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
`_______________
`
`Patent No. RE43,106
`_______________
`
`
`
`PETITION
`to Institute an Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE43,106
`under 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`PO Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313–1450
`Submitted Electronically via the Patent Review Processing System
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................... ii 
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iv 
`
`EXHIBIT LIST ........................................................................................................ vi 
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED .......................... 1 
`
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING ........................................................................ 1 
`
`III.  MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 2 
`
`IV. 
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGES ........................................................ 4 
`
`V. 
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’106 PATENT ............................................................. 4 
`
`A.  Overview ............................................................................................... 4 
`
`B. 
`
`The ’106 Patent ..................................................................................... 5 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`Conventional Optical Pickups Were Compatible With Both
`CDs and DVDs ............................................................................ 5 
`
`The Purported Invention of the ’106 Patent is the Use of a
`Diffractive Element Rather than the Thin Film Element of
`Conventional Optical Pickups ..................................................... 9 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`The Challenged Claims of the ’106 Patent ......................................... 12 
`
`Claim Construction ............................................................................. 14 
`
`Prosecution History ............................................................................. 16 
`
`VI.  PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................ 17 
`
`VII.  CLAIMS 38-54 OF THE ’106 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE ............ 18 
`
`A. 
`
`The ’106 Patent Presents an Obvious Variation of Conventional
`Optical Pickups .................................................................................... 19 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`B. 
`
`Ground 1 – Claims 38-54 of the ’106 Patent Are Obvious Over
`Admitted Prior Art and Katayama ...................................................... 22 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`6. 
`
`7. 
`
`8. 
`
`9. 
`
`One of Ordinary Skill in the Art Would Have Combined
`Katayama and the Admitted Prior Art ...................................... 22 
`
`Claim 38 .................................................................................... 25 
`
`Claim 39 .................................................................................... 35 
`
`Claim 40 .................................................................................... 36 
`
`Claim 41 .................................................................................... 37 
`
`Claim 42 .................................................................................... 37 
`
`Claim 43 .................................................................................... 43 
`
`Claim 44 .................................................................................... 44 
`
`Claim 45 .................................................................................... 45 
`
`10.  Claim 46 .................................................................................... 46 
`
`11.  Claim 47 .................................................................................... 47 
`
`12.  Claim 48 .................................................................................... 58 
`
`13.  Claim 49 .................................................................................... 58 
`
`14.  Claim 50 .................................................................................... 59 
`
`15.  Claim 51 .................................................................................... 66 
`
`16.  Claim 52 .................................................................................... 67 
`
`17.  Claim 53 .................................................................................... 67 
`
`18.  Claim 54 .................................................................................... 68 
`
`19. 
`
`Secondary Considerations ......................................................... 69 
`
`VIII.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 72 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Cases 
`Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp.,
`520 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................ 23
`
`Brinkmann Corporation v. A&J Manufacturing, LLC,
`(IPR2015-00056), Paper 10 (PTAB 2015) ............................................................ 2
`
`Concrete Appliances Co. v. Gomery,
`269 U.S. 177 (1925) ............................................................................................. 70
`
`Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc.,
`848 F.2d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ............................................................................ 18
`
`Ecolochem, Inc. v. Southern Cal. Edison Co.,
`227 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ............................................................................ 73
`
`Geo M. Martin Co. v. Alliance Mach. Sys. Int'l LLC,
`618 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................ 69
`
`In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr.,
`367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................ 14
`
`In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC,
`793 F.3d 1268, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2015), aff’d, 136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016) ................. 14
`
`In re Nomiya,
`509 F.2d 566 (CCPA 1975) ................................................................................. 18
`
`Intri-Plex Technologies Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Perf. Plastics Rencol Ltd.,
`Case No. IPR 2014-00309, 2014 WL 2623456 (P.T.A.B. June 10, 2014). ......... 18
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ...................................................................................... 22, 23
`
`Motorola, LLC v. Arnouse,
`IPR2013-0010, Paper 20 (PTAB 2013) ................................................................. 2
`
`Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd.,
`550 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................ 22
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`The Int'l Glass Co. v. United States,
`408 F.2d 395 (Ct. Cl. 1969) ................................................................................. 73
`
`Tokyo Keiso Co., LTD v. SMC Corp.,
`307 Fed. Appx. 446 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ................................................................... 18
`
`Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea Corporation v. LG Electronics, Inc.
`et al.,
`Case No. 15-cv-00691-LPS-CJB (D. Del.) ............................................................ 2
`
`Statutes 
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ................................................................................................... 18
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ................................................................................................... 18
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ................................................................................................... 18
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) .................................................................................................1, 3
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`Regulations 
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.101 ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.101(a) ................................................................................................. 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.101(b) ............................................................................................1, 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ................................................................................................ 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ................................................................................................ 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ................................................................................................ 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ................................................................................................ 3
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Reference
`U.S. Patent No. RE43,106 to Yoo et al. (filed Sept. 4, 2007) (issued
`on Jan. 7, 2012) (the “’106 patent”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,696,750 to Katayama (filed Jun. 5, 1996) (issued
`Dec. 9, 1997) (“Katayama”)
`“Optical Pick-Up for DVD,” by Shinoda et al., IEEE Transactions on
`Consumer Electronics, Vol. 42, No. 3 (August 1996) (“Shinoda”)
`“Impact of Diffractive Optics on the Design of Optical Pick Up,” by
`Lehureau, Proc. SPIE 2783, Micro-Optical Technologies for
`Measurement, Sensors, and Microsystems, 22-29 (August 26, 1996)
`(“Lehureau”)
`“Dual Focus Optical Head for 0.6mm and 1.2mm Disks,” by Komma
`et al., SPIE Vol. 2338 Optical Data Storage, 282-288 (1994)
`(“Komma Article”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,446,565 to Komma et al. (filed Feb. 1, 1994)
`(issued Aug. 29, 1995) (“Komma Patent”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,526,338 to Hasman et al. (filed Mar. 10, 1995)
`(issued Jun. 11, 1996) (“Hasman”)
`“Effect of Aberrations and Apodization on the Performance of
`Coherent Optical Systems,” by J.P. Mills and B. J. Thompson, J. Opt.
`Soc. Am. A/Vol. 3, No. 5 (May 1986) (“Mills Article”)
`Fundamentals of Optics, by F. Jenkins & H. White, Fourth Edition
`(1976) (“Jenkins & White”)
`Handbook of Optics – Devices, Measurements, & Properties Volume
`II, by Michael Bass, Second Edition (1995) (“Bass”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,349,471 to Morris et al. (filed Feb. 16, 1993)
`(issued Sep. 20, 1994) (“Morris”)
`Declaration of Masud Mansuripur, Ph.D.
`NOT USED
`NOT USED
`NOT USED
`NOT USED
`Application No. 11/849,609 Preliminary Amendment, November 7,
`
`vi
`
`Ex.
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`1013
`1014
`1015
`1016
`1017
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`2008
`Application No. 11/849,609 Non-Final Office Action, February 17,
`2011
`Application No. 11/849,609 Notice of Allowance and Fees Due,
`August 30, 2011
`U.S. Patent No. 6,552,990 to Kajiyama et al. (PCT filed Sept. 1997)
`(Issued April 22, 2003) (“Kajiyama”)
`Deposition Transcript of Michael S. Lebby, Ph.D., June 30, 2016.
`
`
`
`vii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Petitioners, LG Electronics, Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.
`
`(collectively “LG” or “Petitioners”), respectfully request that the United States
`
`Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) institute inter partes review (“IPR”)
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 311–319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq., and cancel claims 38-
`
`54 of U.S. Patent No. RE43,106 (“the ’106 patent”) (Ex. 1001), assigned to
`
`Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea Corporation (“TSST-K” or “Patent
`
`Owner”), as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (Pre-AIA) in light of the
`
`grounds presented herein.
`
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioners hereby certify that the ’106 patent for which review is sought is
`
`available for IPR. Specifically: (1) none of the Petitioners is an owner of the ’106
`
`patent, see § 42.101; (2) before the date on which this Petition for review was filed,
`
`none of the Petitioners or Petitioners’ real parties-in-interest filed a civil action
`
`challenging the validity of a claim of the ’106 patent, see § 42.101(a); (3)
`
`Petitioners requesting this proceeding have not filed this Petition more than one
`
`year after the date on which at least one of the Petitioners, Petitioners’ real party-
`
`in-interest, or a privy of Petitioners was served with a complaint alleging
`
`infringement of the ’106 patent, see § 42.101(b); and (4) Petitioners, Petitioners’
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`real parties-in-interest, or a privy of Petitioners are not estopped from challenging
`
`the claims on the grounds identified in this Petition, see § 42.101(c). 1
`
`III. MANDATORY NOTICES
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), Petitioners and non-petitioner LG
`
`International (America), Inc. (“LGIA”) are the real parties-in-interest for this
`
`Petition. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2), the other judicial or administrative
`
`matters that would likely affect, or be affected by, a decision in this proceeding
`
`
`1 In response to Petitioners serving a complaint against TSST-K in the District of
`
`Delaware for infringement of other patents, TSST-K filed a counterclaim against
`
`Petitioners on April 2, 2015, alleging infringement of the ‘106 patent. However,
`
`that counterclaim was dismissed without prejudice on July 22, 2015. TSST-K later
`
`filed a complaint alleging infringement by Petitioners of the ’106 patent, but did
`
`not serve that complaint on Petitioners. Petitioners waived service of the
`
`complaint on August 27, 2015, and that waiver of service was filed by TSST-K on
`
`August 27, 2015, less than 1 year before the filing of this petition. See Motorola,
`
`LLC v. Arnouse, IPR2013-0010, Paper 20 at 6 (PTAB 2013)(“ the one-year time
`
`period begins on the date on which such waiver is filed.”); see also Brinkmann
`
`Corporation v. A&J Manufacturing, LLC, (IPR2015-00056), Paper 10 at 6-7
`
`(PTAB 2015).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`are: Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea Corporation v. LG Electronics,
`
`Inc. et al., Case No. 15-cv-00691-LPS-CJB (D. Del.). Furthermore, Petitioners
`
`have previously filed an IPR petition for the ’106 patent challenging the
`
`patentability of claims 7-19 (IPR2015-01653) for which the trial was instituted on
`
`February 5, 2016 with respect to all of the challenged claims and the oral hearing is
`
`currently scheduled on October 4, 2016. 2 Petitioners are also concurrently filing
`
`another IPR petition for the ’106 patent challenging claims 4-6, 20-27, 36, and 37.
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3), Petitioners provide the following
`
`designation of counsel:
`
`
`
`
`
`Email:
`Postal:
`
`Lead Counsel
`Brian A. Tollefson (Reg.
`#46,338)
`btollefson@rfem.com
`ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST &
`MANBECK, P.C.
`
`2 In the original complaint filed in the District of Delaware, TSST-K did not assert
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`Soumya Panda (Reg. # 60,447)
`
`spanda@rfem.com
`ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST &
`MANBECK, P.C.
`
`the claims challenged in this petition. However, in a February 12, 2016, letter to
`
`the District of Delaware, TSST-K stated that it “intends to initially assert in this
`
`case claims 4-6, 20-27, and 36-54.” It was not until May 10, 2016, that TSST-K
`
`served Petitioners with contentions asserting claims 4-6, 20-27, 36 and 38-54; thus,
`
`necessitating this filing.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`607 14th Street, N.W., Suite 800
`Washington, DC 20005
`Same as Postal
`
`607 14th Street, N.W., Suite 800
`Washington, DC 20005
`Same as Postal
`
`202-783-6040
`202-783-6031
`
`202-783-6040
`202-783-6031
`
`Hand
`Delivery:
`Telephone:
`Facsimile:
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4), papers concerning this matter should be
`
`served on either Brian Tollefson or Soumya Panda as identified above, and as
`
`appropriate to the foregoing mailing/email addresses.
`
`IV.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGES
`Petitioners request inter partes review and cancellation of claims 38-54 of
`
`the ’106 patent (the “challenged claims”) as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
`
`(Pre-AIA). The grounds of unpatentability of claims 38-54 are summarized below:
`
`Ground No. Claim No(s). Proposed Statutory Rejections for the Claims of
`the ’106 Patent
`Obviousness under § 103(a) in view of the
`Admitted Prior Art and Katayama
`
`38-54
`
`1
`
`
`
`V.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’106 PATENT
`
`A. Overview
`
`The ’106 patent is a Reissue of U.S. Patent No. 7,046,611 (the “’611
`
`patent”), entitled “Optical Pickup Compatible with a Digital Versatile Disk and a
`
`Recordable Compact Disk Using a Holographic Ring Lens.” The ’106 patent
`
`reissued on January 7, 2012, and identifies Jang-Hoon Yoo and Chul-Woo Lee as
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`inventors. The challenged claims were issued in the ’611 patent and are not among
`
`the new claims added during reissue.
`
`B.
`
`The ’106 Patent
`
`The ’106 patent relates to optical data storage and retrieval systems and
`
`components thereof that are compatible with optical disks of different thicknesses,
`
`such as digital video disks (DVDs) and recordable compact disks (CD-Rs). Ex.
`
`1001, 3:33-38. In the described systems, two light beams having different
`
`wavelengths are used with a single objective lens and a diffractive element (either
`
`an individual component or integral with the objective lens) for reading
`
`information from and/or recording information onto the disks. See, e.g., Ex. 1001,
`
`3:43-62; Ex. 1012, ¶¶51-56 (summarizing the ’106 patent). See also Ex. 1012,
`
`¶¶36-50 (summarizing the background of the relevant technology).
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Conventional Optical Pickups Were Compatible With Both
`CDs and DVDs
`
`As set forth in the ’106 patent’s “Description of the Related Art” and
`
`associated figures (collectively referred to herein as “the Admitted Prior Art” or
`
`“APA”), optical pickups that were compatible with both DVD and CD-R disks
`
`were already known in the art at the time of filing. Ex. 1001, 1:58-1:67; see also
`
`Ex.1002, 1:11-16 (“A first prior art optical head apparatus has been known for two
`
`types of disks”); Ex. 1012, ¶90. An example of a “conventional” optical pickup for
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`use with both DVD and CD-R disks is provided in Fig. 1 (“PRIOR ART”) and
`
`reproduced below:
`
`
`(annotated to identify “objective lens 17” together with “variable aperture 16”); see
`
`Ex. 1001, 4:3-4 (“conventional optical pickup”); Ex. 1012, ¶91. In the prior art
`
`optical pickup shown in Fig. 1, “[t]he light beam of the 635 nm wavelength
`
`emitted from the first laser light source 11 is focused by the objective lens 17 on an
`
`information recording surface in the DVD 18 having a thickness of 0.6 mm.” Ex.
`
`1001, 2:28-36. Similarly, “[l]ight having the 780 nm wavelength emitted from the
`
`second laser light source 21” is used for reading and writing to CD-R 25 and
`
`“passes through a variable aperture 16 having a thin film structure and then is
`
`incident on an objective lens 17.” Ex. 1001, 2:8-9, 25-27. “By using the variable
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`aperture 16 … the light beam of the 780 nm wavelength forms an optimized beam
`
`spot on the information recording surface of the CD-R 25.” Ex. 1001, 2:50-55.
`
`See also Ex. 1012, ¶¶92-97 (describing operation of the system in FIG. 1).
`
`
`
`The structure of the thin-film type variable aperture 16 of FIG. 1 is shown in
`
`FIG. 2, which is also labeled “PRIOR ART”:
`
`
`See Ex. 1001, 2:56, 4:5-6. The effective numerical aperture of this conventional
`
`thin-film variable aperture 16 changes as a function of wavelength:
`
`[T]he variable aperture 16 is partitioned into two regions based on the
`numerical aperture (NA) of 0.45 with respect to an optical axis.
`Among the two regions, a first region 1 transmits both light beams of
`635 nm wavelength and 780 nm wavelength. A second region 2
`totally transmits the light beam of the 635 nm wavelength and totally
`reflects the light beam of the 780 nm wavelength.
`
`Ex. 1001, 2:60-66 (emphasis added). Variable aperture 16 selectively transmits,
`
`reflects the first and second light beams as a function of wavelength to change a
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`numerical aperture of the objective lens 17. See Ex. 1012, ¶¶93-95. By using the
`
`wavelength-selective variable aperture 16, the prior art system of Fig. 1 is
`
`compatible with both CD and DVD media, while optimizing the size of the beam
`
`spots and reducing spherical aberration. See Ex. 1001, 2:27-3:12; Ex 1012, ¶¶95-
`
`97.
`
`
`
`The ’106 patent states that the prior art “conventional” optical system using
`
`a “thin-film type variable aperture” was deficient, not because it was not
`
`compatible with optical disks having different thicknesses (e.g., CD and DVD), but
`
`because this system was purportedly difficult to mass produce due to the nature of
`
`thin-film processing:
`
`However, the optical pickup shown in FIG. 1 and as described above
`should form a “finite optical system” with respect to the 780 nm
`wavelength light in order to remove any spherical aberration
`generated when changing a DVD compatibly with a CD-R. Also, due
`to the optical thin film, that is, the dielectric thin film, which is formed
`in the region 2 of the variable aperture 16 having the NA of 0.45 or
`above, an optical path difference between the light transmitted
`through the region 1 having the NA of 0.45 or below and that
`transmitted through the region 2 having the NA of 0.45 or above, is
`generated. To eradicate this difference, it is necessary to form an
`optical thin film in the region 1. Due to this reason, a quartz coating
`(SiO2) is formed in the region 1 and a multi-layer thin film is formed
`in the region 2. However, such a fabricating process does not only
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`become complicated but also adjustment of the thickness of the thin
`film should be performed precisely in units of “μm”. Thus, it has been
`difficult to mass-produce the optical pickup.
`Ex. 1001, 3:13-29 (emphasis added).
`
`
`2.
`
`The Purported Invention of the ’106 Patent is the Use of a
`Diffractive Element Rather than the Thin Film Element of
`Conventional Optical Pickups
`
`
`
`In order to address the above-identified issue relating to problems
`
`manufacturing thin-film elements, the ’106 patent proposes to replace the thin-film
`
`type variable aperture of the prior art systems with a known diffractive element,
`
`such as a holographic element, that performs the same function. See Ex. 1001,
`
`3:36-38 (“using a holographic lens to remove a spherical aberration generated due
`
`to a difference in thickness between optical disks”).3,4 Rather than using a thin-
`
`
`3 Diffractive optical elements operate on the principle of optical diffraction (as
`
`opposed to reflection or refraction), typically from periodic or quasi-periodic
`
`grooved structures. Ex. 1012, n.1.
`
`4 As explained by Dr. Mansuripur, aside from the “type” of variable aperture used,
`
`the differences between the system of Fig. 1 (“PRIOR ART”) and Fig. 3
`
`(“embodiment of the present invention”) are minimal, largely due to how elements
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`film layer to vary the effective numerical aperture according to wavelength, the
`
`embodiments of the ’106 patent use a diffractive element or grating that is also
`
`wavelength dependent to vary effective numerical aperture. See Ex. 1001, 5:6-10,
`
`5:66-6:3 (“the holographic ring lens 35 used in the present invention can
`
`selectively adjust the numerical aperture (NA) of the objective lens according to
`
`the wavelengths of the light beam, and requires no separate variable aperture”),
`
`6:6-11(“[T]he holographic ring lens 35 has a positive optical power and uses a
`
`phase shift hologram as a hologram formed in the holographic ring 353. An
`
`optimized depth of the grooves the hologram should be determined so that the
`
`holographic ring 353 selectively diffracts the incident light beam according to the
`
`wavelength thereof.”); Ex. 1012, ¶74; compare FIG. 2 (“structure of a conventional
`
`variable aperture”) with FIG. 5A (“plane surface of the holographic ring lens”):
`
`
`were arranged in the figures, and/or outside the scope of the challenged claims 38-
`
`54. See Ex. 1012, ¶75.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`The ’106 patent notes that the diffractive element can be either an
`
`independent component of the system or an integral part of the objective lens. See
`
`Ex. 1001, 4:43-47 and 7:21-28. The ’106 patent does not provide any details
`
`regarding the specific manufacture of an integral component other than that it can
`
`be etched or molded onto the lens. See discussion, infra at Section VII(B)(1); Ex.
`
`1012, ¶¶103-105. “Diffractive elements were typically formed on one or more
`
`surfaces of a lens using a lithographic process, or molding, or stamping. These
`
`techniques were well known at the time of the filing of the ’106 patent.” Id., ¶105.
`
`
`
`However, as described in detail below, the substitution a diffractive element
`
`for a thin-film aperture in the conventional system of the Admitted Prior Art would
`
`have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the earliest filing date of
`
`the ’106 patent because they perform the same function; i.e., wavelength-selective
`
`aperture variation. See Ex. 1012, ¶100. In fact, it was known that a thin film
`
`variable aperture and a diffractive element-type variable aperture were
`11
`
`
`
`

`
`interchangeable in an optical system to achieve the same result. See, e.g., Ex.
`
`1012, ¶100 (citing Ex. 1002, 16:37-17:30). The use of diffractive elements was a
`
`well-known solution to the well-known problems associated with optical systems
`
`compatible with both CDs and DVDs, and would have yielded predictable results.
`
`See discussion, infra at Section VII(B)(1); Ex. 1012, ¶¶86-89, 100. Furthermore,
`
`the ’106 patent fails to describe any type of diffractive element other than a
`
`diffractive grating. See e.g., Ex. 1001, 7:21-28, FIG. 7. Thus, to the extent that the
`
`’106 patent uses the terms “hologram,” “holographic region,” or “holographic
`
`pattern,” these terms refer to nothing more than a diffractive grating as understood
`
`by one of ordinary skill in the art. Ex. 1012, ¶77. Even Patent Owner’s own
`
`expert acknowledged that the term “hologram” is interchangeable with
`
`“diffraction.” Ex. 1021, 142:2-7.
`
`C. The Challenged Claims of the ’106 Patent
`
`
`
`Challenged claims 38-54 recite nothing more than the combination of
`
`familiar elements in a conventional arrangement.
`
`For example, independent claim 38 recites:
`
`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
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`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 (emphasis added). Claim 38 is directed to an objective lens
`
`that has (1) a first surface that focuses the plurality of light beams-- the same
`
`function of an objective lens of the prior art; and (2) a second surface with a
`
`diffractive pattern for diffracting at least one of the plurality of light beams-- the
`
`same function of the prior art thin-film variable aperture. Ex. 1012, ¶64.
`
`
`
`Independent claims 42 and 47 also recite an “objective lens” having “a first
`
`surface which focuses the plurality of light beams” and a “second surface adjacent
`
`to the first surface and having a diffractive pattern.” Independent claim 42 also
`
`recites the limitations that the diffractive pattern is “at a location where a numerical
`
`aperture of the objective lens is higher than a predetermined numerical aperture
`
`value.” Independent claim 47 also recites the limitations that the diffractive pattern
`
`is “disposed to correct the spherical aberration of at least one of the plurality of the
`
`one light beams.” These additional limitations of claims 42 and 47 recite nothing
`
`more than well-known properties and functions of objective lenses and diffractive
`
`patterns. Ex. 1012, ¶¶66, 68.
`
`
`
`Independent claim 50 also recites an “objective lens” having a “first surface
`
`which focuses the plurality of light beams.” Independent claim 50 includes the
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`added limitation that the first surface “has a curved surface curving from an apex.”
`
`This feature is merely well-known design choice for a lens. Ex. 1012, ¶70.
`
`Furthermore, instead of reciting a second surface or diffractive pattern,
`
`independent claim 50 recites a “spherical aberration correction pattern formed
`
`below the apex so as to correct the spherical aberration of the one light beam.”
`
`The “spherical aberration pattern” performs the same function as the “diffractive
`
`pattern” of claim 47. Id., ¶70. Dependent claims 39-41, 43-46, 48, 49, and 51-54
`
`merely recite obvious design choices or well-known functions of objective lenses.
`
`Id. ¶¶67, 69, 71.
`
`D. Claim Construction
`
`For purposes of inter partes review, each challenged claim must be given
`
`“its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.” 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.100(b); see also In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, No. 793 F.3d 1268, 1279
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2015), aff’d, 136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016). The broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation (BRI) must be consistent with the construction that one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would reach and must take into account any special definition given
`
`to a claim term in the specification. In re Am. Acad. Of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d
`
`1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Below is Petitioner’s proposed constructions using
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`the broadest reasonable interpretation.5 All other terms, not discussed below,
`
`should be given plain and ordinary meaning, and the broadest reasonable
`
`standard. Petitioners reserve the right to address any claim construction issue
`
`raised by Patent Owner.
`
`The broadest reasonable interpretation of the terms “hologram,”
`
`“holographic region,” and “holographic pattern,” is “a diffractive element.” See
`
`e.g., Ex. 1001, 7:21-28; Ex. 1012, ¶77.
`
`The broadest reasonable interpretation for the terms “focal plane” is “a plane
`
`that a light beam is focused by the objective lens.” Ex. 1012, ¶79. The broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of the terms “wavelength dependence,” “selectively
`
`diffract,” and “selectively diffracting” is “diffract a light beam 0-100% into one or
`
`more various orders as a function of its wavelength.” See e.g., Ex. 1001, 4:43-45,
`
`5:6-8, 5:66-6:3; Ex. 1012, ¶¶80-83.
`
`For clarity, a diffractive element that is wavelength dependent would diffract
`
`a first light beam having a first wavelength a certain amount, 0-100%, and a
`
`
`5 Because the claim construction standard in an IPR is different than that used in
`
`litigation, Petitioners expressly reserve the right to present different constructions
`
`of terms in the related litigation. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d at
`
`1369.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`second light beam having a second wavelength a different amount from 0-100%.
`
`In other words, the amount of zero order light that passes through the diffractive
`
`element is different for different wavelengths. Ex. 1012, ¶83. See Fig. 6 of the
`
`’106 patent below (annotated), where at 3.8μm 100% of the 650 nm wavelength
`
`goes through and 0% of the 780 nm wavelength goes through. Id.
`
`
`
`Prosecution History
`
`E.
`The ’106 patent issued on January 17, 2012, from U.S. Patent Appl. No.
`
`11/849,609 (the “reissue application”), which was filed on September 4, 2007.
`
`None of the challenged (e.g., claims 38-54) were part of the original prosecution
`
`history. The filed reissue application included issued claims 1-37 and added new
`
`claims 38-49. The applicant submitted a preliminary amendment November 7,
`
`2008, amending claims 38, 40, 42, 43, 45 and 46 and adding claims 50-67. Ex.
`
`1017.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`
`
`The Examiner made only one rejection prior to allowance. The single non-
`
`final rejection, dated February 17, 2011, rejected all claims as being based upon a
`
`defective reissue declaration. Ex. 1018. Claims 38, 39, 42, 45-47, 50, 51, 56, 57,
`
`62, 65 and 66 were further rejected as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,665,957 to Lee et al. (“Lee”). The remaining claim