Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 8
`
`
` Filed: February 27, 2017
`
`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 IPR2016-01678
`Patent RE43,106 E
`____________
`
`
`
`Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, MICHAEL R. ZECHER, and
`TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 8
`
`
` Filed: February 27, 2017
`
`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 IPR2016-01678
`Patent RE43,106 E
`____________
`
`
`
`Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, MICHAEL R. ZECHER, and
`TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01678
`Patent RE43,106 E
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`LG Electronics, Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. (collectively,
`“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting an inter partes review of claims 38‒
`54 of U.S. Patent No. RE43,106 E (Ex. 1001, “the ’106 patent”). Paper 1
`(“Pet.”). Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea Corporation (“Patent
`Owner”) did not file a Preliminary Response. We have jurisdiction under 35
`U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be
`instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner
`would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the
`petition.” After considering the Petition and associated evidence, we
`conclude that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it
`would prevail in showing the unpatentability of claims 38‒54 of the ’106
`patent. Thus, we authorize institution of an inter partes review of claims
`38‒54 of the ’106 patent.
`A. Related Proceedings
`The parties indicate that the ’106 patent is involved in the following
`
`district court cases: (1) LG Electronics, Inc. v. Toshiba Samsung Storage
`Technology Korea Corp., Case No. 1:12-cv-01063 (LPS) (D. Del.); and (2)
`Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea Corp. v. LG Electronics, Inc.,
`Case No. 1:15-cv-0691 (LPS) (D. Del.). Pet. 2–3; Paper 7, 1. Case
`IPR2015-01653 involved the ’106 patent and a Final Decision was issued on
`February 2, 2017. LG Elec. v. Toshiba Samsung Storage Tech. Korea Corp.,
`Case IPR2015-01653, Paper 43 (PTAB Feb. 2, 2017).
`B. The ʼ106 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ’106 patent describes an optical pickup apparatus that can
`
`compatibly record information on, and read information from, a digital video
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01678
`Patent RE43,106 E
`
`disk (DVD) and a recordable compact disk (CD-R) using a holographic lens.
`Ex. 1001, 1:28–34. The optical pickup apparatus is set forth in Figure 3 of
`the ’106 patent as follows:
`
`
`Figure 3 shows an optical system of an optical pickup according to
`one embodiment. Id. at 4:33–34. The optical pickup apparatus includes
`laser light sources 31 and 39 for emitting light beams having different
`wavelengths. Id. at 4:34–37. Laser light source 31 emits a wavelength of
`650 nm, suitable for a DVD. Id. at 4:55–59. Laser light source 39 emits a
`light beam having a 780 nm wavelength suitable for a CD-R. Id. at 4:61–67.
`Holographic beam splitters 32 and 40 alter the optical path of the light
`beams reflected from information recording surfaces, beam splitter 33
`completely transmits or reflects the incident light beam according to
`wavelength, and collimating lens 34 collimates the incident light beam to be
`in a parallel form. Id. at 4:34–47. Holographic lens 35 diffracts the incident
`light beam according to its wavelength, and objective lens 36 focuses the
`light beams on the respective information recording surfaces of optical disks
`37 and 41. Id.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01678
`Patent RE43,106 E
`
`
`Holographic lens 35 selectively diffracts the incident light beam in
`order to prevent the generation of spherical aberration with regard to the
`light beam’s focus on the information recording surfaces of optical disks 37
`and 41. Id. at 5:6–10. The relationship between holographic lens 35,
`objective lens 36, and optical disks 37 and 41 is illustrated in Figure 4A of
`the ’106 patent as follows:
`
`
`Figure 4A describes that objective lens 36 is partitioned into regions
`A and B. Id. at 5:13–14. Region A is closer to the optical axis of objective
`lens 36 and has little effect on spherical aberration, whereas region B is
`farther from the optical axis of objective lens 36 and has a large effect on
`spherical aberration. Id. at 5:14–18. Objective lens 36 is most appropriate
`for an optical disk having a thin thickness, such as a DVD. Id. at 5:18–20.
`The light beam incident to region A passes through objective lens 36 without
`any diffraction by holographic ring lens 35 and is focused directly on the
`disk. Id. at 5:33–36. The light beam incident to region F is wavelength-
`selectively diffracted by holographic ring lens 35 and then proceeds to
`objective lens 36. Id. at 5:36–39.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01678
`Patent RE43,106 E
`
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Petitioner challenges claims 38‒54 of the ’106 patent. Pet. 18–72.
`Claims 38, 42, 47, and 50 are the only independent claims at issue. Claim
`38 is illustrative of the challenged claims and is reproduced below:
`38. An objective lens for an optical pickup for selectively
`diffracting at least one of plurality of light beams, the lens
`comprising
`
`a first surface which focuses the plurality of light beams;
`and
`
`a second surface adjacent to the first surface and having a
`diffractive pattern to diffract at least one of the plurality of light
`beams, wherein the diffractive pattern comprises a holographic
`pattern.
`Ex. 1001, 11:12‒20 (italics removed).
`D. The Alleged Ground of Unpatentability
`The information presented in the Petition sets forth a proposed ground
`of unpatentability of claims 38‒54 of the ’106 patent under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) as follows (see Pet. 18–72):1
`
`References
`
`APA2 and Katayama3
`
`
`Claims
`Challenged
`38‒54
`
`
`1 Petitioner supports its challenge with the Declaration of Dr. Mansuripur.
`Ex. 1012.
`2 The ʼ106 patent includes Admitted Prior Art (“APA”) describing a
`conventional optical pickup apparatus and a thin-film type variable aperture.
`See Ex. 1001, 1:58–3:29, Figs. 1, 2. We consider APA as a relevant
`admission by Toshiba of the background knowledge of a person of ordinary
`skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’106 patent. For simplicity,
`we refer to APA and its disclosure generally in our analysis that follows.
`3 U.S. Patent No. 5,696,750, issued on December 9, 1997 (Ex. 1002,
`“Katayama”).
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01678
`Patent RE43,106 E
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Construction
`We interpret claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v.
`Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142–46 (2016). Under the broadest reasonable
`construction standard, claim terms are generally 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. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504
`F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`1. “hologram” / “holographic region” / “holographic pattern”
`Petitioner argues that the “broadest reasonable interpretation of []
`‘hologram,’ ‘holographic region,’ and ‘holographic patter’ is ‘a diffractive
`element.’” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1001, 7:21‒28; Ex. 1012 ¶ 77). We are
`persuaded by Petitioner, on this record, that these terms should be
`interpreted to mean “a diffractive element.” This construction is consistent
`with ’106 patent specification, which describes a “holographic rung lens”
`that “diffracts the incident light beam.” Ex. 1001, 5:6‒10; see Ex. 1001,
`5:28‒32, 5:36‒39, 6:28‒30.
`2. “focal plane”
`Petitioner argues that the “broadest reasonable interpretation [of]
`‘focal plane’ is ‘a plane that a light beam is focused by the objective lens.’”
`Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶ 79). We are persuaded by Petitioner, on this
`record, that “focal plane” should be interpreted to mean “a plane that a light
`beam is focused by the objective lens.” This construction is consistent with
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01678
`Patent RE43,106 E
`
`the ’106 patent specification, which discloses that a light beam is focused on
`a “focal plane.” Ex. 1001, 5:43‒47.
`3. “wavelength dependence” / “selectively diffract(ing)”
`Petitioner argues that “wavelength dependence,” “selectively
`diffract,” and “selectively diffracting” should be construed to mean “diffract
`a light beam 0–100% into one or more various orders as a function of its
`wavelength.” Pet. 15‒16 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:43‒45, 5:6‒8, 5:66‒6:3;
`Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 78‒83). Petitioner specifically argues that, for example, at
`3.8 µm, 100% of a 650 nm wavelength passes through a diffractive element,
`whereas 0% of a 780 nm wavelength passes through a diffractive element.
`Id. at 15‒17 (citing Ex. 1001, Fig. 6; Ex. 1012 ¶ 83).
`We first review the intended purpose and goal of the ’106 patent in
`order to give the claim terms meaning. “[T]he PTO applies to the verbiage
`of the proposed claims the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their
`ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
`art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or
`otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the
`applicant’s specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
`1997). The ’106 patent specification explains that an optical pickup
`apparatus uses a single objective lens and two laser light diodes as light
`sources for a DVD, which is reproduced using a 635 nm wavelength, and a
`CD-R, which is recorded and reproduced using a 780 nm wavelength,
`because of the difference in the thickness of a DVD and CD-R. Ex. 1001,
`1:62‒67, 2:37‒43. Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Mansuripur, opines that “[i]n
`many cases, the objective lens was designed for spot-size corresponding to a
`DVD” and “[a]s such, it received the 650 nm laser beam . . . free from all
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01678
`Patent RE43,106 E
`
`forms of aberration.” Ex. 1012 ¶ 47. When, on such an apparatus, a 780 nm
`wavelength is focused on a CD-R having a thickness of 1.2 mm, “spherical
`aberration is generated due to a difference in the thickness between the DVD
`[] and the CD-R []” because “the distance between the information recording
`surface of the CD-R [] and the objective lens [] is farther than that between
`the information recording surface of the DVD [] and the objective lens [].”
`Ex. 1001, 2:37‒48; see also Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 43, 44. Prior optical pickup
`apparatuses use a “finite optical system” in order to remove spherical
`aberration. Id. at 3:13‒16. The ’106 patent discloses a purported invention
`that utilizes a “holographic ring” to prevent the generation of spherical
`aberration. Id. at 5:6‒10.
`We determine, in light of the ’106 patent claims and specification, that
`“wavelength dependence,” “selectively diffract,” and “selectively
`diffracting” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes an
`interpretation that means selecting one light beam to diffract based on
`wavelength. As explained by Dr. Mansuripur, the objective lens is designed
`for the wavelength of one of the light beams so as to receive one light beam
`free from all forms of aberration, and then use a diffracting element for the
`other light beam to prevent the generation of aberrations. Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 47,
`50. This construction encompasses the construction set forth by Petitioner,
`where Petitioner argues that the term “selectively” determines how much
`each light beam is diffracted, based on wavelength, and Dr. Mansuripur
`explains that the fractional amount of diffraction can range from 0% to
`100%. Pet. 16‒17; Ex. 1012 ¶ 53. Our construction encompasses
`Petitioner’s proposed construction because our construction allows a beam
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01678
`Patent RE43,106 E
`
`to pass without diffraction, which is the same as diffracting that light beam
`0% (i.e., without diffract).
`In our view, this interpretation is required by the ’106 patent claims.
`For instance, independent claim 7 recites “selectively diffract the first and
`second light beams as a function of wavelength,” and claim 8, which
`depends from claim 7, further limits claim 7 to require that the aperture
`“selectively diffracts the first light beam having a first wavelength” and
`“selectively allow the second light beam of a second wavelength to be
`focused on the second recording medium.” Ex. 1001, 8:35–39.
`Accordingly, claim 8 requires that to “selectively diffract the first and
`second light beams,” one beam is diffracted while the second beam is
`allowed to be focused directly on to the recording medium. Because
`dependent claim 8 further limits independent claim 7, independent claim 7
`may be broadly, but reasonably interpreted to mean that one light beam is
`diffracted while allowing the second light beam to pass without diffraction.
`That is, a person with ordinary skill in the art would have understood that
`claim 8 limits claim 7 such that one light is diffracted while allowing the
`second light to pass without diffraction.
`Our interpretation in this regard is further consistent with the ’106
`patent specification. The ’106 patent specification explains that
`“holographic ring lens 35 selectively diffracts the incident light beam
`according to wavelength” in order to “prevent the generation of spherical
`aberration with regard to the light beams focused on the information
`recording surfaces of the optical disks,” and “[b]y using the holographic ring
`lens 35, a working distance from the surface of the objective lens 36 to the
`information recording surfaces of the disks becomes shorter in the CD-R 41
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01678
`Patent RE43,106 E
`
`rather than in the DVD 37.” Ex. 1001, 5:6‒10, 5:47‒50 (emphasis omitted).
`The ’106 patent specification further explains that “holographic ring lens 35
`is constructed so that the light beam of 650 nm wavelength has transmissive
`efficiency close to 100%” and “the light beam of 780 nm wavelength has a
`zero-order transmissive efficiency 0% with respect to non-diffracted light
`beam.” Id. at 6:11‒15 (emphasis omitted). As such, we find that the ’106
`patent specification supports an interpretation of “selectively diffract the first
`and second light beams according to their respective wavelengths” to be
`selecting one light beam to diffract based on wavelength.
`The ’106 patent specification further provides an embodiment where
`the groove depth is 3.8 µm. Ex. 1001, 6:53‒63, Fig. 6. The ’106 patent
`explains that at 3.8 µm groove depth, the 650 nm wavelength light is
`transmitted via the holographic ring by 100% and the 780 nm wavelength is
`transmitted via the holographic ring by 0%, thereby resulting in 40%
`diffraction efficiency. Id. That is, the ’106 patent specification discloses
`that “[a]ll of the 650 nm wavelength light incident to the holographic ring
`lens . . . is transmitted and then proceeds to the objective lens,” and “[t]he
`780 nm wavelength light incident to the holographic ring lens [] is
`transmitted to the holographic ring lens [] as shown in Figure 4A, but is
`diffracted in region A and then proceeds to objective lens [].” Id. at 6:64‒
`66, 7:9‒13.
`Accordingly, applying the broadest reasonable interpretation standard,
`we interpret the limitation “wavelength dependence,” “selectively diffract,”
`and “selectively diffracting” to mean selecting one light beam to diffract
`based on wavelength.
`B. Obviousness of Claims 38‒54 over APA and Katayama
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01678
`Patent RE43,106 E
`
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 38‒54 of the ’106 patent are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over APA and Katayama.
`Pet. 22–72. For the reasons discussed below, the evidence, on this record,
`indicates there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in
`showing that claims 38‒54 of the ’106 patent are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over APA and Katayama.
`1. APA (Ex. 1001)
`The ʼ106 patent discloses a conventional optical pickup apparatus that
`was available in the prior art. Ex. 1001, Fig. 1, 1:58–61. The conventional
`optical pickup apparatus is illustrated in Figure 1 of the ’106 patent as
`follows:
`
`
`Figure 1 discloses an optical pickup apparatus that includes laser light
`sources 11 and 21, collimating lenses 12 and 22, objective lens 17, and
`optical media 18 and 25. Id. at 1:62–2:55. Laser light source 11 emits light,
`having a 635 nm wavelength, to collimating lens 12. Id. at 2:1–2. The
`collimated incident light beam is reflected by beam splitter 13 to interference
`filter prism 14. Id. at 2:3–7. Laser light source 21 emits light, having a 780
`nm wavelength, to collimating lens 22. Id. at 2:8–13. The collimated
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01678
`Patent RE43,106 E
`
`incident light beam then goes to beam splitter 23, converging lens 24, and
`then to interference filter prism 14. Id. Interference filter prism 14 transmits
`completely both the light beam of 635 nm and 785 nm wavelengths. Id. at
`2:15–18. As a result, the light beam from laser light source 11 is incident to
`quarter-wave plate 15 as a parallel beam by the collimating lens 12, whereas
`the light beam from laser light source 21 is incident to the quarter-wave plate
`15 in the form of a divergent beam by converging lens 24 and interference
`filter prism 14. Id. at 2:18–24. The light transmitted through the quarter-
`wave plate 15 passes through a variable aperture 16 having a thin film
`structure and then is incident to objective lens 17. Id. at 2:24–28.
`Thin-film type variable aperture 16 is illustrated in Figure 2 of the
`’106 patent as follows:
`
`
`Figure 2 illustrates variable aperture 16 that is partitioned into two
`regions. Id. at 2:56–66. First region 1 transmits both light beams of 635 nm
`and 780 nm. Id. Second region 2 transmits completely the light beam of
`635 nm, and reflects completely the light beam of 780 nm. Id.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01678
`Patent RE43,106 E
`
`
`2. Katayama (Ex. 1002)
`Katayama discloses an optical head apparatus for different types of
`disks that have different thicknesses and/or densities. Ex. 1002, 1:7–9. The
`optical head apparatus is illustrated in Figure 28 of Katayama as follows:
`
`
` Figure 28 discloses an optical head apparatus that includes laser
`diodes 11 and 12, interference filter 13, collimator lens 4, aperture limiting
`element 2801,4 objective lens 6, and disks Aʹ and B. Ex. 1002, 15:62–16:21.
`A 635 nm wavelength light beam is emitted from laser diode 11, and
`completely passes through interference filter 13 and is incident to collimator
`lens 4. Id. at 16:1–4. The collimated light beam passes through the entire
`aperture limiting element 2801 to reach objective lens 6, and is focused on
`
`
`4 Aperture limiting element 2801 replaces the holographic optical element 5ʹ
`of Figure 5. Ex. 1002, 15:63–65. Figure 32 combines the holographic
`optical element 5” of Figure 8 and aperture limiting element 2801 of Figure
`28 into aperture limiting holographic optical element 3201. Id. at 18:48–54.
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01678
`Patent RE43,106 E
`
`disk Aʹ. Id. at 16:4–8. A 785 nm wavelength light beam is emitted from
`laser diode 12, and is reflected completely by interference filter 13 and is
`incident to collimator lens 4. Id. at 16:18–21. The collimated light beam
`passes only through a central portion of aperture limiting element 2801 to
`reach objective lens 6 to be focused on disk B. Id. at 16:22–25.
`3. Analysis
`The evidence set forth by Petitioner indicates there is a reasonable
`likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in showing that claims 38‒54 would
`have been obvious over APA and Katayama. Pet. 22–72.
`For example, claim 38 recites an “objective lens for an optical pickup
`for selectively diffracting at least one of plurality of light beams.” Petitioner
`argues that APA discloses an objective lens for an optical pickup that is used
`for both DVDs and CDs. Pet. 25‒26 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:58‒67, Fig. 1;
`Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 90‒97). Petitioner further argues that Katayama discloses an
`objective lens for an optical pickup. Id. (citing Ex. 1002, 1:49‒59, 18:43‒
`44; Figs. 28, 32; Ex. 1012 ¶ 207). Petitioner argues that Katayama discloses
`that component 2801 as inner region 3003 that passes a first and second
`beam, and diffractive region 3002 that selectively diffracts the beams as a
`function of wavelength for reading DVD and CD-R. Id. at 26‒27 (citing
`Ex. 1002, 17:19‒22, 17:27‒30, 18:31‒42, Figs. 30A, 30B, 31A, 31B;
`Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 208).
`Claim 38 further recites “a first surface which focuses the plurality of
`light beams.” Petitioner argues that APA discloses an optical pickup that
`includes wavelength-dependent variable aperture 16. Pet. 27 (citing
`Ex. 1001, 2:56‒3:12, Fig. 2). Petitioner argues that APA’s variable
`aperture 16 has a first region that transmits both the 635 nm light beam and
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01678
`Patent RE43,106 E
`
`the 780 nm light beam, and a second region that transmits the 635 light beam
`and reflects the 780 nm light beam. Id. at 28 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:62‒66; Ex.
`1012 ¶¶ 211‒213). Petitioner further argues that Katayama similarly
`discloses grating element 2801 is formed directly on the objective lens, and
`includes an inner region 3003 that passes both the first and second light
`beams. Id. at 28‒29 (citing Ex. 1002, 17:27‒30). Accordingly, Petitioner
`argues that the first region of APA and the inner region of Katayama
`correspond to the claimed “first surface which focuses the plurality of light
`beams.” Id.
`Claim 38 also recites “a second surface adjacent to the first surface
`and having a diffractive pattern to diffract at least one of the plurality of
`light beams.” Petitioner argues that Katayama discloses this limitation.
`Petitioner specifically argues that Katayama discloses an objective lens that
`includes diffractive element 2801, where diffractive element 2801 includes
`diffractive region 3002 that surrounds inner region 3003. Pet. 29 (citing Ex.
`1002, 17:19‒22, 18:42‒44; Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 217‒218). Accordingly, Petitioner
`argues that diffractive region 3002 corresponds to the claimed “second
`surface.”
`Claim 38 additionally recites “the diffractive pattern comprises a
`holographic pattern.” Petitioner argues that this feature is a basic design
`choice, and Katayama explicitly discloses that diffractive grating 3002
`includes a holographic pattern. Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1002, 18:52‒55, Figs. 8,
`32; Ex. 1012 ¶ 225).
`Petitioner further articulates reasoning with rational underpinnings as
`to why a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would
`have combined the teachings of APA and Katayama. Id. at 22–25 (citing
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01678
`Patent RE43,106 E
`
`Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 99–102). Petitioner asserts that the elements of the claims were
`well known (e.g., objective lens, diffractive-type variable apertures,
`CD/DVD compatible systems), and a person with ordinary skill in the art
`would have had a sufficient reason to combine them without change to their
`respective functions. Id. at 22. Accordingly, Petitioner argues that the
`combination of APA and Katayama is nothing more than the combination of
`known elements with each performing the same function it had been known
`to perform, and yields nothing more than predictable results. Id. at 22‒23.
`For instance, Petitioner further argues that Katayama expressly
`teaches that a thin film variable aperture and a diffractive-type variable
`aperture can be interchanged in an optical system to achieve the same
`results. Id. at 23–24 (citing Ex. 1002, 16:37–17:30; Ex. 1012 ¶ 100).
`Petitioner argues that “it was also well known that a diffractive element
`could be either an individual element in the optical system or integrated onto
`the surface of the objective lens.” Id. at 24 (citing Ex. 1002, 18:43‒44).
`Petitioner concludes that it would have been obvious to insert the elements
`of Katayama, such as grating element 3002, into APA’s conventional optical
`pickup apparatus, and such a combination would have yielded nothing more
`than predictable results. See id. at 23‒24.
`Petitioner has similarly provided a detailed analysis for claims 39‒54.
`See Pet. 35–72. Accordingly, we are persuaded that Petitioner has
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that
`claims 38‒54 would have been obvious over APA and Katayama.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01678
`Patent RE43,106 E
`
`
`4. Conclusion
`For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded that Petitioner has met its
`burden of showing a reasonable likelihood that claims 38‒54 of the ’106
`patent are unpatentable over APA and Katayama.
`III. ORDER
`After due consideration of the record before us, and for the foregoing
`reasons, it is:
`ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review is
`hereby instituted as to claims 38‒54 of the ’106 patent as unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over APA and Katayama; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter
`partes review of the ʼ106 patent is hereby instituted commencing on the
`entry date of this Order, and pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial.
`
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`Brian A. Tollefson
`Soumya Panda
`ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C.
`btollefson@rfem.com
`spanda@rfem.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`Joseph A. Rhoa
`Jonathan Roberts
`Nixon & Vanderhye P.C.
`ar@nixonvan.com
`jr@nixonvan.com
`
`
`
`17
`
`
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
