throbber

`
`Paper No. 8
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`SMR AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS USA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MAGNA MIRRORS OF AMERICA, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00520
`Patent No. 8,267,534
`
`
`PATENT OWNER MAGNA MIRRORS OF AMERICA, INC.’S
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00520
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1
`BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................... 2
`I.
`Magna .................................................................................................... 2
`II.
`The ‘534 Patent ..................................................................................... 3
`PETITIONER FAILS TO SHOW A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT
`THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE ANTICIPATED OR OBVIOUS. ...... 6
`I.
`Legal Standards ..................................................................................... 6
`II.
`The Board Should Deny Institution On Ground 1. ............................... 7
`A. Ground 1 Should Be Denied Because Lynam ‘026 Is Not
`Prior Art, As The PTO Repeatedly Found. ................................. 7
`1.
`The Prosecution History of the ‘534 Patent. .................... 8
`2.
`SMR Fails To Show Why The Board Should
`Reconsider The PTO’s Conclusion That The ‘534
`Patent Properly Claims Priority To The ‘872
`Provisional. ..................................................................... 13
`a.
`The ‘666 application incorporates by
`reference the ‘451 and ‘712 patents in their
`entirety. ................................................................. 14
`The Written Description Of The ‘666
`Application Supports The Claims Of The
`‘534 Patent. ........................................................... 17
`SMR Fails To Show Why The Board Should
`Reconsider The PTO’s Conclusion That Lynam
`‘026 Is Not Prior Art. ...................................................... 21
`
`b.
`
`3.
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00520
`
`B.
`
`Ground 1 Should Also Be Denied Because It Raises
`Inventorship Questions That Are Better Addressed In
`District Court. ............................................................................ 24
`III. The Board Should Deny Institution On Ground 2 Because SMR
`Has Not Shown That The Prior Art Discloses All Claim
`Limitations Or A Sufficient Motivation To Combine. ....................... 27
`A.
`The Petition Improperly Incorporates By Reference The
`Sasian Declaration. ................................................................... 27
`Henion ‘013 Discloses A Trailer Towing Mirror, Not A
`Blind Spot Mirror. ..................................................................... 29
`SMR’s Obviousness Arguments Rely On Impermissible
`Hindsight And The Unsupported Opinions Of Its
`Unqualified “Expert.” ............................................................... 33
`1.
`SMR’s Expert Is Not A POSA. ...................................... 33
`2.
`SMR Fails To Show That Claim 20 Is Obvious. ............ 36
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 37
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ....................................................................... 38
`
`
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00520
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex Inc.,
`754 F.3d 952 (Fed Cir. 2014) ............................................................................. 21
`Apple, Inc. v. Contentguard Holdings, Inc.,
`IPR2015-00358, Paper 9 (PTAB July 2, 2015) .................................................. 29
`Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lily & Co.,
`598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) .......................................................... 17
`Callaway Golf Co. v. Acushnet Co.,
`576 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 16
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC,
`IPR2014-00454, Paper 12 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2014) ............................................. 29
`Cultec, Inc. v. Stormtech LLC,
`IPR2017-00777, Paper 7 (PTAB Aug. 22, 2017) ................................................. 7
`Harari v. Lee,
`656 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .............................................................. 14, 15, 16
`Hopkins Mfg. Corp. v. Cequent Performance Prods., Inc.,
`IPR2015-00616, Paper 9 (PTAB Aug. 17, 2015) ........................................... 6, 28
`Hospira, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.,
`IPR2017-00739, Paper 16 (PTAB July 27, 2017) ................................................ 7
`Husky Injection Molding Sys. Ltd. v. Athena Automation Ltd.,
`838 F.3d 1236 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 16
`In re Katz,
`687 F.2d 450 (C.C.P.A. 1982) ...................................................................... 21, 22
`Modine Mfg. Co. v. ITC,
`75 F.3d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 1996), abrogated by Festo Corp. v.
`Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd., 234 F.3d 558 (Fed.
`Cir. 2000) (en banc) ............................................................................................ 17
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00520
`
`SCHOTT Gemtron Corp. v. SSW Holding Co.,
`IPR2014-00367, Paper No. 62 (PTAB May 26, 2015) ...................................... 35
`Sewall v. Walters,
`21 F.3d 411 (Fed. Cir. 1994) .............................................................................. 25
`SMR Automotive Sys. USA, Inc. v. Magna Mirrors of Am., Inc.,
`IPR2018-00491 ................................................................................................... 18
`Telemac Cellular Corp. v. Topp Telecom, Inc.,
`247 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .......................................................................... 17
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Berman,
`IPR2016-01571, Paper 10 (PTAB Dec. 14, 2016) ......................................... 7, 26
`WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co.,
`829 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................... 30, 33
`Zenon Envtl., Inc. v. U.S. Filter Corp.,
`506 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 16
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ............................................................................................passim
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ................................................................................................... 21
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ............................................................................................passim
`35 U.S.C. § 256(b) ................................................................................................... 26
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ..................................................................................................... 6
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ........................................................................................... 2, 7, 24
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107 ..................................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) ................................................................................................. 6
`MPEP 2132.01 ......................................................................................................... 21
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00520
`
`INTRODUCTION
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. Section 42.107, patent owner Magna Mirrors
`
`of America, Inc. (“Magna”) submits this preliminary response to the Petition filed
`
`by SMR Automotive Systems USA, Inc. (“SMR”) requesting inter partes review
`
`of claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,267,534 (“the ‘534 patent”). Magna requests
`
`that the Board deny the inter partes review as to all grounds, none of which have
`
`merit.
`
`SMR’s first proposed ground is anticipation based on U.S. Pat. Pub. No.
`
`2002/0072026 (“Lynam ‘026”), the published application of Dr. Lynam’s prior
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,717,712 (“the ‘712 patent”), which is incorporated by reference
`
`into the ‘534 patent. But Lynam ‘026 was considered in depth during the
`
`prosecution of the ‘534 patent and seven other patents in the ‘534 patent family.
`
`For example, the PTO removed Lynam ‘026 as prior art during prosecution of
`
`related U.S. Pat. No. 7,934,843 (“the ‘843 patent”) after concluding that the ‘843
`
`patent is entitled to its claimed priority date and that “Niall Lynam conceived or
`
`invented the subject matter disclosed in the patent application publication.” Ex.
`
`1009, 23. The PTO reached the same conclusion regarding Lynam ‘026 in each of
`
`the eight prosecutions where it was considered, including during prosecution of the
`
`‘534 patent. The Board should therefore deny institution of the Lynam ‘026
`
`ground both because that application is not prior art to the ‘534 patent and also,
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00520
`
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), because the question of whether it is prior art has
`
`been extensively considered by the PTO.
`
`SMR’s remaining ground relies on WO 01/44013 to Henion (“Henion
`
`‘013”). Henion ‘013 is directed to an entirely different application, namely, a
`
`trailer towing mirror, in contrast to the inventions claimed in the ‘534 patent,
`
`which are directed to exterior rearview mirror systems for improved viewing of the
`
`blind spot. SMR’s attempts to address some of Henion ‘013’s deficiencies through
`
`obviousness arguments fail to set forth a sufficient reason, other than hindsight,
`
`why a person of ordinary skill would have combined the references to arrive at the
`
`claimed inventions of the ‘534 patent. Institution should therefore be denied on
`
`this ground as well.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`I. Magna
`Patent Owner Magna was founded in 1905 to become Donnelly Corporation
`
`in the 1980s. Donnelly Corporation was acquired by Magna International in 2002
`
`and became known as Magna Donnelly Corporation. In 2008, it changed its name
`
`to Magna Mirrors of America, Inc. Magna is a leading supplier of mirror and
`
`electronic vision systems for the automotive industry. Magna supplies products
`
`that practice the ‘534 patent to automobile original equipment manufacturers
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00520
`
`(“OEMs”) such as Ford, Hyundai, and Kia. These products, as well as infringing
`
`products sold by SMR, have enjoyed widespread commercial success.
`
`Dr. Lynam, the inventor of the ‘534 patent, was a longtime Donnelly
`
`employee and is currently Magna’s Chief Technical Officer. He is a named
`
`inventor on hundreds of issued U.S. Patents.
`
`II. The ‘534 Patent
`The ‘534 patent’s claims generally relate to a mirror system with a primary
`
`mirror and a separate, spotting mirror on a single mirror support. This mirror
`
`system is designed to solve the problem of the blind spot that a conventional, flat
`
`exterior side view mirror has in a side lane adjacent to the driver. The blind spot
`
`means that a driver may not see a passing vehicle in an adjacent side lane, and may
`
`therefore attempt to merge into the lane when the lane is not clear of traffic. Prior
`
`to the invention of the ‘534 patent, the blind spot problem had existed for decades.
`
`While many proposed solutions existed in the art, no blind spot solution had
`
`achieved significant commercial success or widespread adoption prior to the ‘534
`
`patent invention date. See, e.g., U.S. Pat. No. 5,579,133, Ex. 2003, at 1:23-33
`
`(noting that blind spot problem “has existed in the art practically since the advent
`
`of the enclosed automobile” and “[n]umerous attempts to solve this problem have
`
`been made”).
`
`3
`
`

`

`An exemplary depiction of the side View of a mirror subassembly (the
`
`mirrors and the mirror support) from the ‘534 patent is shown below:
`
`Case IPR2018-00520
`
`162'
`
`\
`
`i
`
`Bl
`
`//// /////////////////////////
`XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXTA\X>L
`I
`
`(c
`
`
`
`/ I 155'
`165'
`.
`'50,
`"1'
`
`
`
`FIG. M
`
`An exemplary photograph of one of Magna’s complete mirror assemblies for
`
`the Ford Mustang that practices the ‘534 patent can be seen here:
`
`
`
`Among numerous other requirements, the ‘534 patent claims require that the
`
`auxiliary mirror element have a field of view that overlaps with the field of View of
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00520
`
`the main mirror element. See Ex. 1001, Claim 13. Claim 13 is set forth below
`
`(emphases added):
`
`13. An exterior rearview mirror assembly for a motor
`vehicle, said exterior rearview mirror assembly
`comprising:
`
`[a] a bracket fixedly secured to the motor vehicle;
`
`[b] a mirror casing secured to said bracket, said mirror
`casing defining a primary opening;
`
`[c] a single mirror support movably secured within said
`mirror casing disposed adjacent said primary opening;
`
`[d] a primary mirror fixedly secured to said single mirror
`support and disposed within said primary opening for
`providing a view rearward of the motor vehicle through a
`primary field of view;
`
`[e] a spotting mirror fixedly secured to said single mirror
`support and disposed adjacent said primary mirror, said
`spotting mirror defined by a single radius of curvature
`differing from said primary mirror such that said spotting
`mirror provides a second field of view rearward of the
`motor vehicle, such that said primary field of view of
`said primary mirror overlaps said second field of view of
`said spotting mirror;
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00520
`
`[f] wherein said spotting mirror is at an angle relative to
`said primary mirror; and
`
`[g] wherein said primary mirror comprises one of (a) a
`generally flat glass substrate having a surface coated with
`a metallic reflector coating and (b) a generally flat
`polymeric substrate having a thin glass element applied
`to a surface thereof and with an opposing surface thereof
`having a reflecting layer applied thereto.
`
`Certain dependent claims provide further specificity regarding the positional
`
`relationship between the spotting and primary mirrors. Other dependent claims
`
`include limitations regarding the curvature of the spotting mirror, and a limitation
`
`specifying the angling of the spotting mirror relative to the primary mirror.
`
`PETITIONER FAILS TO SHOW A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT
`THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE ANTICIPATED OR OBVIOUS.
`Legal Standards
`For each claim challenged in its petition for inter partes review, SMR bears
`
`I.
`
`the burden of showing that there is a “reasonable likelihood” that it will prevail in
`
`its challenge. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). As the Board
`
`has explained, the petitioner has “the burden of proof to establish that it is entitled
`
`to the requested relief.” Hopkins Mfg. Corp. v. Cequent Performance Prods., Inc.,
`
`IPR2015-00616, Paper 9 at 7 (PTAB Aug. 17, 2015) (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c)).
`
`As explained further below, the Board may also deny institution of inter partes
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00520
`
`review for discretionary reasons, including because “the same or substantially the
`
`same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” 35 U.S.C. §
`
`325(d).
`
`II. The Board Should Deny Institution On Ground 1.
`A. Ground 1 Should Be Denied Because Lynam ‘026 Is Not Prior
`Art, As The PTO Repeatedly Found.
`As demonstrated below, the PTO considered the issues raised in Ground 1
`
`(including whether the ‘534 patent is entitled to its claimed priority date and
`
`whether Lynam ‘026 qualifies as prior art), repeatedly during the prosecution of
`
`the ‘534 patent and its family. In these circumstances, the Board can and should
`
`exercise its discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). See Cultec,
`
`Inc. v. Stormtech LLC, IPR2017-00777, Paper 7 at 13 (PTAB Aug. 22, 2017)
`
`(informative) (denying institution under Section 325(d) because “the same or
`
`substantially the same prior art or arguments as are presented in the Petition
`
`previously were presented to the Office”); Hospira, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.,
`
`IPR2017-00739, Paper 16 at 17–19 (PTAB July 27, 2017) (informative) (denying
`
`institution under Section 325(d) because the petitioner’s priority challenge was
`
`already considered by the PTO). Instituting inter partes review on Ground 1
`
`“would not be an efficient use of Board resources.” Unified Patents Inc. v.
`
`Berman, IPR2016-01571, Paper 10 at 12 (PTAB Dec. 14, 2016) (informative)
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00520
`
`(denying institution on certain claims because “the Petition relies on the same or
`
`substantially the same prior art and arguments presented previously to the Office”).
`
`1.
`The Prosecution History of the ‘534 Patent.
`Dr. Lynam conceived of the inventions that were later claimed in the ‘534
`
`patent sometime in 1999 and 2000. He filed a patent application disclosing his
`
`claimed inventions on January 6, 2000, which issued as U.S. Patent No. 6,522,451
`
`on February 18, 2003. Dr. Lynam is the sole named inventor of the ‘451 patent.
`
`On December 20, 2000, he filed a continuation-in-part of the ‘451 patent, which
`
`issued on April 6, 2004 as U.S. Pat. No. 6,717,712 (“the ‘712 patent”). The
`
`application that issued as the ‘712 patent was published on June 13, 2002, as the
`
`Lynam ‘026 reference—the reference SMR relies upon in its request. The ‘712
`
`patent names two additional Donnelly employees as co-inventors, John O. Lindahl
`
`and Hahns Yoachim Fuchs, due to their contribution of elements (namely, a “frame
`
`element assembly”) disclosed and claimed in the ‘712 patent that are not relevant
`
`to the claims of the ‘534 patent. The ‘712 patent also disclosed further details
`
`invented by Dr. Lynam regarding the angling and fields of view of the mirror
`
`elements.
`
`Dr. Lynam filed provisional patent application no. 60/471,872 (“the ‘872
`
`provisional”), to which the ‘534 patent claims priority, on May 20, 2003. The ‘872
`
`provisional disclosed an inventive composition for a mirror, which SMR refers to
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00520
`
`as the “thin glass” feature. ‘872 provisional, Ex. 2010, 2:4-10; Petition, 16. The
`
`‘872 provisional also disclosed a mirror assembly using the novel mirror
`
`composition. E.g., Ex. 2010, 2:13-18. In addition, the ‘872 provisional
`
`incorporated by reference a number of other Magna Donnelly patents and patent
`
`applications disclosing mirrors and features that the novel mirror composition
`
`could be used with, including the ‘451 patent and the ‘712 patent (id., 5:2-6) and
`
`interior electrochromic mirror assemblies (id., 9:28-10:15).
`
`Dr. Lynam filed U.S. Patent Application No. 12/851,045 (“the ‘045
`
`application”), which later issued as U.S. Pat No. 7,934,843 (“the ‘843 patent”), on
`
`August 5, 2010.1 Because the claims in the ‘045 application included the two-
`
`
`1 Contrary to SMR’s assertion, the filing of the ‘045 application was not an attempt
`
`“[t]o revive prosecution of the ‘712 patent’s abandoned family.” Petition, 10. The
`
`‘045 application included discussion of the novel thin glass substrate first
`
`described in the ‘872 provisional and included claim limitations directed to that
`
`substrate, as well as discussion of the two-element blind spot mirror assembly
`
`disclosed in the ‘451 patent that is incorporated by reference in the ‘872
`
`provisional. See Ex. 1007, ¶¶ 3-17, 44-45, 89-107 (discussing thin glass and
`
`related features), ¶¶ 45-88 (discussing plano-auxiliary mirror assembly and related
`
`features). The ‘045 application could not have been filed as a continuation of the
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00520
`
`element blind spot mirror assembly described in the ‘451 and ‘712 patents, along
`
`with the thin glass limitations from the ‘872 provisional, the ‘045 application
`
`copied material from the ‘451 and ‘712 patents that had previously been
`
`incorporated by reference directly into the specification of the ‘045 application.
`
`For example, the ‘045 application added figures 9-23, which had previously been
`
`included through the incorporation by reference of the ‘451 and ‘712 patents.
`
`During the prosecution of the ‘045 application, the PTO initially rejected the
`
`pending claims on the alleged basis that they were not entitled to claim priority to
`
`the ‘872 provisional. Ex. 1009, 139-40. Specifically, the PTO rejected all claims
`
`other than claims 24-26 as anticipated by Lynam ‘026, the same as SMR’s first
`
`invalidity ground. Id., 141-51. It also rejected claims 24-26 as obvious based on a
`
`combination of Lynam ‘026 and the publication of one of the applications that the
`
`‘843 patent claims priority to, U.S. Pat. Appl. Pub. 2004/0264011 (“Lynam ‘011”).
`
`Id., 152-55.
`
`Dr. Lynam responded by explaining why the priority claim to the ‘872
`
`provisional was proper, due to the incorporation by reference of the ‘451 and ‘712
`
`patents in the ‘843 patent and the applications to which the ‘843 patent claims
`
`
`‘451 and ‘712 patent family because those patents do not disclose the thin glass
`
`substrate.
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00520
`
`priority. Id., 46-48. Additionally, Dr. Lynam submitted a declaration to explain
`
`why Lynam ‘026 did not qualify as prior art. Id., 53-55.
`
`In response, the PTO allowed the application that issued as the ‘843 patent.
`
`The Reasons for Allowance explained that the “Applicant has overcome the prior
`
`art rejection and questions regarding priority by filing a 37 CFR 1.131 affidavit
`
`which proved sufficient to overcome the Lynam et al reference. The 37 CFR 1.131
`
`affidavit proves that Niall Lynam conceived or invented the subject matter
`
`disclosed in the patent application publication.” Id., 23 (emphasis added). In other
`
`words, Lynam ‘026 was found not to be prior art because it was not the work of
`
`another.
`
`Dr. Lynam went on to prosecute a number of additional patent applications
`
`claiming priority to the ‘843 patent and to the ‘872 provisional. Rejections over
`
`Lynam ‘026 were issued in seven of these prosecutions, including in the
`
`prosecution of the ‘534 patent, as set forth in the table below. Each time (before
`
`two different examiners)2, Dr. Lynam overcame the rejections in the same manner
`
`as during the prosecution of the ‘843 patent.
`
`
`2 U.S. Pat. No. 8,783,882 was prosecuted before a different examiner than the ‘843
`
`patent and the other patents listed below. Compare Ex. 1001, cover with Ex. 1022,
`
`cover.
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00520
`
`U.S.
`Patent
`No.
`
`Rejection
`Over Lynam
`‘026
`
`Response by Dr.
`Lynam
`Explaining
`Incorporation
`by Reference
`
`8,128,243 10/31/2011
`(Ex. 2004, 4-
`11)
`8,128,244 11/16/2011
`(Ex. 2005, 3-
`20)
`8,147,077 1/5/2012
`(Ex. 2006, 3-
`19)
`8,267,534 5/17/2012
`(Ex. 1006, 146-
`49)
`8,550,642 4/23/2013
`(Ex. 2008, 5-7)
`
`8,591,047 8/16/2013
`(Ex. 2009, 3-
`12)
`8,783,882 12/17/2013
`
`11/3/2011
`(Ex. 2004, 15-
`18)
`11/22/2011
`(Ex. 2005, 23-
`25)
`1/6/2012
`(Ex. 2006, 22-
`24)
`5/21/2012
`(Ex. 1006, 190-
`92)
`7/17/2013
`(Ex. 2008, 21-
`23)
`8/21/2013
`(Ex. 2009, 26-
`28)
`3/17/2014
`
`Affidavit by
`Dr. Lynam
`explaining
`Lynam ‘026
`is not Prior
`Art
`11/3/2011
`(Ex. 2004, 19-
`21)
`11/22/2011
`(Ex. 2005, 26-
`29)
`1/6/2012
`(Ex. 2006, 25-
`28)
`5/21/2012
`(Ex. 1006,
`195-96)
`7/17/2013
`(Ex. 2008, 26-
`28)
`8/21/2013
`(Ex. 2009, 30-
`32)
`3/17/2014
`
`Notice of
`Allowance
`Agreeing
`with Dr.
`Lynam
`
`1/20/2012
`(Ex. 2004, 27)
`
`1/24/2012
`(Ex. 2005, 35)
`
`2/17/2012
`(Ex. 2006, 34)
`
`8/6/2012
`(Ex. 1006,
`284)
`9/5/2013
`(Ex. 2008, 35)
`
`9/27/2013
`(Ex. 2009, 39)
`
`6/10/2014
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00520
`
`U.S.
`Patent
`No.
`
`Rejection
`Over Lynam
`‘026
`
`Response by Dr.
`Lynam
`Explaining
`Incorporation
`by Reference
`
`(Ex. 1023, 135,
`137-50)
`
`(Ex. 1023, 179-
`80)
`
`Affidavit by
`Dr. Lynam
`explaining
`Lynam ‘026
`is not Prior
`Art
`(Ex. 1023,
`184-86)
`
`Notice of
`Allowance
`Agreeing
`with Dr.
`Lynam
`
`(Ex. 1023,
`349-51)
`
`Accordingly, Lynam ‘026 is not prior art to the ‘534 patent and the question
`
`has been considered eight times, by two different examiners.
`
`2.
`
`SMR Fails To Show Why The Board Should Reconsider
`The PTO’s Conclusion That The ‘534 Patent Properly
`Claims Priority To The ‘872 Provisional.
`SMR focuses its priority argument on whether the application preceding the
`
`‘843 patent, the ‘666 application (Ex. 1014, which became the ‘154 patent),
`
`provides a written description of the claims of the ‘534 patent, asserting that the
`
`‘666 application does not incorporate by reference the relevant teachings of the
`
`‘451 and ‘712 patents (Petition, 20-24), and that even if it did, the written
`
`description would not support the ‘534 patent claims (Petition, 24-32). As the PTO
`
`previously determined when Dr. Lynam prosecuted the ‘534 patent family, SMR’s
`
`arguments are incorrect.
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00520
`
`a.
`
`The ‘666 application incorporates by reference the
`‘451 and ‘712 patents in their entirety.
`The standard for whether material is incorporated by reference “is whether
`
`one reasonably skilled in the art would understand the application as describing
`
`with sufficient particularity the material to be incorporated,” which “is a question
`
`of law.” Harari v. Lee, 656 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In this regard, an
`
`application may incorporate a reference in its entirety, and this incorporation can
`
`then be used to provide written description support. Id. at 1335, 1338 (concluding
`
`that “the entire ‘579 application disclosure was incorporated by the broad and
`
`unequivocal language: ‘The disclosures of the two applications are hereby
`
`incorporate[d] by reference’” and that therefore “the portions of the ‘579
`
`application that Harari argues provide the written description support for its claims
`
`are part of the optimized erase and write implementations” at issue).
`
`The ‘666 application includes the same type of “broad and unequivocal
`
`language” that was found to incorporate the entirety of a reference in Harari: “The
`
`reflective element 12 may provide a field of view similar to the plano-auxiliary
`
`reflective element assembly disclosed in U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,522,451 and 6,717,712,
`
`which are hereby incorporated herein by reference.” Ex. 1014, ¶ 28 (emphasis
`
`added). SMR asserts that this statement incorporates by reference only the field of
`
`view disclosed in the ‘451 and ‘712 patents (Petition, 20-21), but that argument is
`
`grammatically incorrect. The verb used in the incorporation by reference
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00520
`
`statement is “are,” which is used for a plural subject. This indicates that the
`
`subject of the incorporation by reference statement is the plural “U.S. Pat. Nos.
`
`6,522,451 and 6,717,712,” not the singular “a field of view” as SMR contends.
`
`The sentence is properly broken down into two parts: 1) a statement that reflective
`
`element 12 may provide a field of view similar to the plano-auxiliary reflective
`
`element assembly disclosed in the ‘451 and the ‘712 patents, and 2) a statement
`
`that the ‘451 and ‘712 patents are incorporated by reference.
`
`SMR points to language in the ‘666 application where a reference is said to
`
`be incorporated “in its entirety,” arguing that the lack of such a statement indicates
`
`that something less than the entirety of the ‘451 and ‘712 patents are incorporated
`
`in the statement at issue. Petition, 22. However, the Federal Circuit has agreed
`
`that “there is no need to use such words as ‘in its entirety’ to indicate that the entire
`
`reference is incorporated.” Harari, 656 F.3d at 1335. Indeed, as in Harari, the
`
`‘666 application reveals that when Dr. Lynam intended to incorporate only specific
`
`portions of a reference, he said so explicitly. Compare Ex. 1014, ¶ 44 (“[T]he
`
`mirror assembly may include one or more displays of the types described in
`
`[certain references], which are all hereby incorporated herein by reference, without
`
`affecting the scope of the present invention.”) (emphases added) with Harari, 656
`
`F.3d at 1335-36 (“We contrast the incorporation used here, ‘the disclosures,’ with
`
`the incorporation language used later in the same specification, ‘relevant portions
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00520
`
`of the disclosures.’ When the drafter intended to incorporate only a portion it did
`
`so expressly.”). Because here, as in Harari, Dr. Lynam broadly and unequivocally
`
`stated in the ‘666 application that the ‘451 and ‘712 patents “are hereby
`
`incorporated,” his broad language should be respected. Ex. 1014, ¶ 28.
`
`SMR fails to cite a single case where a broad and unequivocal statement that
`
`a reference is incorporated was found not to incorporate a reference in its entirety.
`
`See Petition, 22-23 (citing Zenon, Husky, and Callaway Golf). In Zenon Envtl.,
`
`Inc. v. U.S. Filter Corp., 506 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2007), the incorporation by
`
`reference statement was expressly limited to specific subject matter. Id. at 1379
`
`(incorporation by reference stated only that “details relating to the construction and
`
`deployment of a most preferred skein are found in” the references and that “the
`
`relevant disclosures of each [reference] are included by reference”) (emphasis
`
`added). In Husky Injection Molding Sys. Ltd. v. Athena Automation Ltd., 838 F.3d
`
`1236, 1248 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the court declined to reach the issue of whether a
`
`reference was incorporated in its entirety. And in Callaway Golf Co. v. Acushnet
`
`Co., 576 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009), the issue of whether a reference was
`
`incorporated in its entirety was not before the court at all. Id. at 1346-47 (reversing
`
`district court and holding that specific materials disclosed in prior application were
`
`incorporated by reference; the question of whether anything else from the prior
`
`application was incorporated was not raised by either party).
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00520
`
`b.
`
`The Written Description Of The ‘666 Application
`Supports The Claims Of The ‘534 Patent.
`The inquiry for written description is whether the specification “reasonably
`
`conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed
`
`subject matter as of the filing date.” Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lily & Co., 598 F.3d
`
`1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). Because the ‘666 application incorporates
`
`by reference the ‘451 and ‘712 patents in their entirety, the incorporation by
`
`reference provides sufficient written description support for nearly the entirety of
`
`the scope of the claims of the ‘534 patent. The incorporation by reference of the
`
`‘712 patent, which issued from the application that was published as Lynam ‘026,
`
`places all of the teachings of Lynam ‘026 into the ‘666 application as if they were
`
`explicitly contained therein. See Telemac Cellular Corp. v. Topp Telecom, Inc.,
`
`247 F.3d 1316, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“When a document is ‘incorporated by
`
`reference’ into a host document, such as a patent, the referenced document
`
`becomes effectively part of the host document as if it were explicitly contained
`
`therein.”).3 Because SMR contends, in its Ground 1, that Lynam ‘026 discloses the
`
`
`3 SMR cites to an earlier, abrogated case to argue to the contrary (Petition, 30), but
`
`the case involved an issue of claim construction, not written description or priority,
`
`and is therefore distinguishable. Modine Mfg. Co. v. ITC, 75 F.3d 1545, 1553
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00520
`
`limitations of, and indeed anticipates claims 1-20, SMR cannot dispute that the
`
`same teachings, when present in the ‘666 application, provide written description
`
`support for the same limitations.
`
`The only limitations of the ‘534 patent that are not disclosed in Lynam ‘026
`
`are related to the “thin glass” embodiment that is optionally claimed as part of
`
`claims 7 and 13. But SMR acknowledges that the “thin glass” feature is disclosed
`
`in the ‘666 application because it contends in parallel proceedings that “thin glass”
`
`is disclosed by the ‘666 application’s immediate parent, Lynam ‘011. See e.g.,
`
`SMR Automotive Sys. USA, Inc. v. Magna Mirrors of Am., Inc., IPR2018-00491,
`
`Petition at 47; Ex. 1014, ¶ 1. The same disclosures SMR relies on from Lynam
`
`‘011 in IPR2018-00491 are also set forth in the ‘666 application. Compare
`
`IPR2018-00491, Ex. 1036, ¶¶ 6-9, 27, 32, 35, 36, 38-41, 47, Figs. 2-5 with
`
`IPR2018-00491, Ex. 1014, ¶¶ 6-9, 27, 32, 35, 36, 38-41, 47, Figs. 2-5.
`
`Accordingly, the ‘666 application, including the material incorpor

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket