Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 20
`Entered: August 5, 2021
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MOTHERSON INNOVATIONS CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MAGNA MIRRORS OF AMERICA, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2020-00777
`Patent 10,261,648 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: July 13, 2021
`____________
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JESSICA C. KAISER, and
`SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 20
`Entered: August 5, 2021
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MOTHERSON INNOVATIONS CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MAGNA MIRRORS OF AMERICA, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2020-00777
`Patent 10,261,648 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: July 13, 2021
`____________
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JESSICA C. KAISER, and
`SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00777
`Patent 10,261,648 B2
`APPEARANCES
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`KENNETH S. LUCHESI, ESQUIRE
`ROBERT M. BREETZ, ESQUIRE
`JONES DAY
`North Point
`901 Lakeside Avenue
`Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1190
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`DENNIS J. ABDELNOUR, ESQUIRE
`TIMOTHY A. FLORY, ESQUIRE
`DAVID J. THOMAS, ESQUIRE
`HONIGMAN
`5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 440
`Washington, D.C. 20015
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday, July 13,
`2021, commencing at 1:00 p.m., by video/by telephone.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00777
`Patent 10,261,648 B2
`
`PROCEEDINGS
` JUDGE KAISER: Good afternoon.
` This is the oral hearing for IPR2020-00777,
`Motherson Innovations Company, Ltd. v. Magna Mirrors of
`America, Inc.
` We want to start by having the parties introduce
` counsel, beginning with Petitioner.
` MR. LUCHESI: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you.
` This is Kenny Luchesi from Jones Day on behalf of
`the Petitioner, and arguing with me is my colleague,
`Mr. Robert Breetz.
` JUDGE KAISER: And Mr. Breetz, can I just have you
`check your audio quickly?
` MR. BREETZ: Good morning, Your Honors.
` We are in the conference room so I'll just slide
`over to Kenny's seat when it's time for me to speak.
` JUDGE KAISER: Very good.
` And I understand that Mr. Breetz has been given
`permission to participate in this oral hearing as a LEAP
`practitioner; is that correct?
` MR. LUCHESI: That's correct, yes.
` JUDGE KAISER: All right, very good.
` Let me have counsel introduce themselves for Patent
` Owner.
` MR. ABDELNOUR: Good morning, Judge.
` Dennis Abdelnour on behalf of Patent Owner Magna
`Mirrors of America.
`
`3
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`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
`27
`
`IPR2020-00777
`Patent 10,261,648 B2
` With me, but not presenting today, are my co-counsel
` Tim Flory and David Thomas.
` JUDGE KAISER: All right. Thank you, Mr. Abdelnour.
` So as I mentioned, the LEAP practitioner before,
` Petitioner's been granted 15 extra minutes of oral argument
` time because of its LEAP request. So Petitioner will have
` 75 minutes to present arguments and Patent Owner will have
` 60 minutes to present arguments.
` Petitioner will proceed first to present its case
` with respect to the challenged claims and grounds for which
` we instituted trial and may reserve some of its 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.
` Does either counsel have any questions about the
` order of presentations?
` MR. LUCHESI: No questions about that, Your Honor.
` MR. ABDELNOUR: No, thank you.
` JUDGE KAISER: And Mr. Luchesi, do you want to
`reserve time for rebuttal?
` MR. LUCHESI: I do. I think our estimate at this
`time is roughly 20 minutes.
` JUDGE KAISER: Okay. And Mr. Abdelnour for
`sur-rebuttal?
` MR. ABDELNOUR: 10 minutes, please.
` JUDGE KAISER: Okay. All right. Before we begin, I
`4
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00777
`Patent 10,261,648 B2
`wanted to clarify a few items about all remote hearings.
`We've been doing these for a while and so you may have heard
`many of these things before, but if you'll indulge me, I'm
`just going to go through a few things.
` First of all, our primary concern is your right to
` be heard, so if at any time during the proceeding you
` encounter technical or other difficulties that you feel
` fundamentally undermine your ability to adequately represent
` your client, please let us know immediately, for example by
` contacting the people who provided you with connection
` information.
` Second, when you're not speaking, if you could
`please mute yourself, it will be helpful to avoid feedback
`and helpful for the court reporter to be able to hear and
`maintain an accurate record.
` In a similar vein, please identify yourself each
`time you speak. This helps the court reporter prepare an
`accurate transcript.
` We also have the entire record, including both
`parties' demonstratives. So when you're referring to
`something, a demonstrative, a paper, or an exhibit, please
`clearly do so and let us know the slide or page number so
`that we can follow along with you.
` It also helps if you pause for a few seconds after
`you've identified something to give us time to find it, and
`that also helps, again, with the accurate recording of the
`transcript of the hearing.
`
`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
`27
`
`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
`27
`
`IPR2020-00777
`Patent 10,261,648 B2
` And although this hearing is open to the public, I
`don't believe, at least when we started, we had members of
`the public on the line, but it is important to note that
`this transcript will be entered into the public record of
`the proceedings.
` So any questions on, sort of, those preliminary
`matters before we get started from Mr. Luchesi?
` MR. LUCHESI: I had one, but I think you may have
`already answered it. It was a question about screen sharing.
`We were told by Mr. Dill that there would be no screen
`sharing, and it sounds like, if you're going to be looking
`for stuff, that that's the expectation so I just wanted to
`make sure we were clear on that.
` JUDGE KAISER: Yeah. We have all the demonstratives
`for both sides so just let us know which page you're on,
`we'll be following along right with you so there's no need
`for screen sharing.
` MR. LUCHESI: Got it.
` JUDGE KAISER: Any questions from you,
`Mr. Abdelnour?
` MR. ABDELNOUR: Thank you, no questions.
` JUDGE KAISER: Okay. If you give me a second to set
`the time then we will be ready to begin.
` All right. Mr. Luchesi, you can begin when you're
` ready.
` MR. LUCHESI: Thank you very much, Your Honor --
`Your Honors, all of you, for your time.
`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
`27
`
`IPR2020-00777
`Patent 10,261,648 B2
` And I'd like to just jump right in and start with
`the limitation from the independent claims that the exterior
`mirror reflective element is fixedly attached at said mirror
`head.
` And I note initially that the dispute on this
` limitation is actually dispositive for not only all of the
` independent claims, 1, 15, and 26, but also the dependent
` claims, 5, 8, 10, 11, 34, and 35. So Patent Owner made no
` additional arguments in the patent owner response with
` respect to any of these claims.
` So first and foremost is the construction of this
` limitation. And as we pointed out in our reply at pages 1
` to 2, the Patent Owner here is asking you to commit what the
` Federal Circuit calls the cardinal sin of claim construction
` by reading a limitation into the claims.
` And if we look at Slide 4 of Petitioner's
` demonstratives, it kind of makes that clear.
` So there's no dispute here that the claim doesn't
` expressly require the attachment to be at a peripheral
` exterior surface portion.
` Patent Owner has noted that we didn't provide an
` express construction on this issue but that's because no
` construction is necessary.
` JUDGE KAISER: Mr. Luchesi, this is Judge Kaiser.
` Let me ask you. Patent Owner makes a distinction in
` their proposed construction, in my understanding, that the
` way that you are interpreting this claim limitation would
`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
`27
`
`IPR2020-00777
`Patent 10,261,648 B2
` change the "at" to "to". So in other words, you're arguing
` that this mirror reflective element is attached to the
` mirror head and not at the mirror head.
` How do you respond to that?
` MR. LUCHESI: Well, I think in the context of these
`claims there's no real difference between the two.
` So if it said "at some particular surface of the
`mirror head", that might make said, but it just says "at said
`mirror head", and the mirror head is a big, full structure.
` So I don't think that "at" is connoting or -- you
`know, indicating any particular portion of the mirror head, I
`think in the way it's used in these claims, it is no
`different than "to".
` JUDGE KAISER: Please feel free to continue.
` MR. LUCHESI: Oh, okay. Sorry.
` So looking back at Slide 4, I had made the comment
` that, you know, they said we didn't propose a construction,
` and my point is that one is not necessary here.
` And, in fact, the Patent Owner is not actually
` construing anything, they're just adding limitations. So if
` you look on this slide, next to each other you can see all
` they've done is repeated the claim language and changed it
` to add "peripheral exterior surface portion."
` And so because of this, Patent Owner put their focus
` and their surreply on the patent's apparent description of
` this limitation as being part of the present invention.
` And as Your Honors correctly pointed out in the
`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
`27
`
`IPR2020-00777
`Patent 10,261,648 B2
` Institution Decision at page 13, "The specification does not
` make a distinction between the configuration with the mirror
` reflective element attached at the peripheral exterior
` surface of the mirror head in a configuration where the
` mirror reflective element is attached inward from that
` surface of the mirror head."
` And I would ask if we can actually look at the
` language that they relied on here in the '648 patent, and
` this is at Column 70, starting at line 17.
` And I don't know if you want to tell me when you're
` there so I don't jump the gun.
` JUDGE KAISER: I have it.
` MR. LUCHESI: Okay. So I just want to read this
`into the record. So at line 17 it says, "In contrast to such
`known constructions, the present invention provides a mirror
`assembly that has the reflective element disposed at and
`attached to or otherwise fixed relative to the mirror casing
`744 such that, during adjustment, the reflective element and
`mirror casing move in tandem about the fulcrum of the
`mounting device at or near the side of the vehicle."
` So first off, it says "attached to or otherwise
` fixed", so it's using broad and permissive language for how
` the mirror attaches to the mirror casing.
` The specification is not requiring any particular
` type of attachment or any particular location, and it
` certainly is not requiring at the peripheral exterior
` surface, and that phrase actually doesn't appear anywhere in
`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
`27
`
`IPR2020-00777
`Patent 10,261,648 B2
` the patent.
` More importantly, what this portion of the
` specification makes clear is that what's really being called
` the, quote/unquote, present invention is the fact that the
` two are fixed together and they move in tandem. So it's not
` concerned with how they're connected, it's concerned that
` they're connected such that they move in tandem.
` JUDGE KAISER: So Mr. Luchesi, I want to take us --
`I think this is related to the argument that you're making
`now, which is, if you go to Sheet 63 of the drawings in the
`challenged patent, this is Figures 68A and 68B that appear
`together side by side.
` MR. LUCHESI: I'm there.
` JUDGE KAISER: So Patent Owner draws a distinction
`between these two figures that, in Figure 68B on the left,
`the mirror reflective element 762 is recessed within the
`mirror head, whereas with Figure 68A there is, sort of, that
`exposed outer edge of the mirror reflective element.
` And what I hear you saying is that that essentially
` doesn't matter. Is that your argument?
` MR. LUCHESI: Yeah. Well, so the specification
`portion that we just read, which correlates to this -- these
`two figures, the distinction they're making between these two
`figures is that one of them is attached to the mirror casing
`so it moves in tandem with it and the other one is not.
` So they're not making -- you know, I don't see them
` as making any distinction between the way it's attached, the
`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
`27
`
`IPR2020-00777
`Patent 10,261,648 B2
` point here is that one is attached and one's not. So one
` moves in tandem with the casing and one doesn't. And that's
` the language that says "such that they move in tandem".
` JUDGE KAISER: And do you put any -- this is Judge
`Kaiser again.
` Do you put any significance on the fact that, sort
` of, that 738 in the Figure 68A gets moved outside of the
` mirror housing?
` MR. LUCHESI: So I don't see that as being relevant
`to the issue at hand here. You know, this question is -- the
`question we have here is whether this claim means that the
`mirror has to be attached to a peripheral exterior surface,
`and as I understand it, 738 is the actuator, if I remember
`correctly, and so I don't see that as being relevant to this
`particular issue, and I don't think they said it was, either.
` Sorry. I'm just trying to find 738. I believe
` that's the actuator. Yeah, it is.
` JUDGE KAISER: Okay. I think you answered my
`question so --
` And I know, by the way, there are a number of issues
`that you have in your slides so I don't want to get too
`bogged down on the first one if you have other places you
`want to direct us.
` MR. LUCHESI: Oh. It's no problem at all. I'm here
`to answer any questions that you have, Your Honor.
` So just a couple more points on this, actually. So
`back to my point that that's the distinction I believe
`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
`27
`
`IPR2020-00777
`Patent 10,261,648 B2
`they're making there.
` If we look at Slide 6 of our demonstratives, it's
`pretty clear that that is in the prior art. Lupo has a
`mirror that's attached to the casing that moves in tandem
`and so does Tsuyama. So that's why they're trying to read
`in this limitation to try and create some other distinction
`between their claims and Lupo.
` The problem is that distinction is not claimed. And
`we noted this in our reply. You know, this is kind of a
`classic example. If they wanted to amend their claims to
`add this limitation to it expressly to have the opportunity
`here, and they chose not to do that.
` So the other thing I wanted to mention is that, even
`if this present invention argument did have some merit, it's
`our opinion that Figure 40, which is back on Slide 5 of our
`demonstratives, actually shows that in at least one
`embodiment, the mirror can incorporate this bezel that
`partially overlaps the perimeter region or the edge of the
`mirror.
` And so the Patent Owner's response to that is, well,
`the bezel is a separate component that can be attached to
` the mirror casing. But even if that's true, the bezel is
` still part of the mirror head, and regardless, even if it's
` not considered part of the mirror head, its existence means
` that the mirror is no longer being attached to a peripheral
` exterior surface.
` So our position is that this is at least one
`12
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00777
`Patent 10,261,648 B2
` embodiment that doesn't fit with their construction, and
` that alone is sufficient reason not to read a limitation
` into the claims that isn't here.
` And so just quickly on the substance.
` So if we look -- you don't have to look at it, but
` patent owner response, pages 37 to 38, their only argument
` as to why Lupo doesn't disclose this limitation depends on
` their proposed construction. So under what we believe is
` the correct construction, it doesn't read in these
` limitations, there's no dispute that Lupo discloses it.
` And so unless you have additional questions, that's
` all I have at the moment on this subject to rebuttal.
` JUDGE KAISER: Nothing from me. This is Judge
`Kaiser. Feel free to carry on.
` MR. LUCHESI: All right. So I apologize if this is
`a little distracting, but, you know, because we're on the
`same phone line, it's always going to show my screen, whoever
`is speaking in our room. So Mr. Breetz is going to argue the
`next limitation, we're just going to switch seats.
` (Pause in the proceedings)
` MR. BREETZ: Thank you, Your Honors.
` So I'd like to discuss the claim limitation, the
` mirror head comprising a bracket to which the said exterior
` mirror reflective element is fixedly attached.
` JUDGE KAISER: So Mr. Breetz, this is Judge Kaiser.
` I'll just go ahead and jump right in. If you go to
` your Slide 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
`27
`
`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
`27
`
`IPR2020-00777
`Patent 10,261,648 B2
` MR. BREETZ: Yes, ma'am.
` JUDGE KAISER: -- and if you look at -- so your
`argument relies primarily on this Figure 56. And I'm
`wondering, why does the bracket 616 that you've labeled in
`orange on this demonstrative, why does that have to be the
`claimed bracket?
` MR. BREETZ: Yes, Your Honor.
` So the bracket 616, so as -- as you're most likely
`aware, Figure 56 has two brackets in it; bracket 616 and
`bracket 620.
` Bracket 616 is the only bracket that is the claimed
`bracket because that's the only one that's fixedly attached
`to the reflective element.
` And so our construction for fixedly attached is
`that, as the term is used in the '648 patent, is that
`they're not readily detachable and that they must move in
`tandem with one another.
` And so in the Institution Decision, Your Honors, you
`know, raised this point that, you know, it seemed like we
`were arguing that any element in the mirror assembly could
`be considered the claimed bracket, but that's not the case.
` So the second bracket, 620, does not move in tandem
`with the reflective element, the reflective element actually
`rotates about the first pivot axis, 618A, relative to the
`second bracket.
` And so our understanding of fixedly attached is that
`they move in tandem such that they're fully constrained and
`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
`27
`
`IPR2020-00777
`Patent 10,261,648 B2
`then move together.
` And so we believe that Figure 56 is the preferred
`embodiment of these claims because Figure 56 is the only
`embodiment that actually has a mirror head and a bracket.
` All of the bracket claims require a mirror head
`comprising a bracket. And so if you -- if I can direct your
` attention to Figures 68 through 68B -- we can start on
` Figure 68.
` The Patent Owner attempts to direct your attention
` to these figures to argue that fixedly attached must mean
` directly attached, but that's not the case here. Figure 68,
` as you note, does not have a mirror head at all. And then
` if we turn to Figures 68A through D, none of these figures
` have a bracket.
` So in an attempt to try to --
` JUDGE KAISER: This is Judge Kaiser again. So let
`me see if I understand.
` It sounds like your argument is because 68 doesn't
` depict the mirror head, that 734 in 68 can't be the bracket.
` And because --
` MR. BREETZ: That's correct, Your Honor.
` JUDGE KAISER: -- because -- so basically, it sounds
`like your argument is we need one figure that shows all the
`claim limitations for it to depict the bracket, and so
`because we don't have that in 68, 734 can't be the claimed
`bracket, and we don't depict the bracket in A or B, 68A or B,
`so that you can't, sort of, intuit where the bracket might be
`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
`27
`
`IPR2020-00777
`Patent 10,261,648 B2
`in there, so the claimed bracket has to be 616 in Figure 56.
` Is that a fair characterization of your argument?
` MR. BREETZ: I want to be very careful here.
` So our argument is that Figure 56 is the preferred
`embodiment.
` Now, we're not saying that a person of ordinary
` skill in the art would not know how to combine these,
` figures, and that's what Patent Owner is arguing is you have
` to take the bracket from Figure 68 and put it into 68A. We
` think that this is the less preferred embodiment because it
` actually requires that modification to happen.
` And so --
` JUDGE KAISER: Well, but we're only talking about a
`feature that appears in dependent claims, right? So --
` MR. BREETZ: Yes, Your Honor.
` JUDGE KAISER: -- the bracket only shows up in
`dependent claims, much like the adhesive that's in Claim 4
`only shows up in dependent claims, and I think you would
`agree that the adhesive is not depicted in 56.
` MR. BREETZ: That's correct, Your Honor. The
`adhesive is actually only depicted in Figure 26A.
` JUDGE KAISER: So --
` MR. BREETZ: And --
` JUDGE KAISER: -- so I want to ask you more about
`the bracket in the context of the Claim 4 which also requires
`that the bracket -- I don't have the -- give me one second.
` So Claim 4 of the '648 patent says, "The bracket --
`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
`27
`
`IPR2020-00777
`Patent 10,261,648 B2
` comprises a bracket to which said exterior mirror reflective
` element is fixedly attached by use of an adhesive."
` And --
` MR. BREETZ: Yes, Your Honor.
` JUDGE KAISER: -- the concern -- one of the concerns
`that I think the Board expressed in our Institution Decision
`is, when we looked at your mapping for Claim 4, in order to
`get those two things attached -- or those two things attached
`together, that is the bracket attached to the mirror
`reflective element, you need the -- I think it's the tape
`from one of the references along with a big chunk of the
`mirror head itself in order to attach those two components,
`and it doesn't really seem like that's how a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would understand two things being
`attached by an adhesive.
` So explain to me how a person of ordinary skill in
` the art would understand those two things to be attached by
` an adhesive under your mapping.
` MR. BREETZ: Of course, Your Honor.
` So if I could please direct your attention to
`Slide 27 of petitioner's demonstratives.
` And so here we have the tape addition to Lupo, and
`then the tape would actually be in between the mirror head
`and the reflective plate.
` Now, we see that in Figure 56, if there were going
`to be a tape addition, the tape addition would be to the
`rear attaching surface 614A. So it's our understanding that
`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
`27
`
`IPR2020-00777
`Patent 10,261,648 B2
`the tape addition would be applied in the same way,
`regardless.
` And I'd like to note that in Figure 26A, and any
`corresponding disclosure in Columns 29 and 30 that actually
`discusses the adhesive, it only talks about the adhesive
`directly attaching the reflective element to a backing
`plate, it doesn't discuss -- there's no support in the
`specification for actually the adhesive directly attaching
`the reflective plate to the bracket.
` And so if you look at the specification, it's clear
`that in Figure 26A, that the adhesive only mates those two
`things, and so then if you incorporate the adhesive from
`Figure 26A into Figure 56, you can see that the adhesive
`would be in the same location.
` And for the reasons why indirect attachment is what
`the specification compels for the bracket claims themselves,
`it also means that the adhesive can be fixably but
`indirectly attached to the bracket itself, so such that the
`reflective element, the adhesive, the mirror head housing,
`and the bracket 616 all move together and are all fully
`constrained relative to each other.
` And so if I could direct your attention back to
`Slide 11 of petitioner's demonstratives.
` When the tape is applied to that rear attaching
`surface 614A then the tape is fixably attached to the
`bracket.
` And then I would like to go to -- I'd like to direct
`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
`27
`
`IPR2020-00777
`Patent 10,261,648 B2
`your attention to Figure 68A again. And so I want to
`address this combination that Patent Owner sets forth and be
`extremely clear about this.
` So their proposed modification is to add the bracket
`from Figure 68 into Figure 68A such that it's in between the
`support arm and the reflective element.
` Well, if you look at Claim 7, Claim 7 requires, "A
`mirror casing attaches at said bracket." So even if you
`look -- even if you make this combination of the bracket
`into Figure 68A, the mirror casing does not directly attach
`at the bracket.
` This is further evidence that the only way that
`these claims can make sense is that attachment has to be
`broad enough to encompass direct and indirect attachment.
` And so even if the Figure 68 embodiments supported a
`finding of direct attachment, then all of this would show
`that the direct attachment is just a possibility not a
`requirement, and it's certainly not something commanded by
`all of the embodiments to effectuate reading direct
`attachment into the claims.
` I'd like to note that in GE Lighting Solutions v.
`Agilight, and that's 750 F.3d. 1304, the Federal Circuit
`noted, "Where claims can be reasonably interpreted to
`include a specific embodiment," in our case Figure 56, "it
`is incorrect to construe the claims to exclude that
`embodiment." And in Figure 56, we see that indirect
`attachment is expressly disclosed by the specification.
`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
`27
`
`IPR2020-00777
`Patent 10,261,648 B2
` I would like to also point out that Patent Owner's
`own expert has an understanding that attachment does not
`need to be direct.
` In Exhibit 1020, at page 36, lines 21 through 25,
`Mr. Nranian stated, "So if you look at Figure 68 of the
`patent, right? It shows 742, which is the mirror reflective
`element 742 is attached to the support arm structure 740."
`So even patent owner's own expert looked at Figure 68 and
`said that the reflective element is attached to the support
`arm structure, even though there is an intermediary piece
`between them. This supports a finding that indirect
`attachment is encompassed by a POSA's understanding.
` And then if I could please direct your attention to
`Slide 12 of Petitioner's demonstratives.
` Patent Owner makes a fleeting reference in the
`Figure 56 embodiment that the attachment surface 614A is
`actually the claimed bracket in this embodiment.
` This is entirely contrary to the intrinsic
`specification which unequivocally identifies 616 as the
`inner bracket, and it also identifies 620 as the outer
`bracket. So it's very clear that the patent does not
`consider 614A to be a bracket.
` If this were true, if the patent owner -- if the
`614A could conceivably be a bracket, this runs contrary to
`Claim 6 which says that, "At one end of said support
`structure attaches at said bracket."
` So if what's highlighted in orange here is what
`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
`27
`
`IPR2020-00777
`Patent 10,261,648 B2
`Patent Owner contends is the bracket, that is not directly
`attached to the rest of the support structure, it's attached
`through the mirror head. And so even if this were the case,
`this supports a finding of indirect attachment for fixably
`attached.
` At bottom, the only way to give meaning to these
`claims for fixably attached is to include indirect and
`direct attachment.
` And Lupo operates in the exact same manner as
`Figure 56. It has the projection 53, which are part of the
`mirror head, which move in tandem with the reflective
`element and connects the mirror head to the rest of the
`support structure.
` I would like to also note that the Patent Owner
`cites to a number of case laws to try to -- a number of
`cases to try to support their argument for direct
`attachment, but these are all extrinsic evidence of other
`patents that use different claims in different
`specifications, and all of those cases had one thing in
`common where the specification did not show or contemplate
` indirect attachment, whereas here, Figure 56 clearly shows
` that the reflective element can be attached to the bracket
` indirectly via the mirror head such that they move in
` tandem.
` In sum, the specification explicitly supports an
` understanding that fixedly attached includes indirect
` attachment. Defining fixedly attached to include direct
`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
`27
`
`IPR2020-00777
`Patent 10,261,648 B2
` attachment only ignores Figure 56 which most closely
` resembles the claims, and then further ignores Patent
` Owner's own examples that show the attachment includes
` indirect.
` And with that, I'd like to pass it back to Kenny.
` JUDGE KAISER: Thank you, Mr. Breetz.
` Will we see you again for any other pieces or was
`this the only part of the argument that you're going to be
`presenting today?
` MR. BREETZ: I will be back towards the end, Your
`Honor.
` JUDGE KAISER: Okay, very good. We will see you
`soon then.
` MR. LUCHESI: Mr. Breetz is going to close us out.
` This is Kenny Luchesi speaking again. And just
`noting my time here, I'm going to probably blow through this
`next one a little bit quickly if I can.
` So the next issue that we have on our agenda is the
`requirement in Claim 2 and 16 and 33 that, "The outer most
`first perimeter of the mirror is rounded."
` I'd just like to hit a couple of high points on
`this. First off is, once again, just like with Claim 1, we
`have another instance here where the Patent Owner is trying
`to read limitations into the claim. And, in fact, in this
`case, they're trying to read two limitations into the claim;
`one that the edge is exposed, and two, that the rounded
`means rounded to a minimum radius of curvature of
`22
`
`
`
`
`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
`27
`
`IPR2020-00777
`Patent 10,261,648 B2
`2.5 millimeters.
` Obviously, neither of those limitations are actually
`in the claim, so just looking at the claim language, it
`doesn't support that.
` But the specification doesn't support these
`arguments, either. So the spec does not define rounded to
`be 2.5 millimeters. In fact, the only place that appears is
`one time in a discussion relating to i
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
