`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SONY CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FUJIFILM CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00876
`Patent 6,462,905 B1
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: June 21, 2019
`____________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, GREGG I. ANDERSON, and
`SHEILA F. McSHANE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00876
`Patent 6,462,905 B1
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`RICHARD F. GIUNTA, ESQUIRE
`NATHAN R. SPEED, ESQUIRE
`Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C.
`600 Atlantic Avenue
`Boston, Massachusetts 02210
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`ELIOT D. WILLIAMS, ESQUIRE
`Baker Botts LLP
`1001 Page Mill Road
`Building One, Suite 200
`Palo Alto, California 94304-1007
`
`MARGARET M. WELSH, ESQUIRE
`Baker Botts LLP
`30 Rockefeller Plaza
`New York, New York 10112-4498
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Friday, June 21,
`
`2019, commencing at 1:00 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
`26
`
`Case IPR2018-00876
`Patent 6,462,905 B1
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`
`MS. SMITH: All rise.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Please be seated. Give me a moment here to get
`set up. Okay. Good afternoon. This is the hearing for IPR2018-00876,
`Sony Corporation v. Fujifilm Corporation involving U.S. Patent No.
`6,462,905. At this time, we'd like the parties to please enter as counsel for
`the record, beginning with the Petitioner.
`
`MR. SPEED: Good afternoon, Your Honors. Nathan Speed on behalf
`of Petitioner from Wolf Greenfield & Sacks, and joining me is lead counsel
`Richard Giunta also from Wolf Greenfield & Sacks.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay; thank you; and for Patent Owner?
`
`MR. WILLIAMS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Eliot Williams of
`Baker Botts for the Patent Owner; and with me today is Margaret Welsh also
`with Baker Botts.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Thank you. Each party has 45 minutes, total
`time, to present arguments. Petitioner, you'll proceed first to present your
`case with respect to the challenged claims and grounds for which the Board
`instituted a trial and may reserve of your argument time to respond to
`arguments presented by Patent Owner. Thereafter, Patent Owner will
`respond to Petitioner's presentation and may reserve argument time for sur-
`rebuttal. Are there any questions as to the order of presentations?
`
`MR. WILLIAMS: No, Your Honor. I'm (inaudible).
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Petitioner, would you like to reserve
`rebuttal time?
`
`MR. SPEED: I'd like to reserve five minutes for this trial.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00876
`Patent 6,462,905 B1
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Five minutes? Okay. And Patent Owner, would
`
`you like to reserve sur-rebuttal time?
`
`MR. WILLIAMS: No; I don't intend to.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. And just as a reminder, Judges Anderson
`and McShane cannot see the demonstratives if you project them on the
`screen. They can only see you at the podium. So, please refer to the slide
`number that you're referring to so that they may follow along. Also, please
`speak into the microphones that they may hear what you have to say. If you
`speak from the table where you're sitting, they won't be able to hear you.
`We would like to also remind the parties that this hearing is open to the
`public, and the transcript will be entered into the public record of the
`proceeding; and with that, we will get started. Petitioner, you may proceed.
`
`MR. SPEED: Thank you, Your Honors. I'm on slide 2 to begin. In
`this trial, we have five grounds that were instituted. The first three relate,
`primarily, to the McAllister II as the primary reference; and grounds six and
`seven relate to the Mizutani reference. There were grounds four and five in
`our petition, but those are no longer relevant.
`
`Turning to slide 3 and a very brief overview of the patent in this case,
`the patent deals with a magnetic tape cartridge. Those have been around for
`a long time, for decades. The particular design of a cartridge recited in the
`'905 Patent relates to the linear tape open design or LTO design. There's no
`dispute that the LTO design was known in the art at the time of the filing of
`this patent.
`
`On slide 3, I have annotated images from the petition at 11 through
`13, and you can see these conventional elements which are a red casing; a
`green reel, it has flanges that would house the tape; and a circular hub that
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00876
`Patent 6,462,905 B1
`
`spins when it's put into a tape drive. Inside that hub is a yellow -- what
`we've highlighted in yellow -- a braking gear that moves up and down; and
`when it's down as it's shown in figure 1, it's engaged with an engagement
`gear on the reel that also rotates with the reel. So, the way this works is the
`brake goes up and it frees the reel to rotate, and when you want to stop the
`reel from rotating, the brake comes down and it engages the engagement
`gear.
`Now, how does it move up and down? That's shown in the third
`
`image on slide 3 which is this release member; and this is kind of the aspect
`of the LTO design that was invented at that time. The orange release
`member is a triangular-shaped body with legs that stick down through holes
`in the reel; and so, when this tape is inserted into a tape drive, teeth on the
`drive engage those legs and push them up which, in turn, causes the brake
`member to rise and, I believe, it's engaged state becomes disengaged and
`allows the reel to rotate.
`
`If we turn quickly to slide 4, we can see annotated images from the
`petition at 13 to 14; and on the top left we have the McAllister II reference.
`And as you can see in the annotated drawing, all of those conventional
`elements, including -- what I forgot to mention -- was like an urging
`member, which is a spring that pushes the brake down. All those elements
`were known in the art, as shown in the McAllister I reference; and there's no
`dispute that the McAllister I reference discloses each of a braking member;
`an urging member; a releasing member; an engagement projection.
`
`The problem in claim slide 5, the problem with the '905 Patent
`purports to identify in the LTO design is explained at column 1, lines 53 to
`column 2, line 8. The inventors purported to identify that the brake can
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00876
`Patent 6,462,905 B1
`
`sometimes become misaligned or tilted in the cartridge. And this is
`problematic because the engagement gear teeth -- as you can see in the
`annotated image on the left of slide 5 -- the braking gear's tooth can remain
`engaged even when it's supposed to be disengaged which were to cause
`noise or obstruction or friction.
`
`It also could be problematic in the transition from the unlock state to
`the lock state in that it wouldn't allow the braking gear to fully engage with
`the engagement gear. The patent explains that this occurs during use when
`the brake is transitioning from its different stages and also during the
`assembly process -- and we've highlighted that on slide 5.
`
`The patent identifies two solutions -- and I'm on slide 6 now. The first
`solution is relative to challenged claims 1 and 2 -- it's the guide members.
`Essentially, what the patent introduces is this idea of using additional
`material on the inner surface of the reel hub that has an inclined surface and,
`effectively, acts as a funnel to center the brake to the center of the reel.
`
`Turning to slide 7, we can see the other purported solution which is to
`use gears with different diameters. The patent claims that if you have a
`braking gear that is some amount smaller -- it can be any amount smaller --
`than the engagement gear, that somehow lends, or aids in the centering of
`the brake -- and that's relevant to claim 3. And we can see claim 3 here.
`The limitation is that the engagement gear has to be larger than that of the
`braking gear. There's no specific amount it needs to be larger; there's no
`description in the specification of any amount that is needed to accomplish
`this centering functionality.
`
`Turning to slide 9, I'd like to start with the McAllister I and Laverriere
`combination -- and this is relevant for claims 1 and 2. Again, looking at
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00876
`Patent 6,462,905 B1
`
`slide 10, which is an annotated image from the petition at 24, there's no
`dispute that McAllister discloses every single element of claim 1 except for
`the guide members. And our proposed combination is that it would have
`been obvious to a person of skill in the art to add those guide members to
`McAllister I's reel; and we look to Laverriere, which is on slide 11, for that
`teaching.
`
`Laverriere is an older reference that deals with a prior-generation
`cartridge known as the IBM 3840, or the brake-button cartridge, as the
`parties have called it. And you can see it here in an annotated figure on slide
`11 at the bottom where we have figure 2. And you can see that this is
`similar as a reel -- a reel hub -- and there's a brake inside of it. The primary
`difference is that the way this is engaged is there is a central hole, that a
`spindle and the brake drive pushes up on to cause the brake to disengage
`from the engagement gear.
`
`Laverriere teaches at column 1, lines 28 to 39; and column 3, lines 37
`to 46 that because there's a difference in diameter between the braking gear
`and the inner surface of the reel hub, there's a potential for the brake to
`become misaligned; and that misalignment is actually shown in figure 2.
`
`If we turn to slide 12, we see that a decade before the '905 Patent was
`applied for, Laverriere teaches a solution that's very similar to the '905
`solution, which is to add material to the inner surface of the reel hub, that
`has an inclined surface and acts effectively like a funnel to slide the brake
`into the center of the reel so it properly engages. Laverriere teaches that this
`assist in both the assembly process, when the brake is initially put into the
`hub; and also during the use, when the brake is going up and down.
`
`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
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00876
`Patent 6,462,905 B1
`
`So, the petition and our expert set forth a reason for why a person of
`
`skill in the art would add these ribs from Laverriere to the McAllister I
`cartridge; and we can turn to slide 13. That reason is that McAllister I has
`the same difference in diameter between its outer diameter and the inner
`surface of the reel hub. This is the exact same type of clearance between the
`components that Laverriere identified as creating a potential for the brake to
`become misaligned. As we see it, paragraph 161 of our experts opening
`declaration -- Mr. von Alten -- the difference in diameter is helpful. It aides
`in assemble because it makes it easier to put the brake into the reel hub.
`
`JUDGE ANDERSON: So, Counsel, is it your position is that -- is it
`Laverriere who shows there's a difference between the two diameters and the
`brake? I'm going to call it the brake and the drive. And that, itself,
`establishes the possibility for misalignment even though McAllister I is the
`LTO design?
`
`MR. SPEED: So, Laverriere teaches a problem in the art of magnetic
`tape cartridges which is, that given the clearance between the brake and the
`drive -- the reel hub -- that creates a potential for misalignment. And our
`expert looked at McAllister I and said that same difference in diameter carry
`through from the prior generation IBM 3840s to the LTO design. And as -- I
`can talk about in a few seconds with some other slides -- it makes complete
`sense that you're going to want to maintain that clearance between the brake
`and the hub because the hub rotates around the brake. And, so, it has to
`rotate around -- and the brake also goes up and down -- so there needs to be
`clearance and space for that brake and for that cartridge to operate.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00876
`Patent 6,462,905 B1
`
`JUDGE ANDERSON: So, it's your position that McAllister I has an
`
`LTO-type technology -- has the same kind of misalignment problem that is
`addressed in the '905 Patent? That's the gist of this, is that right?
`
`MR. SPEED: Yeah, that's the gist. The important thing to note is that
`the '905 Patent actually never explained why there's misalignment; they just
`said that there is misalignment. So if anything, Laverriere has kind of
`explained for everyone why this misalignment occurs in both the older
`cartridges and in the newer cartridges. It's this difference in diameter that,
`inherently, allows for some movement of the brake which, inherently, allows
`for some tilting of that brake and the misalignment problem that the ribs
`solve.
`
`On slide 14, just briefly -- we identified several reasons in the petition,
`at pages 42 to 43, as to why this would have been an obvious -- why the
`proposed combination would have been obvious -- the explicit teaching in
`Laverriere that this aides in the assembly or use of the device by keeping the
`brake centered. It also would have been the use of a known technique
`centering ribs to a known device -- a magnetic tape cartridge -- ready for
`improvement to yield a predictable result; and it also would have been the
`use of a known technique to improve one device the same way it had
`improved a different device.
`
`The principal counter argument that Fujifilm advances in its Patent
`Owner response is that there is no misalignment problem in McAllister I
`and, therefore, a person of skill in the art would have no reason to make the
`proposed combination. And that argument has, basically, two subparts. The
`first one is that the diameter between the braking gear and the inner surface
`of the reel hub, they maintain that it might not exist in McAllister I; and if
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00876
`Patent 6,462,905 B1
`
`we turn to slide 15, we can see our expert, Mr. von Alten -- who's a named
`inventor on McAllister I and was also intimately involved in the design of
`the original LTO cartridge -- at his deposition at page 60, he made clear that
`in all cases in operation, the brake button and the braking member has to
`have clearance so that the cartridge is able to spin. As he said "it's important
`that the brake member or the brake button -- in this case of the older style --
`does not contact the hub." And that makes complete sense that you would
`want those two things rubbing against each other in a cartridge that's
`designed to last for years and to spend around thousands of times.
`
`We don't have to rely just on his say-so. If we turn to slide 16, we can
`see the prior art on this uniformly depicts clearance between the braking
`gear and the inner surface of the reel hub. So, slide 16 has at the top two
`LTO cartridges -- and I'll note, our reply at pages 3 to 4, we've cited all the
`references in the record that demonstrate this; and I've just taken out a few
`for today's discussion. The top left is Morita-II -- there's clearance between
`its breaking gear and inner surface of the reel hub. The top right is
`referenced, Shima, that Fujifilm itself introduced. Again, you can clearly
`see a significant amount of clearance there between the components. And
`then on the bottom, we have Exhibit 2017 and Exhibit 1027; both relate to
`the older styled cartridge which shows that this common sense design has
`been part of magnetic tape cartridges from the beginning. There's always
`clearance between the two.
`
`Indeed, if we turn to slide 17, at his deposition, their expert, Mr.
`Vanderheyden, was candid that he does not know of any LTO design in
`which there would be a line-to-line fit, such as one that Fujifilm proposes,
`could be shown in McAllister I.
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00876
`Patent 6,462,905 B1
`
`Slide 18 is our reply declaration -- paragraph 10 and 11 from our reply
`
`declaration of Mr. von Alten -- who saw this argument and wanted to reply
`to it; and there was no deposition taken of Mr. von Alten on these points --
`and he makes clear -- what, I hope, is readily apparent -- that you need to
`have these clearances for these types of cartridges to work. A line-to-line fit,
`as he says in paragraph 11, is simply not practical, and a POSA would not
`consider it to be a viable design.
`
`So, turning to slide 19 and the second argument here on the
`misalignment -- Fujifilm's backup argument is well, if the same
`misalignment from Laverriere is possible in McAllister I, that goes away
`because McAllister I is a LTO cartridge, and LTO cartridges everyone knew
`had tight mating projections that prevented any type of tilt. These
`projections on the LTO cartridges -- and, frankly, they're on the older
`cartridges as well -- there's one on the bottom of the upper casing that
`engages where the projection on the top of the brake and the purpose of that
`is to prevent the brake from ever rotating; it keeps it in one spot.
`
`And at Mr. von Alten's opening declaration, he accounted for these
`mating projections; and he explained that a person of skill in the art would
`understand you need to have clearance between those projections as well;
`and that clearance would necessarily allow for some amount of potential tilt,
`which is the exact same problem that the '905 Patent identifies.
`
`The '905 Patent in figure 5 identifies an LTO cartridge's prior art --
`which it had to -- and it's identifying that braking gear can tilt. And so, if
`Fujifilm and its expert were correct that every LTO cartridge has tight-fitting
`mating projections that prevent tilt, then the whole invention story goes
`away. It shouldn't tilt under that theory.
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00876
`Patent 6,462,905 B1
`
`JUDGE McSHANE: Counsel, a quick question.
`
`MR. SPEED: Yes.
`
`JUDGE McSHANE: Is it Petitioner's position that if there's any
`
`clearance, there would be the potential for misalignment?
`
`MR. SPEED: If there's not a clearance, it will dictate how much
`misalignment is present, but any clearance would allow for some
`misalignment during use, particularly. And we also have to keep in mind
`assembly, which is when this brake is initially put into the reel hub. And so,
`that really has nothing to do with the mating projections because the
`projections aren't mated at that point. The mating projections would only
`prevent misalignment during the up and down, during the use space. So, to
`the extent that there's minimal clearance, it would still allow for some tilt
`which would be potentially problematic in these devices where the
`engagement needs to be precise to ensure that the tape doesn't rotate.
`
`JUDGE ANDERSON: So, is the assembly argument that once it's
`assembled wrong -- I assume it's assembled wrong, in that there is a
`misalignment that occurs during assembly -- that can be corrected with the
`funneling effect of a guide member, essentially?
`
`MR. SPEED: That's what Laverriere teaches. It teaches that its ribs
`aide in the assembly process; and that would only make sense if putting the
`brake in and those ribs center it so that it's held in the middle, and then you
`put the rest of the cartridge on the top.
`
`JUDGE ANDERSON: So, essentially, when you put it together, you
`resolve the misalignment problem because it's taken care of once you put the
`clam shells together, basically; is that right?
`
`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
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00876
`Patent 6,462,905 B1
`
`MR. SPEED: That's partly right. It's any misalignment during the
`
`assembly process is resolved with the guide members, but you still have the
`problem that there's going to be clearance between the mating projections,
`which is still going to allow it to shift during use. And that's the other
`benefit of keeping the centering ribs in, if you were -- not that you can take
`them out -- but that's the second benefit of the setting ribs -- is they keep
`bringing the brake to the center during the up and down transitions of the
`cartridge goes through, as a company goes and puts it into a drive; takes it
`out; puts it in; takes it out. It goes up, it tilts, and then it hits the rib and
`brings it back to center.
`
`So, if you turn to slide 20, we asked Mr. von Alten to address this
`tight-fit argument that Fujifilm provided in its Patent Owner response; and
`he explained that there is just no way that a person of skill in the art would
`design a cartridge to have such a tight fit because it would introduce friction
`that would be intolerable in this type of design.
`
`At paragraph 21, he discusses the one sentence in McAllister I that
`Fujifilm and its expert rely on which is the sentence that says that the
`locking gear is movable and only one dimension parallel to the access of
`rotation of reel 14. He addresses that and makes clear that is simply stating
`that the mating projections keep the reel from rotating. It has nothing to do
`with tilt; it just keeps it from rotating.
`
`And if we turn to slide 21, again, you don't need to rely just on our
`expert's say-so. The prior art uniformly confirms what he's saying.
`Paragraph 28 of his reply declaration, Mizutani identifies clearance between
`the projections as a factor causing the brake to tilt; and it says that there must
`be clearance. Now, paragraph 5 is talking about an older style cartridge --
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00876
`Patent 6,462,905 B1
`
`the break button cartridge -- but it still reinforces what Mr. von Alten was
`stating.
`
`Paragraph 29, I think, is critical. This is the Shima reference. It's an
`LTO reference; it's a reference that Fujifilm introduced into this case to
`show the state of the art. And the Shima reference says "looseness of
`engagement between the upper casings and brake lock, or between brake
`lock and hub, can sometimes bring the center of the brake lock, 5, out of
`alignment. That's an LTO cartridge that at the time of the invention is
`reporting that the looseness of engagement between the brake and the casing
`-- which is the mating projections again -- causes the break to become
`misaligned. That's wholly consistent with our expert's opinion, and wholly
`inconsistent with their expert's opinion.
`
`Tsuyuki -- that's a reference that's relevant in the next trial -- but it,
`too, discloses a LTO cartridge; and it, too, discusses the problem of holding
`the brake match to the reel rotation center. So, it's identifying a
`misalignment problem in Tsuyuki which, again, is an LTO cartridge. So,
`you have these references all consistent with our expert. And, as I
`mentioned earlier, it's completely consistent with their own invention story--
`figure 5 is an LTO cartridge. If there was tight fit on those mating
`projections that prevented any tilt, then what they've shown in figure 5
`makes no sense, and the whole invention story falls apart. So, their expert is
`inconsistent with our expert with the prior art and with their own reference.
`
`If I could jump to slide 23 -- in the interest of time -- Fujifilm has a
`tertiary argument of teaching away; and I just wanted to address that
`quickly. The ruling passage that they're citing to in McAllister I is -- and I'm
`on slide 23 -- is column 1, lines 46 to 49. This passage is describing the
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00876
`Patent 6,462,905 B1
`
`older styled cartridges like Laverriere; and it says that this design -- the
`Laverriere design -- is advantageous. And then identifies a drawback which
`is that they require occupying vertical space because they need to have a
`protective shroud that protects that button.
`
`So, if this sentence is criticizing anything -- and, again, it's calling the
`design advantageous -- but to the extent that it's criticizing anything, it's
`criticizing the use of a protective shroud; and we're not seeing user-
`protective shroud in our proposed combination. If we want to be more
`charitable for Fujifilm, maybe it's critiquing the brake button; but, again,
`we're saying not saying use the brake button in the proposed combination.
`As Fulton -- we have the Fulton case up on slide 23 -- Fulton makes clear it
`has to be teaching away from the solution claimed -- it has to teach away
`from guide members in this context; and there's nothing in that, that says
`anything about the centering ribs of Laverriere. And to be clear, it's not
`talking specifically about Laverriere, it's talking about 3480-style cartridges
`more generally. There is no teaching away of the use of centering members,
`which is what our proposed combination is.
`
`In the interest of time, I'd like to jump to claim 3 unless there's any
`other questions that I can address now on claims 1 and 2.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: I have a question. So, the Patent Owner cites the
`ITC-related litigation.
`
`MR. SPEED: Yes.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: What is the status of that case?
`
`MR. SPEED: So, there was just recently a Commission decision, and
`it's not yet public, but I believe Patent Owner wanted to submit it to the
`Board once it becomes public; and we have no objection to that, obviously.
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00876
`Patent 6,462,905 B1
`
`The Commission decision affirm the ALJ's finding that claims 1 and 2
`
`were not obvious over this ground; but it should come as no surprise to the
`Board that the Board has before it substantially more record evidence than
`we had at the ITC where we had multiple patents involved; an infringement
`case; a domestic industry case; and was a much more abbreviated
`evidentiary record on this particular patent in this claim.
`
`In particular, those references that I showed that established both that
`there is clearance between the brake and the hub, and that there's clearance
`between the mating projections, those were not introduced before the ITC.
`So, the ALJ, unfortunately, did not have that in front of him when he made
`his initial decision, neither did the Commission when they affirmed.
`
`On claim 3 -- which we'll get to -- both the ALJ and the Commission
`found that McAllister I does not anticipate; and, respectfully, we just think
`that's wrong as a matter of law, and for reasons I'll discuss shortly; but the
`Commission did reverse the ALJ and found that claim 3 is obvious; finding
`that going from an equal sized brake to a somewhat smaller -- any degree
`smaller would be a simple design choice -- and that a person of skill in the
`art would have reason to do it because it would allow for clearance between
`the brake and the reel hub, which is one of our -- with respect to the
`Mizutani references -- are the exact argument that we've raised.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: So, different evidence, different evidentiary
`record, different standard?
`
`MR. SPEED: Correct. That was clear and convincing; we have
`preponderance of the evidence here.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Thank you for updating us with that information.
`
`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
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00876
`Patent 6,462,905 B1
`
`MR. SPEED: If we could turn to slide 29 -- and, actually, that we
`
`could just jump to slide 30. So, claim 3, again, claim 3 just requires that the
`outer diameter of the engagement gear be larger than that of the braking gear
`-- any amount larger. As we pointed out -- following up on the ITC
`discussion -- as we point out in our reply, Sony was found to infringe this
`claim because of manufacturing tolerances. That's how much of a difference
`was allowed for finding of infringement; and the same standards should
`apply here. That's the only amount of difference we need to prove that this
`claim is anticipated.
`
`In our petition at page 61, we provided this annotation that shows that
`the braking gear in yellow stops before the engagement gear -- that blue post
`ends on the right-hand side. If we turn to slide 31 -- Fujifilm criticizes our
`annotations. That's fine; I'm not going to fight over the annotations. If you
`remove the annotations like we did in the reply at 13, the same relationship
`is shown there; and if you turn to slide 32, we remove the annotations that
`they didn't like -- the same exact relationship is shown there.
`
`If we turn to slide 33, to be clear the embodiment we relied on in the
`petition is the second embodiment in figure 8 because that had a full set of
`gear teeth. And while that doesn't show the gear teeth engaged in the same
`way that we saw with figures 4A and 3, Mr. von Alten, in paragraph 246 of
`his report, made clear that the only difference between the embodiments was
`the engagement gear -- you went from a post to -- what's shown in figure 8,
`which is a full set of teeth with space for the spider washer -- and then the
`third embodiment that we don't rely on has a handful of teeth -- or post, I
`guess -- for the engagement.
`
`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
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00876
`Patent 6,462,905 B1
`
`And Mr. von Alten interpreted the figures and said a person of skill in
`
`the art would understand that the same diameter relationship carries all the
`way through. And he drew the red lines down to demonstrate that; and I
`note they'd critique those lines as well; and we'll get to his deposition
`testimony where he made clear, even if you took off the lines, to him, you
`could still see the difference in diameter in figure 8. Sorry, that's slide 34.
`At page 115 of his deposition transcript, he was challenged on did you put
`those red lines in the exact apex of the corners; and he candidly admitted,
`yeah, they were shifted over slightly; but that slight defect -- as he called it
`in the annotation -- does not remove what the figure itself shows which is
`that the engagement gear is slightly larger than the braking gear in yellow.
`
`Other than criticizing the annotations, the principal substantive
`argument that they have on the figures is shown on page 35; and it's the
`suggestion that what's shown in the figures, the components are not,
`necessarily, coaxially aligned so that they're all on one common center align
`which would, in turn, mean that just because you could see the diameter
`relationship on the right-hand side, it doesn't mean it, necessarily, exist on
`the left-hand side because everything could be shifted.
`
`Again, we asked Mr. von Alten about this. He submitted a reply
`declaration. They then asked to depose him; and he's crystal clear that in
`this context of tape drives and tape cartridges where you have circular
`components that rotate around, everything is on a common access; and it
`would make no design sense to design it any other way; and it would make
`no sense to disclose a design that is off the common access in any way. And
`that's at paragraph 53 of his reply declaration.
`
`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
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00876
`Patent 6,462,905 B1
`
`So, if we turn to page 36. Unable to dispute what the figures show,
`
`they turn to the law and argue that because McAllister I does not disclose
`that the precise dimensions, or suggest that its dimensions should be
`intentional, that we can't rely on those figures. But that's contrary to Wagner
`and Mraz that we have here on slide 36 and that were cited in our petition --
`in our reply. Drawings
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
