`
`
`
`
`RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. and OCLARO, INC.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`OYSTER OPTICS, LLC
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR 2017-01881
`Patent 8,913,898 B2
`____________
`
`Held: November 20, 2018
`____________
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, JESSICA C. KAISER, and JOHN R. KENNY,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR 2017-01881
`Patents 8,913,898 B2
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`BRIAN W. OAKS, ESQUIRE
`
`Baker Botts, LLP
`
`1500 San Jacinto Boulevard
`Austin, Texas 78701
`
`DARREN E. DONNELLY, ESQUIRE
`Polsinelli, LLP
`1661 Page Mill Road, Suite A
`Palo Alto, California 94304
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`WAYNE HELGE, ESQUIRE
`
`ALDO NOTO, ESQUIRE
`
`Davidson, Berquist, Jackson & Gowdey
`
`8300 Greensboro Drive, Suite 500
`
`McLean, Virginia 22102
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday, November
`20, 2018, commencing at 3:00 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark
`Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR 2017-01881
`Patents 8,913,898 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE LEE: Welcome to the Board. We have Judge John Kenny
`
`and Judge Jessica Kaiser. They’re appearing remotely; one from Denver,
`the other one from Seattle. And let me remind counsel, they can only see
`you if you’re standing at the podium. This is the oral hearing for IPR2017-
`01881 and both sides have 45 minutes of argument time. Let’s begin with
`introduction of counsel, starting with Petitioner followed by Patent Owner.
`
`MR. OAKS: Good afternoon, Your Honors. My name is Brian Oaks.
`I’m lead counsel for the Petitioner, Cisco Systems and Oclaro, Inc., and with
`me is Mr. Darren Donnelly, who is also counsel for the Petitioners.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Thank you.
`
`MR. HELGE: Good afternoon, Your Honor. I am Wayne Helge, here
`appearing for the Patent Owner, Oyster Optics, LLC. With me is Mr. Aldo
`Noto, N-O-T-O, also an attorney representing Oyster Optics.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Thank you. And Mr. Oaks, you could reserve some
`time for rebuttal. If you let me know and I’ll set it.
`
`MR. OAKS: Thank you, Your Honor. I’d like to target for reserving
`ten minutes of my time.
`
`JUDGE LEE: How much?
`
`MR. OAKS: Ten minutes.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Ten? Thank you. You may begin anytime you’re
`ready.
`
`MR. OAKS: Thank you. Well, good afternoon, Yours Honors, may
`it please the Board. I’ll jump right into it. So I’m looking at Slide 3. I
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR 2017-01881
`Patents 8,913,898 B2
`
`won’t go into this in detail now, but this is just sort of a road map of what
`I’d like to talk to you about this afternoon. These are highlighting the issues
`that are really in contention in this case.
`
`So going right into it, I’d like to start with Claim 14. So Claim --
`there’s only one independent claim at issue in this matter and that’s
`Independent Claim 14, and really, other than Dependent Claim 19, it’s the
`only claim that’s really in contention. The other claims are not subject to
`additional briefing in this case.
`
`So Claim 14 recites a transceiver card and it requires that there be a
`certain number of elements collectively together on this transceiver card.
`There’s five elements. There’s a transmitter, and that transmitter has a laser,
`a modulator, and a controller. Secondly, there is a fiber output that is
`connected to that transmitter. There is a receiver, and then there is a fiber
`input connected to that receiver.
`
`So those four, the first four items, are all items that are admitted in the
`background of the ‘898 patent to be prior art. The ‘898 patent background
`says that their prior art exists that are transceiver cards that have these
`elements. Now, the additional element that was supposedly the, I guess, the
`alleged invention of the ‘898 patent is the inclusion along with those
`elements of an energy level detector also on the card.
`
`So in our combinations, although the ‘898 patent admits that the first
`four are prior art, we have also provided the reference, Ade, which discloses
`all four of those elements together on the same card. In fact, on the same
`chip. And then we’ve combined that with two different references, Corke
`and Roberts, and both of those references are used to show an energy level
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR 2017-01881
`Patents 8,913,898 B2
`
`detector that is integrated with the receiver so that, in combination, there is a
`transceiver card that has all five elements.
`
`So this -- going to the Corke/Ade combination in particular, this is the
`-- some of the petition’s explanation of that combination and, at a high level,
`this is the summary after the discussion of that. What the petition says is,
`“The proposed” -- and I’m sorry, I’m on Slide 6. It says, “The proposed
`combination therefore includes a single card with Corke’s optical power
`detectors and Ade’s receiver, transmitter, and modulator with control
`circuitry.” And then also in the petition it goes on, supported by the
`testimony of Dr. Blumenthal, to talk about the predictability of combining
`these elements together on a card.
`Moving on to Slide 7, these are a couple of excerpts from the institution
`decision. The first one to the top right is the institution decision basically
`recognizing that same combination that I just mentioned, the proposed
`combination using Corke’s optical power detectors, combined with Ade’s
`receiver, transmitter, and modulator with control circuitry, all on a single
`card.
`As the panel noted in the institution decision, while neither Ade nor
`
`Corke specifically or explicitly discloses how to arrange a transceiver on --
`I’m sorry, an energy level detector on a card, the Board, preliminarily found,
`at least, that Petitioner had provided evidence that the combination of those
`references, along with the testimony of Dr. Blumenthal, did teach that
`combination.
`
`Now, the Board also noted that at that stage, at least, the Patent Owner
`had disagreed with that combination and whether it was obvious, but said
`
`
`
`
` 5
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR 2017-01881
`Patents 8,913,898 B2
`
`that the Patent Owner hadn’t provided evidence to support those arguments.
`Well, the Patent Owner still hasn’t provided that evidence. So the Patent
`Owner did, in this case, provide an expert declaration from Dr. Goossen, but
`what Dr. Goossen does in his testimony on the combination is related to
`tearing down this strawman combination that Patent Owner has built. That
`isn’t the combination that’s proposed.
`So Dr. Goossen doesn’t contradict Dr. Blumenthal’s testimony that it would
`be obvious to put an energy level detector on a transceiver card. Instead, he
`goes into a lot of detail tearing down what he says is the combination that
`was proposed. So I’d like to go into that next and exactly what the
`combination is. So I’m
`moving on to Slide No. 11. So backing -- well, first of all, backing up to
`Slide 10 to the road map, there’s basically two assumptions that Patent
`Owner is making with the combination that aren’t correct. The first is that
`the combination requires the inclusion of Corke’s protection switching and
`the second is that, along with the protection switching, that it even requires a
`particular embodiment of Corke that uses a bidirectional fiber, and neither of
`those are true.
`
`So with respect to the first issue, whether protection switching is
`included in the combination, the Patent Owner argues that this is the case, or
`at least that that’s their interpretation of our combination. However, in
`response to them saying this, you know, we disagree that that’s the
`combination, we'd point out that Corke expressly teaches that one does not
`have to use the protection switching in all of its embodiments.
`And so here, I’m on Slide 11, there’s an excerpt from Corke, column 11,
`
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR 2017-01881
`Patents 8,913,898 B2
`
`starting at line 2, and it says, “The same monitoring system,” so this is
`talking about the energy level detector in Corke, “can also be employed
`simply to provide performance information to an operator, or computerized
`management system, or to automatically control an alarm to trigger a
`diagnostic sequence, thus the invention. In addition to its importance to
`actuating the switching between routes,” that's the protection switching, “has
`other important applications as well.”
`
`So Corke explicitly states that it doesn’t have to have -- that you don’t
`have to have protection switching and all of its embodiments. It’s clearly
`saying that there is validity and importance in just the monitoring and that’s
`the monitoring that we’re using in the combination.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Can I interrupt you?
`
`MR. OAKS: Uh-huh.
`
`JUDGE LEE: What is the theory in the petition when you made the
`combination? Was it to continue with the protection switching or was it
`simply to do as you just quoted, to collect data?
`
`MR. OAKS: So the theory as I put in the -- had in the excerpt from
`the petition is that you have all the teachings in Ade of a transceiver card,
`and it has a chip and we’ll get to how that discloses a card. You have a
`transceiver card with transmitter receiver, transmitter with a laser, and a
`receiver, and the optical input and output. It’s missing the energy level
`detector and Corke discloses that you have -- it’s quite common to have a
`receiver that has an associated monitor and energy level detector to check
`the received signal.
`
`And so the POSITA would understand that you don’t have to take
`
`
`
`
` 7
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR 2017-01881
`Patents 8,913,898 B2
`
`every bit of Corke and Ade and combine them together. That’s improper
`legal analysis to say that everything that’s in those references has to be put
`together. And so what the petition suggests and says is that you take
`Corke’s energy level detector, which it teaches is associated with the
`receiver and you combine that with Ade’s teaching of having the receiver
`and the transmitter together on a card, on a chip, in fact.
`
`JUDGE LEE: So it isn’t limited to any particular subsequent purpose,
`whether it’s to a protection switch or to simply gather data?
`
`MR. OAKS: The only purpose is to monitor the signal. So you have
`the transmitter to transmit signals, the receiver to receive signals, and a
`detector to monitor the received signal.
`
`JUDGE LEE: So it didn’t matter for your combination whether it’s
`used simply to monitor or to actually carry out protection switching?
`
`MR. OAKS: That’s correct. The petition -- nowhere in our briefing
`do we point to the protection switching or the elements of the protection
`switching as being part of the combination or necessary to the combination.
`
`So, and with respect to whether Corke discloses what I said, that it
`only has to use monitoring, Dr. Goossen, the Patent Owner’s expert, did
`agree that -- well, that’s -- at least -- he, at least, agreed that’s what Corke
`states and Dr. Blumenthal testified that a POSITA would readily understand
`how you would combine the energy level detector that’s in Corke with Ade,
`and it’s quite simple.
`And
`I’ll talk about it in a minute, but it’s -- you just have -- all you have is a tap
`coming off of the received optical signal. You tap part of it with the
`photodetector and the rest of it goes to the receiver. That’s what’s disclosed
`
`
`
`
` 8
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR 2017-01881
`Patents 8,913,898 B2
`
`in Corke and that’s exactly what it -- how it would be used in the
`combination.
`
`So because the entirety of Patent Owner’s arguments related to the
`combination assumed that protection switching must be included in the
`combination, and that’s a faulty assumption, they basically have no
`argument as to the actual combination, which is that it’s obvious to put an
`energy level detector associated with the receiver with the integrated
`transceiver components of Ade.
`
`JUDGE KENNY: Well, let me ask you. Why was it obvious to use
`the two fibers in this combination?
`
`MR. OAKS: Well, that -- I mean, so Ade discloses the two fibers and
`Ade actually says -- discloses you can have either. You could have a single
`input that’s for a bidirectional fiber or you can have two inputs: one for one
`unidirectional fiber that transmits and for a unidirectional fiber that receives.
`And so Ade, itself, talks about the interchangeability of these and what we
`pointed to in the combination was Ade’s use of -- the particular use of the
`two fiber inputs and that’s similar in Corke. Corke also talks about you
`could use unidirectional fibers or bidirectional fibers.
`
`JUDGE KENNY: Well, now Corke doesn’t disclose using
`unidirectional fibers with a transceiver, right?
`
`MR. OAKS: That’s correct. Well, it doesn’t disclose the -- well,
`what Corke shows is a close-up on the received side with a unidirectional
`fiber in Figure 2 and it doesn’t show the transmit side. But it -- I mean, to
`answer your question -- right, so --
`
`JUDGE KENNY: Okay. So I think Patent Owner has made an issue
`
`
`
`
` 9
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR 2017-01881
`Patents 8,913,898 B2
`
`as to whether one skilled in the art would be motivated to use the dual fiber,
`particularly in light of a particular advantage from Corke, with respect to a
`bidirectional fiber. So kind of looking at this combination, can you tell me
`why one skilled in the art would choose separate fibers with a transceiver
`given that there appears to be an advantage, at least as Patent Owner
`contends, of bidirectional fibers?
`
`MR. OAKS: So let me turn to my next slide because I think that this
`addresses your question. I’m on Slide 14. So Corke doesn’t prefer
`unidirectional fibers to bidirectional fibers in its protection switching. It
`provides two different alternatives to protection switching, Figure 2 and
`Figure 4, and there’s others as well, but those are the two that we have
`pointed to, and both of them enable protection switching.
`
`So Figure 2 has complete protection switching using unidirectional
`fibers without having the decision that’s made about the received side, but
`used to determine what you’re doing on the transmit side. And so as --
`
`
`
`JUDGE KENNY: But, I mean, Figure 2 doesn’t have a
`transmit side.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MR. OAKS: Well, so the transmit --
`
`JUDGE KENNY: And, in other words, it’s just -- sorry. In other
`words, it’s a unidirectional path shown in Figure 2, correct?
`
`MR. OAKS: That’s correct. And so what’s described and not shown
`is that there’s two signals coming in from the left side of Figure 2. They’re
`duplicate signals.
`
`JUDGE KENNY: Right.
`
`MR. OAKS: They always both exist. And what the receiver is doing
`
`
`
`
` 10
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`JUDGE KENNY: All right.
`MR. OAKS: -- control --
`JUDGE KENNY: Okay.
`MR. OAKS: This allows for protection switching in the event of a
`
`IPR 2017-01881
`Patents 8,913,898 B2
`
`is looking at the primary route with the monitor, as well as looking at both of
`them actually, but if it monitors the primary route, determines there’s a fault
`or problem with that signal, it switches over to the other signal. And that’s
`what Dr. Blumenthal said is -- was common. It was called one-plus-one
`protection. It was quite common.
`
`So the Patent Owner’s argument that somehow you have to control
`the transmission direction based on that decision is just wrong. That's -- this
`--
`
`
`
`
`fault.
`JUDGE KENNY: Sure, in one direction.
`
`MR. OAKS: Correct.
`
`JUDGE KENNY: In the direction from left to right on the Figure.
`
`But if -- in Corke, they also talk about the fact that you can use the
`information from the reception to affect your choice on the transmission path
`and that you could not do with the unidirectional fiber, correct?
`
`MR. OAKS: That’s correct, but you already have the two signals
`being transmitted, so you don’t need -- I mean, the thing -- let me move to
`Slide 16. This is shown in Figure 4. I mean, it’s not really an advantage.
`It’s something you have to do. Because you’re sharing a fiber, you know
`that if the received signal is messed up, there’s a problem with the fiber and
`therefore you need to also switch the transmit side. It’s just an issue inherent
`
`
`
`
` 11
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR 2017-01881
`Patents 8,913,898 B2
`
`with using a bidirectional fiber.
`
`But if you had a different set of fibers being used to transmit in the
`other direction, as disclosed in Ade, and as Dr. Blumenthal said was quite
`common and we cited some references that showed that, then you wouldn’t
`be coupling the transmitted and the received decision. It would be
`independent decisions. So you can imagine a receiver like in Ade that’s
`transmitting a signal, it would be received at another node and that node
`would be making the same decision whether to switch paths, you know,
`based on the received signal. So you have full protection switching and it
`was actually the common mode of protection switching without using a
`bidirectional fiber. And in Ade -- and Corke --
`
`JUDGE KENNY: Well --
`
`MR. OAKS: Corke never says, and Dr. Goossen admitted that Corke
`doesn’t preference Figure 2 or Figure 4. It’s just providing -- here’s two
`examples using the two kind of transmission fibers that were used in the
`systems at that time.
`
`JUDGE KENNY: Well, I mean, it does show a bidirectional fiber for
`the transceiver, right?
`
`MR. OAKS: For --
`
`JUDGE KENNY: I mean, in other words, the embodiment that has
`the transceiver has a bidirectional fiber?
`
`MR. OAKS: Right, because in showing the bidirectional fiber, they
`need to show the transmitter that’s connected to that same fiber. It’s sort of
`necessary to showing how the Corke’s Figure 4 embodiment works.
`
`JUDGE KENNY: But, so Figure 4 didn't illustrate unidirectional
`
`
`
`
` 12
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR 2017-01881
`Patents 8,913,898 B2
`
`fibers with transceivers, right?
`
`MR. OAKS: That’s correct.
`
`JUDGE KENNY: So why would -- we’re just trying to get back to
`what would motivate one of ordinary skill in the art and where is it set forth
`in the record to use unidirectional fibers with a transceiver embodiment?
`
`MR. OAKS: Ade teaches that. So Ade --
`
`JUDGE KENNY: Okay. But given what Corke has, why would one
`do it when you combine the two? Ade has both, right?
`
`MR. OAKS: So, to me, this is --
`
`JUDGE KENNY: Ade --
`
`MR. OAKS: I’m sorry. Go ahead.
`
`JUDGE KENNY: Ade has both. Ade has both -- has -- describes --
`its main embodiment is bidirectional, but it talks about an alternative that’s
`unidirectional, correct?
`
`MR. OAKS: Right. Well, it actually starts with the unidirectional
`and then it talks about an alternative that’s bidirectional. Figure 2 comes
`first as a unidirectional. Oh, I’m sorry. Are you talking about Corke or
`Ade?
`JUDGE KENNY: Ade --
`
`MR. OAKS: Oh.
`
`JUDGE KENNY: -- with the transceiver.
`
`MR. OAKS: Yeah. Yes.
`
`JUDGE KENNY: So you’re saying the first figure is unidirectional?
`
`MR. OAKS: I thought you were talking about Corke. Are you
`
`talking about Ade or?
`
`
`
`
` 13
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR 2017-01881
`Patents 8,913,898 B2
`
`JUDGE KENNY: Yeah, Ade. Even in Ade, it first discloses a
`
`bidirectional embodiment and then it talks about alternatively you could, you
`know, remove the coupler and make it unidirectional, right --
`
`MR. OAKS: Correct.
`
`JUDGE KENNY: -- in certain fibers.
`
`MR. OAKS: Right.
`
`JUDGE KENNY: Okay. So looking at this, why, when somebody
`combines this, we have -- you know, the one shown in Corke is bidirectional
`and then you have both in Ade. Why would one go with unidirectional
`fibers in the combination?
`
`MR. OAKS: Well, like I said, in the combination, it doesn’t require
`protection switching. So we’re taking the teachings from Corke that say you
`have a received signal. Be it on a unidirectional or bidirectional fiber, you
`want to monitor that signal to understand what is going on with it. That is
`the teaching that is part of the combination. That can be used with
`unidirectional fibers or bidirectional fibers as disclosed in Corke.
`
`So trying to -- your question is kind of assuming that there has to be a
`bodily incorporation where you’re taking every bit of Corke, including the
`protection switching, and combining it with Ade, and that is --
`
`JUDGE KENNY: No, I’m just asking --
`
`JUDGE KAISER: Mr. Oaks?
`
`MR. OAKS: Yes.
`
`JUDGE KAISER: I’m just going to say it sounds like really what
`your argument is, is that this argument about the separate fibers is attacking
`a different combination than what you are trying to make. So it sounds like
`
`
`
`
` 14
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR 2017-01881
`Patents 8,913,898 B2
`
`really the combination that you’re trying to make is that you take everything
`from Ade and really what you’re putting into it is the monitoring feature of
`Corke and not really worried so much about what the fibers are in Corke
`because that’s not what you’re relying on Corke for. Is that a fair
`assessment?
`
`MR. OAKS: Right, yes.
`
`JUDGE KAISER: Okay. And so then the fact that Corke has
`bidirectional fibers and a transceiver embodiment, I -- it sounds like you
`would say isn’t really relevant to how you would use the monitoring
`function.
`
`MR. OAKS: That’s correct. So Figure -- Corke discloses in Figure 2
`and Figure 4 that the monitoring is happening the same way. The
`monitoring happens on the received side in both Figure 2 and Figure 4 and
`that’s the teaching of Corke that we’re saying. So the idea is that Ade
`discloses and in, like I said, the ‘898 patent background admits that there’s
`transceiver cards with all these components. And the question is whether
`there would be an energy level detector associated with those components.
` And what we have shown, as in Corke and in Roberts, yes, that it’s quite
`common to monitor a signal that’s received. And so you have
`photodetectors, energy level detectors that are associated with receivers to
`monitor the received signal, and that’s true in Corke on both Figure 2 and
`Figure 4.
`
`Moving on to Slide 17. I’m not going to belabor this because we’ve
`talked about it, but, I mean, this is just the evidence that Dr. Blumenthal
`entered in his declaration talking about it is -- well, it’s quite common to
`
`
`
`
` 15
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR 2017-01881
`Patents 8,913,898 B2
`
`have unidirectional -- to have two-way communications using unidirectional
`fibers, as well as you could do it using bidirectional fibers. As Ade suggests,
`they’re highly interchangeable.
`
`I’m going to skip ahead to the next section on Slide 21. So this relates
`to the teaching of Ade about having a laser being on a transceiver card. So
`Ade discloses, and I -- shown here from the figure on Slide 21, that you have
`a transmitter, including a modulator, on the same chip as the receiver and it
`also discloses highlighted in blue to the left of that, and it's Figure 1 of Ade,
`that you have a continuous wave laser input into that chip.
`
`And so what Dr. Blumenthal testified about was that a POSITA would
`know, very much well know, that you would mount a chip on a card, on a
`printed circuit board. That’s how chips are used in the wild, so-to-speak,
`and that you would do this for -- to provide robustness, and to account for
`environmental conditions, and improve reliability.
`
`And he also testified that you would also -- the POSITA would know
`that you want to have that laser as close to the modulator as possible for a
`number of reasons to avoid errors. And so all of that, collectively, tells a
`POSITA, yes, that what Ade is telling you is you have this modulator on a
`chip with a laser input and that laser would be on the card with the chip on
`which the chip is mounted.
`
`That’s why I said the Patent Owner has provided expert testimony
`from Dr. Goossen. Dr. Goossen did not provide any testimony on this issue.
`So Dr. Blumenthal’s expert testimony remains unrebutted.
`
`JUDGE LEE: What would be the purpose of adding a channel
`monitor to Ade?
`
`
`
`
` 16
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR 2017-01881
`Patents 8,913,898 B2
`
`MR. OAKS: To monitor the signal to determine if there’s a problem
`
`with the signal, like, as in Corke.
`
`JUDGE LEE: I know, but for what purpose would you want to do
`that?
`MR. OAKS: I mean, it’s quite common, as Dr. Blumenthal testified,
`
`that you want to know is there a problem with the signal that I’m receiving
`on the chip. You want to know if there’s an error.
`
`JUDGE LEE: But see, when your declarant says that’s typical, there
`are --
`MR. OAKS: Right. So --
`
`JUDGE LEE: -- benefits in monitoring it.
`
`MR. OAKS: Right. So you want to understand. You know, these
`
`telecommunication providers are being paid a lot of money to communicate
`data and so they want to understand, is this actually working. Am I
`receiving the signal that I expect to receive?
`
`JUDGE LEE: Okay. And then Corke is just an illustrative example
`where such monitors have been used?
`
`MR. OAKS: That’s correct. I'd also point out on this issue about the
`laser that, again, the admitted prior art, the background of the ‘898 patent
`specifically says that the transceiver card has a laser and an amplitude
`modulation circuit located on the card together. And this, the point of Slide
`24 is just the panel decided in the institution decision that Patent Owner
`hadn’t provided any evidence to contradict Dr. Blumenthal’s testimony and,
`as I said, they still have not.
`
`So returning back to the specifics about Corke’s energy level detector,
`
`
`
`
` 17
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR 2017-01881
`Patents 8,913,898 B2
`
`first why the combination teaches an energy level detector being on a
`transceiver card and I’m on Slide 27. So as I -- we’ve talked about, at
`length, Corke discloses an energy level detector that’s located with a
`receiver. And, as Dr. Blumenthal testified, the POSITA would have been
`motivated to put that energy level detector proximate to the receiver, and I’ll
`talk about that in a second.
`
`But I also wanted to note, as we described in our briefing, that if you
`look at -- I’m on Slide 27 at Ade’s figure. Ade already has a photodetector
`on its card. Now, it’s being used for the receiver function, but similar photo
`detectors are used, as disclosed in Corke, to monitor. So just to show that
`it’s not crazy that we’re talking about putting a photodetector on a card with
`these elements.
`
`JUDGE
`LEE: It seems the parties have argued past each other, so let’s put aside
`your real argument, according to you --
`
`MR. OAKS: Uh-huh.
`
`JUDGE LEE: -- what do you think that really is? Let’s assume that if
`the argument actually is what they say it is, do you have a response or do
`you just say, “Oh, well that’s not our argument, so we’re not even
`responding to that. I don’t have an answer for that. If the Board decides that
`that’s what the argument is, then I'm," is it like that or do you say --
`
`MR. OAKS: Well, so if you want to include a combination that has
`all of what’s in Corke, you could use Figure 2. So in the bodily
`incorporation mode of the combination, you would put a transceiver chip
`into Figure 2. Now, Figure 2 doesn’t have a transmitter, but what Dr.
`Blumenthal testified about is that it’s quite common, and a POSITA would
`
`
`
`
` 18
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR 2017-01881
`Patents 8,913,898 B2
`
`understand, that nodes have receivers and transmitters because there’s two-
`way communication.
`
`So you’re talking between two points and so it isn’t a one-way
`conversation. There’s data requested and transmitted back and forth, and so
`that is well known. And so it’s completely consistent with an understanding
`of the POSITA to put Ade’s chip directly into Corke’s Figure 2. And then,
`in that case, it would be receiving, just like the receiver is used in Corke’s
`Figure 2 and you would also have a transmitter.
`
`
`And
`Dr. Blumenthal testifies that in Ade’s chip those two, the transmitter and the
`receiver, at least in the two fiber embodiment where there’s unidirectional
`fibers, they’re completely de-coupled. They’re separate. And so there’s
`nothing inconsistent with using Ade and bodily incorporate it into Figure 2.
`
`JUDGE LEE: So even -- you’re saying even under what they say you
`argued, you still say there was motivation to combine?
`
`MR. OAKS: Yes. Yeah, and that’s why we pointed to Figure 4
`simply to say, look, this does recognize that there’s transceivers. There’s
`transmitters and receivers and yes, Corke doesn’t disclose the unidirectional
`embodiment where there’s transmission -- a transmitter within the Figure,
`but Dr. Blumenthal said and provided evidence that that’s quite common.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Okay. But the main argument --
`
`JUDGE KENNY: But the -- sorry.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Go ahead.
`
`JUDGE KENNY: I take it the position is basically that Figure 2 has a
`transmitter, but it doesn’t show it. Is that your argument?
`
`MR. OAKS: No.
`
`
`
`
` 19
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR 2017-01881
`Patents 8,913,898 B2
`
`JUDGE KENNY: I mean, it has a transmitter in that circuitry that’s
`
`illustrated, but it doesn’t show it?
`
`MR. OAKS: No, that’s not the argument. What I was saying was if --
`Judge Lee asked if we were going to follow this line, if we have to have
`everything that’s in Corke, including the combination. What I’m saying is
`that you could place Ade’s circuit, you know, the Ade’s chip into Corke for
`use as Corke’s receiver. In that combination, you also then have Ade’s
`transmitter. So I’m not saying Corke shows the --
`
`JUDGE KENNY: So you’re going to replace --
`
`MR. OAKS: Well, that -- this is not what I -- this is --
`
`JUDGE KENNY: -- just the receiver?
`
`MR. OAKS: Right.
`
`JUDGE KENNY: Okay. Well, the basic point of -- they are raising
`the issue of whether you’ve actually shown how the combination would go
`together. You didn’t do an overall schematic in your -- in any of your paper
`showing how the whole thing goes together.
`
`So, I mean, their argument is basically that even if you make this
`replacement that you’re talking about, you would end up with bidirectional
`fibers out the ends of Corke. And so just -- maybe you can address that.
`Exactly how is it, and get to whatever level of detail you need to, you would
`combine, or you proposed combining Corke and Ade.
`
`MR. OAKS: Well, as I said, we proposed a higher level combination.
`We believe that’s appropriate under the law, that the law doesn’t require that
`we engineer together sort of a mash-up of these two references, that we take
`teachings from one and teachings from the other and explain why a POSITA
`
`
`
`
` 20
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
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
