013
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`(Exh.1001, at claim 1)
`
`III. PETITIONER’S BURDEN
`
`An inter partes review may be instituted when “the information presented in
`
`the petition . . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner
`
`would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”
`
`See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (emphasis added). Any petition for inter partes review
`
`must “identif[y] . . . with particularity . . . the grounds on which the challenge to
`
`each claim is based.” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3). As such, it is the petitioner’s burden
`
`to “specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or
`
`printed publications relied upon.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4).
`
`Petitioner has not satisfied this burden. Here, Petitioner’s attempt to satisfy
`
`its burden relies primarily on two references (Shen and Dill), its own claim
`
`construction for “uniaxial,” and the testimony of its expert Dr. Sinclair. But, as
`
`will be described herein, the two references, alone or in combination, do not
`
`disclose all the elements of any of the claims and in fact, Petitioner must prove that
`
`certain undisclosed features are inherent, which it has failed to do; and Petitioner’s
`
`claim construction for “uniaxial” is improper even under the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation standard.
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00013
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`It is Petitioner's duty to provide sufficient grounds for the institution of a
`
`review “focus[ing] on concise, well organized, easy-to-follow arguments supported
`
`by readily identifiable evidence of record.” Cisco Sys., Inc. v. C-Cation Tech,
`
`LLC, IPR2014-00454, Paper No. 12, at 11 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2014). If the
`
`Petitioner cannot provide such sufficient grounds, as in the present Petition, the
`
`Board “will not take on the role of advocate for a party, trying to make out a case
`
`the party has not adequately stated.” (Standing Order ¶ 121.5.2 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 8,
`
`2011).)
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`The claim construction advanced by the Petitioner for the term “uniaxial” is
`
`improper under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard because it ignores
`
`the explicit definition that the patentee, as his own lexicographer, expressly
`
`provided in the specification of the ‘988 Patent. Instead, the Petitioner has crafted
`
`its own definition according to its needs, since it cannot argue that the prior art
`
`expressly or inherently teaches the “uniaxial” limitation as properly construed.
`
`Nor does the declaration of Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Sinclair, salvage its position, as
`
`Dr. Sinclair does not explain how Petitioner’s construction is equivalent to the
`
`express definition in the patent—a definition Dr. Sinclair himself recognized.
`
`(Exh.1006 ¶¶ 23, 68.) Because Petitioner fails to properly construe this claim term,
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00013
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`and because its analysis depends on its erroneous construction, its Petition should
`
`be rejected.
`
`A.
`
`Standard For Claim Construction
`
`An unexpired claim subject to inter partes review is given its “broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it
`
`appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). “That is not to say, however, that the Board may
`
`construe claims during [an] IPR so broadly that its constructions are unreasonable
`
`under general claim construction principles.” Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`
`789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation,
`
`words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is
`
`inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP § 2111.01 I. An applicant is
`
`entitled to be his or her own lexicographer and may rebut the presumption that the
`
`claim terms are to be given their ordinary and customary meaning by clearly
`
`setting forth a definition of the term that is different from its ordinary and
`
`customary meaning(s) in the specification at the time of filing. See MPEP
`
`§ 2111.01 IV.A; In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (holding that
`
`an inventor may define specific terms used to describe an invention, but must do so
`
`‘with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision’ and, if done, must ‘set out
`
`his uncommon definition in some manner within the patent disclosure’ so as to
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00013
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`give one of ordinary skill in the art notice of the change in meaning)
`
`(quoting Intellicall, Inc. v. Phonometrics,
`
`Inc., 952 F.2d 1384, 1387-88,
`
`21 U.S.P.Q.2d 1383, 1386 (Fed. Cir. 1992)).
`
`Lambeth reserves the right to offer its own proposed construction in the
`
`event that an inter partes review is instituted. In addition, Lambeth reserves the
`
`right to advocate a different construction for any term construed during these
`
`proceedings in District Court or other proceedings in which construction of claim
`
`terms may be required.
`
`B.
`
`“Uniaxial”
`
`Petitioner
`
`improperly
`
`interprets “uniaxial”
`
`to mean “a single easy
`
`magnetization axis aligned in a particular direction.” ( Pet. 12.) This interpretation
`
`is improper under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard as it ignores
`
`aspects of the explicit definition of “uniaxial” provided in the specification of the
`
`‘988 Patent. Petitioner relies on its improper definition for all of its obviousness
`
`grounds. Such reliance renders the Petition fatally defective.
`
`Dr. Lambeth chose to be his own lexicographer when he defined “uniaxial.”
`
`At Exhibit 1001, at 1:56-60, the specification states (emphasis added): “Here, we
`
`define a ‘uniaxial’ anisotropy to exist if the anisotropy energy function only
`
`contains a single maximum and single minimum as the magnetization angle, θ, is
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00013
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`rotated by 180 degrees from a physical axis.” The specification therefore provides
`
`an explicit definition for “uniaxial.”
`
`Even while acknowledging that “the ‘988 Patent presents a mathematical
`
`definition of ‘uniaxial anisotropy,’ in terms of an ‘energy density function’ having
`
`‘a single maximum and a single minimum,’” Petitioner stays clear of adopting this
`
`definition. (Pet. 13 ll.6-10; see also Exh.1006 [Decl. of Dr. Sinclair] ¶ 23.)
`
`Instead, Petitioner proffers its own interpretation of “uniaxial” that is far broader
`
`than the specification’s definition.
`
` Without such an unreasonably broad
`
`interpretation, i.e., “a single easy magnetization axis aligned in a particular
`
`direction” (See Pet. 12-13 (citing Exh.1006 ¶¶ 23, 68,71 [Decl. of Dr. Sinclair])),
`
`Petitioner would lack a basis for its invalidity positions.
`
`Petitioner’s proposed interpretation of the explicit definition of “uniaxial”
`
`(Exh.1001, at 1:56-60 (’988 Patent)) is unreasonably broad and so fails on two
`
`scores. First, Petitioner’s interpretation ignores the “single maximum” in the
`
`anisotropy energy function aspect of the specification’s definition. Petitioner’s and
`
`Dr. Sinclair’s interpretation apparently equates the “single minimum” in the
`
`anisotropy energy function with a “single easy magnetization axis” while
`
`simultaneously failing to account for “a single maximum” in the anisotropy energy
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00013
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`function aspect of the specification’s definition, which Petitioner would have
`
`probably equated to a “single hard magnetization axis.”
`
`Second, Petitioner’s interpretation does not account for the fact that under
`
`the specification’s definition of “uniaxial,” the “maximum” and “minimum” must
`
`be found as “as the magnetization angle, θ, is rotated by 180 degrees from a
`
`physical axis.” (Exh.1001, at 1:56-60.) Dr. Sinclair’s interpretation merely
`
`requires a single easy axis aligned in a particular direction, which may, or may not,
`
`fall within the 180 degrees of rotation from a physical axis. Dr. Sinclair’s
`
`interpretation does not require that a maximum and a minimum fall within the
`
`same 180 degrees of a physical axis.
`
`Despite recognizing the explicit definition of “uniaxial” anisotropy in the
`
`specification, Dr. Sinclair interprets “uniaxial” to suit Petitioner’s purpose on the
`
`basis that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the definition
`
`in the patent “to be demonstrated if the material has one easy magnetization axis.”
`
`(Exh.1006 ¶ 68.) Dr. Sinclair’s opinion is conclusory; he provides no support for
`
`his flawed definition, which does not comport with the definition in the
`
`specification.
`
` Most egregiously, Petitioner and Dr. Sinclair
`
`ignore
`
`the
`
`specification’s requirement for a “single maximum” as well as a “single
`
`minimum.”
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00013
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`For the aforementioned reasons, the Board cannot adopt Petitioner’s
`
`interpretation for “uniaxial” in determining the scope of the claims and the content
`
`of the prior art. It is not the Board’s role to advocate for any party, including the
`
`Petitioner. (See Infra Part III). Rather, it was Petitioner’s burden to show how the
`
`claimed subject matter is obvious, which burden it failed to meet resulting in a fatal
`
`defect in this Petition. If the Board was to adopt any interpretation for “uniaxial,” it
`
`should adopt Lambeth’s definition, i.e., the definition in the specification.
`
`Due to Petitioner’s reliance on its improper definition for all of its
`
`obviousness grounds, Petitioner cannot possibly meets its burden to show that
`
`there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of
`
`the claims challenged in the Petition. Thus, an inter partes review should not be
`
`instituted.
`
`V.
`
`PETITIONER FAILED TO PROVIDE A PROPER INHERENCY
`
`ANALYSIS FOR EACH OF ITS GROUNDS
`
`Often, Petitioner cannot point to an explicit disclosure for a particular claim
`
`limitation in its prior art. At these times, it argues that the reference implicitly
`
`discloses these limitations based on descriptions therein. However, Petitioner fails
`
`to recognize that because these claim limitations are missing, it must argue that
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00013
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`they are inherent in the art or the proffered combination. Petitioner’s failure to
`
`make such arguments, as detailed below, is fatal to its Petition.
`
`Specifically, as described in further detail below, neither Shen nor Dill
`
`explicitly discloses the “uniaxial” limitation (under any construction), Shen does
`
`not explicitly disclose the “symmetry broken structure” limitation, and Dill does
`
`not explicitly disclose the “bcc-d” layer limitation. Even where Petitioner
`
`acknowledges these failures of disclosure – Dill’s failure to disclose a “symmetry
`
`broken structure” (Pet. 28) and its recognition that Shen may not disclose the
`
`“uniaxial” limitation (id. at 18) – it does not even attempt to argue that these
`
`disclosures are inherent to either the references alone or in combination. Such
`
`failure to show inherency where its references lack explicit disclosure is fatal to the
`
`Petition.
`
`While “inherency may supply a missing claim limitation in an obviousness
`
`analysis,” Par Pharma., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1194-95 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2014), “[a] party must [] meet a high standard in order to rely on inherency to
`
`establish the existence of a claim limitation in the prior art in an obviousness
`
`analysis” id. at 1195-96; see also Sandoz Inc. v. EKR Therapeutics, LLC, IPR2015-
`
`00007, Paper No. 20 at 10-13 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 24, 2015). Specifically, “the
`
`limitation at issue necessarily must be present, or the natural result of the
`
`14
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00013
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`combination of elements explicitly disclosed by the prior art.” Id. As the Federal
`
`Circuit has explained:
`
`Inherency [] may not be established by probabilities or possibilities.
`The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of
`circumstances is not sufficient. If, however, the disclosure is sufficient
`to show that the natural result flowing from the operation as taught
`would result in the performance of the questioned function, it seems to
`be well settled that the disclosure should be regarded as sufficient.
`
`Id. at 1195 (quoting In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (C.C.P.A. 1981)). Thus, “the
`
`concept of inherency must be limited when applied to obviousness, and is present
`
`only when the limitation at issue is the ‘natural result’ of the combination of prior
`
`art elements.” Id.
`
`VI. GROUNDS
`
`Petitioner argues that references Shen (Exh.1011) and Dill (Exh.1009) are
`
`combinable and, together, disclose the limitations of all the independent claims and
`
`many of the dependent claims of the ‘988 Patent. However, to reach its
`
`conclusion, Petitioner misconstrues the teachings of Shen and Dill and contrives
`
`motivations to combine those references, which a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would not combine for the reasons discussed below.
`
`Petitioner ignores the fact that the references fail to explicitly disclose
`
`certain claim limitations: neither reference explicitly discloses the “uniaxial”
`15
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00013
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`limitation (under any construction), Shen does not exp

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