`Trials@uspto.gov
`
`571-272-7822
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ASETEK DANMARK A/S,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`COOLIT SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2020-00747
`Patent 9,057,567 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held Virtually: Tuesday, June 22, 2021
`____________
`
`
`
`Before FRANCES L. IPPOLITO, SCOTT C. MOORE, and
`BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00747
`Patent 9,057,567 B2
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`ERIC RACITI
`ARPITA BHATTACHARYYA
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT &
`DUNNER, LLP
`3300 Hillview Avenue
`2nd floor
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1203
`(650) 849-6600
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`REUBEN CHEN
`DUSTIN KNIGHT
`COOLEY, LLP
`3175 Hanover Street
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1130
`(650) 843-5480
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LLOYD L. POLLARD II
`GANZ POLLARD LLC
`P.O. Box 2200
`163 SE 2nd Avenue
`Hillsboro, Oregon 97123
`(503) 844-9009
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday, June 22,
`2021, commencing at 11:00 a.m. EST, by video/by telephone.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00747
`Patent 9,057,567 B2
`
`
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
` JUDGE MOORE: We're on the record. Good morning
`everyone. This is Judge Scott Moore and I'm joined by my
`colleagues, Judges Frances Ippolito and Brent Dougal. And
`we're here today for the oral hearing in IPR 2020-00747,
`Asetek Danmark A.S. v. CoolIT Systems, Inc. involving U.S.
`Patent 9,057,567 B2. Let's begin by taking appearances.
`First, who is here today on behalf of Petitioner?
` MS. BHATTACHARYYA: Good morning, Your Honors.
`This is Arpita Bhattacharyya for Petitioner Asetek Danmark
`A.S. and I am joined by lead counsel, Eric Raciti.
` MR. RACITI: Good morning, Your Honors.
` JUDGE MOORE: Welcome to both of you.
` And then for Patent Owner who is here?
` MR. CHEN: Yes. Good morning, Your Honors. You
`have Reuben Chen from Cooley LLP on behalf of Patent Owner,
`CoolIT Systems, Inc., and with me is lead counsel Lloyd
`Pollard, as well as my colleague Dustin Knight.
` JUDGE MOORE: Welcome to you as well.
` MR. CHEN: Thank you.
` JUDGE MOORE: So as everyone knows, this is a video
`hearing. We've got a great group of IT professionals here at
`the Board who make sure things generally run pretty smoothly,
`but if you have any technical difficulties during this
`
`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
`
`
`
`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
`
`IPR2020-00747
`Patent 9,057,567 B2
`
`hearing please let us know and we'll find a way to work
`around it.
` It's also important that we try to avoid speaking
`over one another. That can be a bit tricky in a multi-party
`video conference like this but please try to do your best and
`the court reporter will be grateful. Please also ensure that
`your microphone is muted when you're not speaking. Even if
`it's silent around you sometimes having unmuted microphones
`can cause feedback and then there's also unexpected noises as
`well. So it's best that anyone who is not speaking keep
`their microphone muted.
` So we have copies of both parties’ demonstratives
`here but we'd like to ask the parties, to repeat what we said
`in our scheduling order, to please make sure that you
`identify each demonstrative exhibit that you discuss by page
`number. It will make it easier for the reporter to keep an
`accurate record and it also helps us follow along.
` Now there's a public audio line that was requested
`for at least one of these two proceedings. I'm not certain
`whether it was the first or the second one. So I'd like
`counsels to be aware of that. I don't believe that either
`party requested a protective order in the first proceeding
`but there was a request for a protective order in the second
`proceeding so counsels should proceed with the fact that
`members of the public may be listening in or may have access
`to the transcript. Counsels should proceed with that
`
`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
`26
`
`IPR2020-00747
`Patent 9,057,567 B2
`
`understanding.
` So before we begin today's hearing we had a brief
`off-the-record discussion with counsels and we changed the
`time allocations somewhat with the agreement of counsels.
`Each party is going to be granted a total of 45 minutes
`argument time for each of the two proceedings we're hearing
`here today. So we're going to have separate hearings for
`each of the two proceedings. We'll begin with the hearing
`for the case I just announced, IPR 2020-00747. Each party
`will have a total of 45 minutes of argument time for this
`proceeding, then we'll take a big -- a short recess, and then
`we'll have a separate oral hearing for the second proceeding.
` So for this oral hearing we'll begin with
`Petitioner who will argue its case-in-chief. Petitioner
`should also use this time to present its arguments. I
`believe in this case Petitioner just has the case-in-chief.
`It didn't file any motions. So after Petitioner presents its
`case-in-chief -- and Petitioner can also reserve time for
`rebuttal -- we'll move onto Patent Owner that will present
`its arguments regarding the patentability of the original
`claims and any motions it wishes to argue. Patent Owner also
`will be allowed to reserve a short amount of time if it
`wishes to do so for sur-rebuttal. Then, if Petitioner has
`reserved time for rebuttal we'll proceed onto Petitioner and
`then onto Patent Owner's sur-rebuttal.
` Judge Ippolito will be watching the clock but I
`
`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
`26
`
`IPR2020-00747
`Patent 9,057,567 B2
`
`would like to remind each party that it is your
`responsibility to keep track of your own time. Judge
`Ippolito will try to give you a warning when you're running
`low on your time but if she is unable to do so the parties
`are responsible for keeping track of their own time so please
`don't rely too much on us.
` Also, I would like to ask the parties not to make
`objections while the other party is speaking. If either
`party has objections to the other party's presentation please
`raise them during your own time when it's your turn to speak.
`Does either party have any questions about these
`instructions?
` MS. BHATTACHARYYA: Nothing for Petitioner, Your
`Honor.
` MR. CHEN: Nothing for Patent Owner, Your Honor.
` JUDGE MOORE: Excellent. Okay. Let's begin.
`Counsels for Petitioner, who is going to be presenting
`arguments?
` MS. BHATTACHARYYA: I will be, Your Honor.
` JUDGE MOORE: And would you like to reserve time
`for rebuttal?
` MS. BHATTACHARYYA: Yes, Your Honor. For the first
`proceeding I would like to reserve five minutes for a
`rebuttal.
` JUDGE MOORE: Okay. Thank you. You may begin when
`you're ready.
`
`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
`26
`
`IPR2020-00747
`Patent 9,057,567 B2
`
` MS. BHATTACHARYYA: Thank you, Your Honors. The
`main dispute between the parties in this proceeding involving
`the ’567 Patent is about independent claim 1 and specifically
`about claim construction of a single term, "matingly
`engaged". Your Honors, I will start with Petitioner's slide
`9 which shows the claim element at issue. So claim 1 recites
`“a compliant member matingly engaged with the second side,”
`which is the underside of the housing member. Mating
`engagement ensures that fluid cannot bypass from the inlet to
`the outlet side of the heat exchanger through gaps between
`the compliant member and the underside of the housing. Fluid
`is instead forced to enter the microchannels and flow through
`the microchannels to the outlet.
` Slide 10 shows the parties' proposed construction
`for “matingly engaged.” Petitioner Asetek proposes that
`“matingly engaged” be given its plain and ordinary meaning
`which a person skilled in the art will understand as joined
`or fitted together to make contact. Patent Owner's
`demonstratives incorrectly state Petitioner's construction as
`“mechanically joined or fitted together to make contact.” That
`is incorrect, Your Honors. Petitioner's plain meaning
`interpretation does not limit the method of joining or
`fitting to only mechanical means. Instead, as Petitioner's
`reply makes it clear, fusion, adhesion, and other types of
`chemical bonding also fall within the plain meaning of
`“matingly engaged” in addition to mechanical attachment.
`
`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
`26
`
`IPR2020-00747
`Patent 9,057,567 B2
`
` Patent Owner, on the other hand, proposes a very
`narrow definition of “matingly engaged.” At first blush the
`term "matingly engaged" might create a notion that male and
`female parts have to connect but the meanings of the terms
`"mate" and "matingly" in the context of a mechanical device
`are not that narrow. Even dictionary definitions provided by
`Patent Owner state that “mate” simply means “to join or fit
`together.” And this is in Patent Owner's Exhibit 2030 which
`is an excerpt from Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary.
`Patent Owner has presented no dictionary or engineering
`textbook definition that limits mating of two parts or
`surfaces to mechanical joining or fixing or to the connection
`of male and female parts. Rather, as Petitioner's expert has
`testified, all possible ways of joining or fixing, including
`mechanical and chemical, fall within the scope of mating two
`parts or surfaces.
` Not being able to do much with the word “matingly,”
`given its broad dictionary definitions, Patent Owner has
`attempted to narrow the meaning of the term "engaged" and to
`do so Patent Owner plucks a very narrow definition of “engaged”
`from a dictionary to argue that engaged means “to interlock.”
`But interlock is a very specialized form of engagement. The
`Patent does not use the word interlock and the intrinsic
`record does not support limiting engaged to interlocking.
`Rather, the plain meaning of “engaged” is “to attach or to make
`contact.”
`
`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
`26
`
`IPR2020-00747
`Patent 9,057,567 B2
`
` But even if interlock as a form of engagement is
`considered, Your Honors, the dictionary meaning of interlock
`is simply to fit together or to lock or join together. For
`instance, the Oxford Dictionary defines “interlock” as “fitting
`together or joining together,” and this is in Petitioner's
`Exhibit 1024. And it is also shown in Patent Owner's slide
`20.
` Now, Petitioner's expert has testified that
`adhesion or fusion which are taught in Bezama and Lyon cause
`interlocking of the compliant member with the housing. So to
`avoid the prior art Patent Owner argues that the interlocking
`has to be two complementary contoured features on the housing
`and the compliant member which is a very specialized meaning
`of interlocking.
` So to put it briefly, Your Honors, Patent Owner
`first limits the term “engaged” to “interlocking” and then
`further limits the term “interlocking” to “interlocking of
`complementary contoured features.” But nothing in the
`intrinsic record of the ’567 Patent supports limiting the term
`“engaged” to “interlocking of complementary contoured features.”
`Rather, “engaged” includes “contact or attachment between
`Surfaces” and in similar circumstances the Federal Circuit and
`District Courts have construed the term "engaged" to mean
`“contact or attachment” rather than “interlocking of features”
`and many of those cases are cited in Petitioner's reply at
`page 8.
`
`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
`26
`
`IPR2020-00747
`Patent 9,057,567 B2
`
` Patent Owner counters in its sur-reply that two
`parts will always make contact when joined or fitted
`together. While that may be true, the phrase "to make
`contact" in Petitioner's plain meaning interpretation
`provides clarity to the meaning of “matingly engaged” and it
`also articulates that the function of mating engagement is to
`provide contact between the housing and the compliant member
`to prevent fluid bypass between them.
` So the phrase "to make contact", it also provides a
`clear contrast to Patent Owner's position that “engaged” means
`“to interlock.” But if Your Honors find the phrase "to make
`contact" redundant then the plain meaning of “matingly engaged”
`should simply be “to join or fit together.” It cannot be “to
`interlock two complementary contoured features.”
` Patent Owner's sur-reply and demonstratives further
`criticize Petitioner for looking at the words “mating” and
`“engaging” piecemeal, but that is exactly what Patent Owner did
`in its response. Patent Owner's response at page 17 states
`that the term "matingly" is derived from the present particle
`of the verb "to mate" which was commonly understood to mean
`“join or fit together” in 2011. Petitioner agrees with that.
`And likewise, Patent Owner continues to argue that the term
`"engaged" is the past tense of engage understood to mean “to
`interlock with.” So Your Honor, it was Patent Owner who took
`those two words in piecemeal and Petitioner is simply
`responding to what Patent Owner has said.
`
`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
`26
`
`IPR2020-00747
`Patent 9,057,567 B2
`
` Turning to Petitioner's slide 11. This slide
`highlights the major flaws in Patent Owner's proposed
`construction. As I mentioned previously, Patent Owner argued
`that “engaged” should be “interlocking of complementary
`contoured features” -- example, a tongue-in-groove joint or
`the connection of Lego blocks -- and that other forms of
`engagement between the two surfaces should be excluded. For
`example, mechanical contact between two surfaces or adhesion
`or fusion of two surfaces should be excluded according to
`Patent Owner.
` Patent Owner is incorrect and, as stated in slide
`12, Petitioner's expert has testified that a person skilled
`in the art understands the meaning of “matingly engaged” as
`“joined or fitted together to make contact” and that is the
`plain and ordinary meaning of the term. The prior art Bhatti
`reference that we'll discuss in a bit supports that a person
`skilled in the art understands that the joining or fitting of
`two flat surfaces falls within the meaning and scope of
`“mating engagement.” “Mating engagement” does not always mean
`“interlocking of mechanical structures.” The contact or
`attachment of two flat surfaces also falls within the meaning
`of “mating engagement.”
` And as slide 13 shows, there are three functional
`purposes of matingly engaging the compliant member of a
`housing: to align the parts, to create fluid passages into
`the microchannels, and most importantly, to prevent fluid
`
`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
`26
`
`IPR2020-00747
`Patent 9,057,567 B2
`
`bypass through gaps between the compliant member and the
`underside of the housing. There is no reason to restrict the
`meaning of “matingly engaged” to “interlocking of complementary
`features” like Legos because other forms of engagement like
`mechanical contact, fusion, adhesion, et cetera will all meet
`these functional requirements of mating engagement.
` And as Petitioner's expert further testified -- and
`this is on slide 14 -- no specific method of joining or
`fixing is required by the claims or the specification of the
`’567 Patent.
` Now turning to slide 15 --
` JUDGE IPPOLITO: Counsel, I have a question for
`you.
` MS. BHATTACHARYYA: Yes, Your Honor.
` JUDGE IPPOLITO: So under your interpretation it
`seems that there really is no purpose for the “matingly” term.
`I mean if any engagement is enough, even two flat sides
`touching together, I guess my question is what isn't matingly
`engaged then?
` MS. BHATTACHARYYA: So “matingly engaged,” Your
`Honor, means “to join or fit together.” So there has to be
`full contact between the two surfaces. Engagement can mean
`indirect contact as well. Two points can contact -- just two
`points can contact and there might be gap between
`the -- between the two surfaces. “Matingly” means that they
`are making full contact and they are joined together. They
`
`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
`26
`
`IPR2020-00747
`Patent 9,057,567 B2
`
`are fitted together. So either they're compressed together
`so that there is no space in between them or they are
`connected together through adhesives or they're connected
`together by fusing the two parts.
` JUDGE IPPOLITO: So you're saying that “matingly”
`means full direct contact of the entire surfaces between the
`two structures?
` MS. BHATTACHARYYA: Yes. Yes, Your Honor. So the
`two surfaces have to be fully joined.
` JUDGE IPPOLITO: Where is that in -- where is that
`in the record? Where have you made that construction that
`there has to be complete full contact between the surfaces?
` MS. BHATTACHARYYA: The dictionary definition of
`“matingly” says “to join or fit together” and as -- the record
`shows in both Lyon and in the Bezama references the compliant
`member and the underside of the housing are in full contact.
`They are in contact so that there is no liquid passing
`through them. And Petitioner's expert, Dr. Tilton, has
`testified that the two surfaces will be in full contact and
`that the whole purpose is to not have liquid flow in between
`the two surfaces.
` JUDGE IPPOLITO: Thank you.
` MS. BHATTACHARYYA: Turning to slide 15. Patent
`Owner's narrow construction is based on a single cherry-
`picked dictionary definition of “engaged” misuses the word
`“interlock.” But as I mentioned previously, the term “interlock”
`
`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
`26
`
`IPR2020-00747
`Patent 9,057,567 B2
`
`by itself is not as limiting as Patent Owner seems to convey.
`“Interlock” does not always require locking of complementary
`features. To support its narrow specialized dictionary
`definition of “interlocking” Patent Owner relies on a single
`exemplary embodiment shown in figures 10 and 12 of the ’567
`Patent that includes interlocking of features. Now it cannot
`be disputed that under Patent Owner's construction there has
`to be some raised or recessed features on the compliant
`member that mechanically join or fit together with
`complementary features on the second side of the housing but
`claim 1 does not recite such complementary contoured
`features.
` Patent Owner's expert admitted that during his
`deposition which is shown on slide 16. Even a quick read of
`claim 1 shows that complementary features or contoured
`surfaces are not recited in the claim. So Patent Owner's
`construction improperly imports this additional limitation
`into the claims from an exemplary embodiment. After
`Petitioner pointed out this legal error Patent Owner changed
`tact in its sur-reply to argue that the entire recess on the
`underside of the housing where the compliant member resides
`is equivalent to the contours on the housing as shown in
`figure 10 but that is not correct.
` Even Patent Owner's own expert does not agree with
`that interpretation and this is shown on slide 17.
`Petitioner's counsel asked their expert on redirect, “Does the
`
`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
`26
`
`IPR2020-00747
`Patent 9,057,567 B2
`
`language where the second side defines the recessed region
`inform you as to whether or not the second side of the
`housing has to have a contour?” And the expert responded, “No,
`it does not have to have a contour. It just needs to have a
`recessed region. A recessed region could be contoured or it
`may have some other form as well.” Not getting the answer
`that counsel wanted he asked the same question again and
`again Patent Owner's expert responded, “Just on the basis of
`that limitation it does not have to have complementary
`contoured features.” So it cannot be disputed that there are
`no complementary features or any structures recited in the
`claims that would interlock. So these limitations are being
`imported into the claim construction of “matingly engaged.”
` And even if just having a recessed region on the
`underside of the housing were sufficient under Patent Owner's
`construction of “matingly engaged” then of course both Lyon and
`Bezama have that. As shown in the annotated figure 3 of Lyon
`on slide 17, the compliant member fits into the recessed
`region on the underside of the housing in Lyon. And as we
`will discuss shortly, Bezama has that too.
` As discussed in slide 18, Patent Owner attempts to
`rationalize its importation of the complementary contoured
`features into the claims by pointing to an exemplary
`embodiment shown in figures 10 and 12 of the ’567 Patent where
`the body of the compliant insert (334) can include a recess
`and some raised features which straddle other features on the
`
`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
`26
`
`IPR2020-00747
`Patent 9,057,567 B2
`
`underside of the housing. Nowhere is that embodiment defined
`as the invention itself. Rather, the Specification says that
`the embodiments are all exemplary.
` There can be no doubt that Patent Owner is reading
`the complementary contoured features into claim 1 in
`violation of Federal Circuit precedent expressly prohibiting
`importation of limitations from the Specification into the
`claims. But that is exactly what Patent Owner is doing here.
`Claim 1 is broader than the exemplary embodiment that is
`shown in figures 10 and 12 of the Patent.
` Ultimately, when the single embodiment relied on by
`Patent Owner is considered in the context of the entire
`Specification it is evident that that single embodiment does
`not constitute a clear and unambiguous disclaimer that is
`needed to read the complementary contoured features into the
`challenged claims. As the fFederal cCircuit explained in the
`(indiscernible) case, it is important not to import into the
`claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For
`example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written
`description may not be read into the claim when the claim
`language is broader than the embodiment.
` And here, Your Honors, Patent Owner has not
`identified anything in the Specification or the prosecution
`history that rises to the level of disclaimer, a clear and
`unmistakable disclaimer of claim scope. And in fact,
`elsewhere in the Specification “matingly engaged” is defined
`
`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
`26
`
`IPR2020-00747
`Patent 9,057,567 B2
`
`broadly to mean “contact or attachment between mating
`surfaces.”
` As shown in slide 19, the Summary section of the
`’567 Patent explains that the manifold body can be configured
`to straddle the inlet manifold recess and matingly engage the
`housing body. The Summary section of the Patent describes
`“matingly engaged” to simply mean that the manifold body and
`the housing body make contact thereby defining the manifold
`regions. Significantly, the Summary section does not require
`the manifold body and the housing to have complementary
`features that interlock. Patent owner completely --
` JUDGE MOORE: At least in this example though you
`have one component that occupies a portion of a separate
`component, right? So that's a little bit more specific than
`your definition of “mating engagement” which would encompass
`two rectangular blocks just pressed up against each other.
`Doesn't this portion of the Specification indicate that
`“mating engagement” refers to at the very least a type of
`connection in which one component occupies a portion -- you
`know, fits within or occupies a recess within a portion of a
`second component?
` MS. BHATTACHARYYA: Yes, Your Honor. If that is
`the construction, Your Honor, then both Bezama and Lyon have
`that. In both Bezama and Lyon the compliant member fits
`within the recess of the housing cover but that, Your Honor,
`is required by a different limitation of the claim. So
`
`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
`26
`
`IPR2020-00747
`Patent 9,057,567 B2
`
`further below in claim 1 it is recited that the compliant
`member has to occupy a portion of the recessed region. So
`those two terms cannot be interpreted the same way otherwise
`one of those limitations will be rendered superfluous. So I
`understand that Patent Owner is trying to conflate those two
`limitations but if they are in fact conflated then Lyon and
`Bezama both have that because in both those prior art
`references the compliant member fits into the recess that is
`defined on the underside of the housing.
` JUDGE MOORE: Right. I understand that and thank
`you for clarifying. I'm not sure if this is a helpful
`question or a helpful statement but it seems like what we
`have here is Petitioner has proposed a very broad
`construction that would include, for example, two rectangles
`pressed against one another. Patent Owner has a very narrow
`construction which would require something akin to
`interlocking Legos. And, you know, that kind of leaves the
`Board wondering if there are any intermediate positions, if
`there's anything between these two extremes that might be a
`better construction of the term. So I know that's kind of a
`broad open-ended type of question but do you have any
`thoughts as to that?
` MS. BHATTACHARYYA: Yes, Your Honor. So the middle
`ground which Petitioner agrees with is that “matingly
`engaged” -- if simple mechanical contact seems too broad then
`the term “interlock” as is defined by dictionary definitions
`
`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
`26
`
`IPR2020-00747
`Patent 9,057,567 B2
`
`means “to join or lock together.” And as Petitioner has
`argued, adhesion or fusion between the two surfaces will
`cause interlocking. So if just mechanical contact is not
`enough then both Bezama -- Bezama teaches that the compliant
`member is attached, sealed, or bonded to the underside of the
`housing to prevent liquid bypass. So Bezama teaches all
`three variations. It's just attached, it could be sealed, or
`it could be bonded using adhesives, soldering, or braising.
`So Bezama teaches all of that.
` And Lyon also teaches that the plate and the seal
`are fused to the underside of the housing and that will
`definitely cause mating engagement between the two surfaces
`if two of -- if the compliant member is locked through
`adhesives, soldering, or braising to the underside of the
`housing. So perhaps, Your Honor, that is a middle ground and
`Petitioner agrees with that and that also can be reconciled
`with the dictionary definitions of “matingly engaged” if
`“engaged” is construed to mean “interlock.” Just the Lego block
`connection thing, that is just a very, very, very specialized
`meaning of “interlock,” Your Honors.
` JUDGE MOORE: Okay. But doesn't the example you
`just gave about sealing, bonding -- I guess the interlocking
`would be between the sealant and a component and not between
`the two components. Is that correct?
` MS. BHATTACHARYYA: So in the case of adhesives,
`the adhesion -- yeah, there might be a thin layer of adhesive
`
`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
`26
`
`IPR2020-00747
`Patent 9,057,567 B2
`
`between the compliant member and the housing, but not in
`fusion, Your Honor. Welding is a form of fusion in which two
`surfaces are brought in direct contact. There is no
`intermediate layer in between. So in fusion connection,
`which is taught in Lyon, two surfaces will be in direct
`contact with each other.
` JUDGE MOORE: So then -- I'm trying to understand I
`guess the term “interlock.” You're reading a little bit
`differently than I understood. I was reading the term
`“interlock” to require one portion of one component that fit
`within a different portion of a different component. And it
`seems that you're saying that if you glued two square cubes
`together just the existence of the glue would cause those
`components to then interlock. Is that correct or am I
`misunderstanding something?
` MS. BHATTACHARYYA: Yes, Your Honor. Petitioner's
`expert has testified that adhesion and fusion, they will both
`cause interlocking. And even as I mentioned, dictionary
`definitions say that “interlocking” simply means “to fit
`together, to lock together, or join together.” And both
`adhesion and fusion will cause the locking of two surfaces
`together. Just the requirement to have -- if one component
`has to fit within the other that would require the
`complementary contoured features on the surfaces which is not
`recited anywhere in the claims and it's only described in one
`exemplary embodiment of the specification.
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`IPR2020-00747
`Patent 9,057,567 B2
`
` So to answer your question, Your Honor,
`interlocking can mean the contact between two flat surfaces
`either via adhesive or through fusion bonding, soldering,
`braising, any of those methods that will lock the two
`surfaces together. And Your Honor, the whole purpose of this
`mating engagement is to prevent fluid bypass from the inlet
`to the outlet side through gaps between the compliant member
`and the housing and any of those methods will fulfill that
`functional requirement. So a very specialized form of
`interlocking where one feature fits within the other, that is
`not required and that is not mandated by the Specification or
`anything in the intrinsic record.
` JUDGE MOORE: Okay. Thank you.
` MS. BHATTACHARYYA: And Your Honor, the --
` JUDGE DOUGAL: Counsel, this is Judge Dougal. I
`have a couple questions to go back just a second on your
`discussion of figures 10 through 12 and the related
`description. I believe it's on column 14 of the Patent.
` So I'd like to know I guess your -- give me a
`second to get there -- your thoughts on how -- I guess a
`better understanding of how we should interpret “matingly
`engaged” in view of this paragraph or this discussion of
`figures 10 through 12. So my issue is that we -- both
`parties have some dictionary definitions and some testimony
`on what “mating” and “engagement” mean but it doesn't seem like
`there's a whole lot in the record of examples where someone
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`IPR2020-00747
`Patent 9,057,567 B2
`
`uses the term “mating engagement.” And so it kind of seems
`like you're arguing that we could ignore this because it's
`too specific. It's too much like the Legos that Patent Owner
`is arguing. But being as we don't have many examples of
`usage of the entire term, how should we view this description
`here that is obviously from the Patent, an example of the
`combined terms together? How much should this play in our
`analysis of the claim construction?
` MS. BHATTACHARYYA: Your Honor, this -- the passage
`that Your Honor referred is simply an exemplary embodiment
`that says that the compliant member and the housing can have
`features. So it is an exemplary embodiment and case law says
`that features from exemplary embodiment should not be
`imported into the claims. But that said, Your Honor, as I
`mentioned previously, in the general description of the
`invention earlier in the Patent the term "matingly