UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`________________
`
`HP INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`MEMJET TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,678,550
`
`_____________________________________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF STEPHEN F. POND, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`HP Ex. 1002
`HP Inc. v. Memjet Technology Ltd.
`
`HP 1002
`Page 1 of 71
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1 
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ................................................ 2 
`
` I. 
`
`II. 
`
`III.  DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED ..................................................................... 4 
`
`IV.  RELEVANT PATENT LAW AND LEGAL STANDARDS ........................ 5 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`Priority Date ......................................................................................... 5 
`
`Anticipation .......................................................................................... 5 
`
`Obviousness .......................................................................................... 5 
`
`Standard of Proof .................................................................................. 7 
`
`V. 
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................ 7 
`
`VI.  OVERVIEW OF THE ’550 PATENT AND ITS PROSECUTION
`HISTORY ....................................................................................................... 7 
`
`VII.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 13 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`“laminated ink distribution stack” ...................................................... 13 
`
`“transitional ducts” ............................................................................. 16 
`
`VIII.  ANALYSIS OF THE ’550 PATENT CLAIMS IN LIGHT OF THE
`PRIOR ART .................................................................................................. 18 
`
`A. 
`
`The Prior Art ...................................................................................... 18 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`Disclosure of Boyd .................................................................. 19 
`
`Disclosure of Waller ................................................................ 22 
`
`Disclosure of Ayata .................................................................. 24 
`
`4.  Motivation to Combine Boyd with Waller .............................. 24 
`
`5.  Motivation to Combine Boyd and Waller with Ayata ............. 28 
`
`B. 
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-3 Are Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in
`View of Boyd and Waller ................................................................... 28 
`i
`
`HP Ex. 1002
`HP Inc. v. Memjet Technology Ltd
`
`HP 1002
`Page 2 of 71
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 29 
`
`Claim 2 ..................................................................................... 48 
`
`Claim 3 ..................................................................................... 49 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`C. 
`
`Ground 2: Claim 4 Is Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in
`View of Boyd, Waller, and Ayata ...................................................... 53 
`
`IX.  CONCLUDING STATEMENTS ................................................................. 55 
`
`ii
`
`HP Ex. 1002
`HP Inc. v. Memjet Technology Ltd.
`
`HP 1002
`Page 3 of 71
`
`

`
`
`
`I, Stephen F. Pond, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I formerly worked for the Xerox Corporation for over 25 years. I now
`
`work as a consultant in the area of electronic printing and have done so for the last
`
`17 years. Accordingly, I have extensive experience in electronic printing,
`
`including ink jet technology. I have been retained by HP Inc. (formerly known as
`
`Hewlett-Packard Company) in connection with the above-captioned Petition for
`
`Inter Partes Review.
`
`2.
`
`I understand that the Petition involves U.S. Patent No. 8,678,550 (“the
`
`’550 patent”) (Ex. 1001). I have been asked by Petitioner to offer opinions
`
`regarding the ’550 patent, including the construction of certain claim terms and the
`
`patentability of the claims in view of certain prior art. This declaration sets forth
`
`the opinions I have reached to date regarding these matters.
`
`3.
`
`In preparing this declaration, I have reviewed the ’550 patent and
`
`considered each of the documents cited herein. In reaching my opinions, I have
`
`relied upon my experience in the field and also considered the viewpoint of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the earliest claimed priority date of
`
`the ʼ550 patent, i.e., the year 2000. As explained below, I am familiar with the
`
`level of a person of ordinary skill in the art regarding the technology at issue as of
`
`that time.
`
`1
`
`HP Ex. 1002
`HP Inc. v. Memjet Technology Ltd.
`
`HP 1002
`Page 4 of 71
`
`

`
`
`
`4.
`
`I am being compensated at my normal rate of $500 per hour in
`
`connection with this review. My compensation is not contingent on the outcome
`
`of this review or on the substance of my opinions. I further have no financial
`
`interest in Petitioner. I have been informed that the ’550 patent may currently be
`
`assigned to Memjet Technology Limited (“Memjet”). I have no financial interest
`
`in Memjet.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`5.
`
`A true and correct copy of my curriculum vitae is attached as Ex.
`
`1007. As set forth in my CV, I have over 40 years of research, product
`
`engineering, and consulting experience in the field of electronic printing, including
`
`thermal inkjet ink printing technologies. I received a Bachelor’s Degree (Magna
`
`Cum Laude) in Physics in 1967 from Dartmouth College, a Master’s Degree in
`
`Physics from University of Illinois in 1968, and a Ph.D. in Physics from University
`
`of Illinois in 1971. I am a member of the Phi Beta Kappa honor society.
`
`6.
`
`I served for 26 years at Xerox Corporation in numerous areas related
`
`to electronic printing. From 1972-1979, I served as a Scientist at Xerox
`
`responsible for experimental studies in toner adhesion, was project leader and
`
`principal technical contributor for feasibility studies for a magnetographic
`
`electronic duplicator, and became a charter technical contributor to Xerox’s
`
`continuous inkjet research program. In that last role, I was responsible for early
`
`2
`
`HP Ex. 1002
`HP Inc. v. Memjet Technology Ltd.
`
`HP 1002
`Page 5 of 71
`
`

`
`
`
`continuous inkjet demonstration, technical strategy and competitive technology
`
`information analysis.
`
`7.
`
`During the 1980s, I was a manager at Xerox in the Advanced Marking
`
`Development Section, in the Electronic Marking Device Area, and in the
`
`Electronic Marking Laboratory, where I was responsible for thermal inkjet
`
`research and technology feasibility demonstration.
`
`8.
`
`From 1989-1994, I was Chief Engineer in Xerox’s Components
`
`Development and Manufacturing Unit, where I was responsible for thermal inkjet
`
`advanced technology and product development. In that role, I had line
`
`management responsibility for approximately 60 engineers and technologists, and I
`
`managed inkjet development collaborations with foreign OEM suppliers and a
`
`Xerox Japanese subsidiary. My efforts on behalf of the company were recognized
`
`in 1991, when I received the Xerox President’s Award—the highest individual
`
`honor attainable within the organization.
`
`9.
`
`From 1994-1998, I was a Principal in Xerox’s Ink Jet Business Group,
`
`where I was responsible for workgroup and special product concept development.
`
`In that role, I managed the initial productization project for Xerox 600 dpi thermal
`
`inkjet printhead and ink technology, and I managed the development of a state of
`
`the art thermal inkjet printer mechanism.
`
`10. For the last 17 years, I have been an electronic printing and
`
`3
`
`HP Ex. 1002
`HP Inc. v. Memjet Technology Ltd.
`
`HP 1002
`Page 6 of 71
`
`

`
`
`
`microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) consultant, working with outside
`
`investors and corporate managers to evaluate intellectual property possibilities for
`
`MEMS devices, and inkjet printing.
`
`11.
`
`I am a registered patent agent and I am named an inventor on 51
`
`issued United States Patents. I am also the author of numerous publications in the
`
`field of inkjet printing, including the textbook “Inkjet Technology and Product
`
`Development Strategies,” Torrey Pines Research (2000).
`
`III. DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED
`
`12.
`
`In formulating my opinion, I have considered not only my general
`
`knowledge and experience, but also the following:
`
`HP
`Exhibit #
`Ex. 1001
`Ex. 1003
`Ex. 1004
`Ex. 1005
`Ex. 1006
`Ex. 1008
`Ex. 1009
`
`Ex. 1010
`
`Ex. 1011
`
`Ex. 1012
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,678,550 to Silverbrook
`File History of U.S. Patent 8,678,550
`U.S. Patent No. 6,322,206 to Boyd et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,250,738 to Waller et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 4,463,359 to Ayata et al.
`Excerpt from American Heritage College Dictionary (4th ed. 2007)
`Excerpt from McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical
`Terms (5th ed. 1994)
`Certified Translation of Final Judgment in Docket No. 21 O
`20498/15 before Regional Court of Munich I dated January 29,
`2016
`Memjet’s Responsive Claim Constructions served March 7, 2016 in
`Case No. 3:15-cv-01769-BEN-BLM (S.D. Cal.)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,917,527 to Boyd et al.
`
`4
`
`HP Ex. 1002
`HP Inc. v. Memjet Technology Ltd.
`
`HP 1002
`Page 7 of 71
`
`

`
`
`
`IV. RELEVANT PATENT LAW AND LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`A.
`
`13.
`
`Priority Date
`
`I have been asked to use May 24, 2000, as the priority date for the
`
`purpose of my analysis and this declaration.
`
`B. Anticipation
`
`14.
`
`I understand that a claimed invention may be “anticipated” and thus
`
`unpatentable if a single prior art reference teaches each and every limitation recited
`
`in the claim.
`
`15.
`
`I understand that a claim is unpatentable if every element is actually
`
`disclosed in a prior art reference as recited in the claims. The disclosure may be
`
`explicit, implicit, or inherent. I understand that a single prior art reference may
`
`anticipate claims without expressly disclosing a feature of the claimed invention if
`
`that feature is necessarily present, or inherent, in that reference. I understand that a
`
`reference is read from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`of the alleged invention.
`
`C. Obviousness
`
`16.
`
`I understand that a determination that a claim is “obvious” is based on
`
`underlying factual issues including the content of the prior art and the level of skill
`
`in the art. I understand that for a single reference or a combination of references to
`
`render the claimed invention obvious, a person of ordinary skill in the art must
`
`5
`
`HP Ex. 1002
`HP Inc. v. Memjet Technology Ltd.
`
`HP 1002
`Page 8 of 71
`
`

`
`
`
`have been able to arrive at the claims by altering or combining the references.
`
`17.
`
`I further understand that a claim may be obvious if common sense
`
`directs one to combine multiple prior art references or add missing features to
`
`reproduce the alleged invention recited in the claims. I also understand that if a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the relevant art could implement a predictable variation,
`
`then the claim is likely unpatentable. For the same reason, if a technique has been
`
`used to improve one device and a person having ordinary skill in the art would
`
`recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, then using the
`
`technique is obvious. I further understand that a claim can be obvious if it unites
`
`old elements with no change to their respective functions, or alters prior art by
`
`merely substituting one element for another known in the field to yield a
`
`predictable result.
`
`18.
`
`I also understand that when considering the obviousness of a patent
`
`claim, one should consider whether a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to
`
`combine the references exists so as to avoid impermissibly applying hindsight
`
`when combining or modifying the prior art. I understand this test should not be
`
`applied rigidly, but that the test can be important to avoid such hindsight.
`
`19.
`
`I further understand that where a prior art reference discloses the
`
`general conditions or parameters of a claim, the claim may be obvious if it claims
`
`an optimum value or preferred range, and a skilled artisan could determine the
`
`6
`
`HP Ex. 1002
`HP Inc. v. Memjet Technology Ltd.
`
`HP 1002
`Page 9 of 71
`
`

`
`
`
`optimum value or workable range by routine experimentation.
`
`D.
`
`20.
`
`Standard of Proof
`
`I understand that the standard to prove unpatentability is by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence, which means more likely than not.
`
`V. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`21.
`
`I was also asked to provide an opinion regarding the skill level of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’550 patent in the year 2000. I considered
`
`several factors, including the types of problems encountered in the art, the
`
`solutions to those problems, the pace of innovation in the field, the sophistication
`
`of the technology, and the education level of active workers in the field.
`
`22.
`
`It is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill (i.e., a skilled artisan)
`
`in the art at the time of the ʼ550 patent’s invention would have had at least a
`
`bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Physics,
`
`Material Science, or a related field, and several years of experience in inkjet
`
`printing design, micro-mechanical structures, or analogous fields.
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ’550 PATENT AND ITS PROSECUTION
`HISTORY
`
`23.
`
`I have reviewed and understand the specification, claims, and file
`
`history of the ’550 patent.
`
`24. The application that led to the ’550 patent was filed on July 13, 2010,
`
`and purports to claim priority through a chain of prior applications to an
`
`7
`
`HP Ex. 1002
`HP Inc. v. Memjet Technology Ltd.
`
`HP 1002
`Page 10 of 71
`
`

`
`
`
`application filed on May 24, 2000. In particular, the application that led to the
`
`’550 patent purports to be a continuation of application No. 11/779,845, filed on
`
`July 18, 2007, now Pat. No. 7,758,181, which purports to be a continuation of
`
`application No. 11/227,240, filed on Sept. 16, 2005, now Pat. No. 7,258,430,
`
`which purports to be a continuation of application No. 10/974,751, filed on Oct.
`
`28, 2004, now Pat. No. 6,966,625, which purports to be a continuation of
`
`application No. 10/296,438, filed in Australia as PCT application No.
`
`PCT/AU00/00597 (designating the United States) on May 24, 2000, now Pat. No.
`
`6,824,242.
`
`25. The ’550 patent describes a drop on demand printhead with
`
`replaceable printhead modules. Ex. 1001 at 1:20-24, 1:25-31. Multiple modules
`
`may be arrayed across a pagewidth printing zone, thus allowing for single-pass
`
`pagewide printing. Id. at 1:47-54. Each of the printhead modules receives
`
`multiple inks from multiple sources. Id. at 5:14-23, 6:1-6. An ink distribution
`
`molding distributes the inks from the multiple sources to the multiple printhead
`
`modules. In particular, inks from the sources are supplied to channels of an ink
`
`distribution molding. Id. at 4:44-58. The inks are then fed to a laminated stack of
`
`ink distribution sheets. Id. at 5:14-23. The sheets include holes and slots that are
`
`positioned such that, when the layers are stacked and laminated, paths are formed
`
`to distribute the inks from the multiple ink sources to the printhead modules. Id. at
`
`8
`
`HP Ex. 1002
`HP Inc. v. Memjet Technology Ltd.
`
`HP 1002
`Page 11 of 71
`
`

`
`
`
`5:24-6:6.
`
`26. With reference to an embodiment of the ’550 patent, inks are fed from
`
`ink sources (not shown) through inlet ports 34 (light blue) of ducts cover 39 (blue).
`
`Ex. 1001 at 4:44-49.
`
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 6.
`
`27. The inks that enter at the inlet ports 34 (light blue) are then distributed
`
`to ink ducts 40 (light orange) of ink distribution molding 35 (orange) by way of
`
`cross-flow ink channels 42 (dark blue). Id. at 4:49-54.
`
`9
`
`HP Ex. 1002
`HP Inc. v. Memjet Technology Ltd.
`
`HP 1002
`Page 12 of 71
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 7.
`
`28. The inks travel from the ink ducts 40 (light orange) through a transfer
`
`port 50 (brown) to transitional ducts 51 (light purple). Id. at 6:24-29. The inks
`
`then travel from transitional ducts 51 (light purple) to the laminated stack 36
`
`(green). Id. at 5:20-23.
`
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 8.
`
`29.
`
`In the figure below, the various layers of the laminated stack 36,
`
`which is colored green in the above figures, are separately colored. In particular,
`
`sheet 52 is colored orange, sheet 56 is colored green, sheet 60 is colored brown,
`
`sheet 62 is colored purple, and sheet 64 is colored light blue. These sheets are
`
`stacked on top of each other, with sheet 52 (orange) disposed adjacent the ink
`
`10
`
`HP Ex. 1002
`HP Inc. v. Memjet Technology Ltd.
`
`HP 1002
`Page 13 of 71
`
`

`
`
`
`distribution molding, and with print chips 27 (red) disposed in cavities formed in
`
`layers 62 (purple) and 64 (light blue) such that the print chips 27 (red) abut the
`
`bottom of layer 60 (brown).
`
`Slots 59
`
`
`
`Slots 57
`
`
`
`Id. at Figs. 9a and 9b (annotated).
`
`30.
`
`Ink holes 53 are formed in layers 52, 56, and 60. Id. at 5:24-27, 5:42-
`
`46, 5:59-67. Slots 57 and 59 (annotated in the figure above) are formed in layers
`
`56 and 60. Id. at 5:40-41, 5:50-51. Recesses 55, channels 58, and channels 61 are
`
`formed on the underside of layers 52, 56, and 60, respectively. Id. at 5:33-39,
`
`5:47-51, 5:62-67. Figure 12 of the ’550 patent shows an exploded view of the
`
`various sheets of the ink distribution stack:
`
`11
`
`HP Ex. 1002
`HP Inc. v. Memjet Technology Ltd.
`
`HP 1002
`Page 14 of 71
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 12.
`
`31. The flow of the inks through the ink distribution stack is as follows.
`
`First, inks travels through ink holes 53 to recesses 55 and from other ink holes 53
`
`to channels 58 or 61 to slots 57 or 59. Id. From there, inks travel to print chip 27
`
`(red). Id. at 6:1-6. The inks flow through the above-mentioned holes, slots, and
`
`channels as shown by the red arrows below.
`
`12
`
`HP Ex. 1002
`HP Inc. v. Memjet Technology Ltd.
`
`HP 1002
`Page 15 of 71
`
`

`
`
`
`Slots 59
`
`Slots 57
`
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 9b (annotated).
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`32.
`
`I have been advised that, in the present proceeding, the ’550 patent
`
`claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the
`
`specification and that this standard differs from the standard used in district court
`
`patent litigation proceedings. I have followed these principles in my analysis
`
`throughout this declaration.
`
`A.
`
`“laminated ink distribution stack”
`
`33. The claim term “laminated ink distribution stack” appears in claim 1,
`
`which states: “a laminated ink distribution stack connected to the ink distribution
`
`molding, the laminated ink distribution stack comprising a plurality of layers” and
`
`“each print chip being in fluid communication with a respective set of outlets
`
`defined in the laminated ink distribution stack.” Ex. 1001 at 8:66-9:1, 9:9-11.
`
`34.
`
`In my opinion, one of ordinary skill in the art, defining the broadest
`
`13
`
`HP Ex. 1002
`HP Inc. v. Memjet Technology Ltd.
`
`HP 1002
`Page 16 of 71
`
`

`
`
`
`reasonable interpretation of the claim term in the context of the ’550 patent, would
`
`understand “a laminated ink distribution stack” to mean “an ink distribution
`
`structure manufactured by layering thin, flat sheets one on top of the other
`
`and gluing or otherwise bonding them together.”
`
`35.
`
`In forming this opinion, I considered both intrinsic and extrinsic
`
`evidence. In particular, the specification describes the laminated ink distribution
`
`stack 36 as “a number of laminated layers” 52, 56, 60, 62, and 64. Ex. 1001 at
`
`4:62-65, 6:46-49, 6:13-14, and Figs. 9A, 9B, 12-19. With particular reference to
`
`Figure 9B, the laminated stack is shown as a number (i.e., five) sheets.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001 at Fig. 9B.
`
`36. These sheets are thin. In the preferred embodiment, the sheets are
`
`much less than 0.3 mm thick. This is evidenced by the ’550 patent’s disclosure
`
`that the preferred print chip (27, red above) is about 0.3 mm high. Ex. 1001 at
`
`4:29-31 and that each of sheets 52, 56, 60, 62, and 64 is thinner than the print chip
`
`14
`
`HP Ex. 1002
`HP Inc. v. Memjet Technology Ltd.
`
`HP 1002
`Page 17 of 71
`
`

`
`
`
`27. Regarding this latter point, Figure 9B shows each of sheets 52, 56, 60, 62, and
`
`64 with a thickness less than the height of the print chip 27, and in my opinion one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would understand from this figure that each of sheets 52,
`
`56, 60, 62, and 64 has a thickness less than the height of the print chip 27.
`
`37. My opinion regarding the construction of “a laminated ink distribution
`
`stack” is also consistent with dictionary definitions of “laminated.” In particular,
`
`one definition of “laminate” is “a sheet of material made of several different
`
`bonded layers.” Ex. 1009 at 1104. Further, dictionary definitions of “laminated”
`
`are “composed of layers bonded together” and “arranged in laminae.” Ex. 1008 at
`
`777. A dictionary definition of “lamina” is “a thin plate, sheet, or layer.” Id.
`
`38. Finally, my opinion is consistent with the finding by the Regional
`
`Court of Munich I, which considered a Preliminary Injunction Request filed by
`
`Memjet based on a European Patent having the same specification and figures as
`
`the ’550 patent. There, the court considered the meaning of the term “laminated
`
`ink distribution structure” and found as follows:
`
`the laminated ink distribution structure consists of multiple layers
`
`positioned on top of each other [0016], and that the individual layers
`
`of the laminated stack are connected, preferentially glued, with each
`
`other [0023] so as to form a sealed unit [0057] [and] . . . the laminated
`
`layers are flat plates.
`
`15
`
`HP Ex. 1002
`HP Inc. v. Memjet Technology Ltd.
`
`HP 1002
`Page 18 of 71
`
`

`
`
`
`Ex. 1010 at p. 14, ll. 12-18 (internal citations to EP ’451 patent).
`
`39.
`
`I understand that, in the district court litigation, Memjet proposed that
`
`“laminated ink distribution stack” should be construed as “A stack of firmly united
`
`layers for distributing ink.” Ex. 1011 at 32. In my opinion, this interpretation is
`
`far too broad. Such an interpretation would encompass, for example, complex
`
`structures having varying thicknesses that are united by a screw or clip. One of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would not understand layers that are united by a screw or a
`
`clip to be “laminated.”
`
`B.
`
`“transitional ducts”
`
`40. The claim terms “transitional ducts” and “transitional ink duct” appear
`
`in claim 1, which states: “an ink distribution molding comprising . . . one or more
`
`transitional ducts extending from each of the longitudinally extending ink ducts”
`
`and “a laminated ink distribution stack . . . comprising a plurality of layers,
`
`wherein an uppermost layer has a plurality of inlets for receiving ink from the
`
`transitional ink duct.” Ex. 1001 at 8:61-9:3.
`
`41.
`
`In my opinion, one of ordinary skill in the art, defining the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of the phrase “transitional ducts” in the context of the
`
`’550 patent, would understand it to mean “channels for carrying ink from one
`
`structure to an adjoining structure.”
`
`42.
`
`If forming my opinion in this regard, I considered intrinsic and
`
`16
`
`HP Ex. 1002
`HP Inc. v. Memjet Technology Ltd.
`
`HP 1002
`Page 19 of 71
`
`

`
`
`
`extrinsic evidence. With reference to the ’550 patent specification, the path of ink
`
`from the distribution molding to the laminated stack is described as follows: ink
`
`travels from ink ducts 40 (light orange) of distribution molding 35 (orange)
`
`through a transfer port 50 (brown) to transitional ducts 51 (light purple). Id. at
`
`6:24-29. Ink travels from transitional ducts 51 (light purple) to the laminated stack
`
`32 (green):
`
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 8; see also id. at 5:20-23.
`
`43. Also, my opinion regarding the proper interpretation of “transitional
`
`ducts” is consistent with the structure of claim 1. In particular, the claim states that
`
`(i) the “transitional ducts” extend from each of the longitudinally extending ink
`
`ducts, which are part of the ink distribution structure, and (ii) the upper-most layer
`
`of the laminated ink distribution structure receives ink from the “transitional
`
`ducts.” Ex. 1001 at 8:61-9:3.
`
`44. My opinion regarding the proper interpretation of “transitional ducts”
`
`is also consistent with dictionary definitions of “transitional.” In particular, one
`
`dictionary definition of “transition” is “passage from one form, state, style, or place
`
`17
`
`HP Ex. 1002
`HP Inc. v. Memjet Technology Ltd.
`
`HP 1002
`Page 20 of 71
`
`

`
`
`
`to another.” Ex. 1008 at 1460.
`
`VIII. ANALYSIS OF THE ’550 PATENT CLAIMS IN LIGHT OF THE
`PRIOR ART
`
`45. For the reasons that follow, in my opinion, claims 1-3 of the ’550
`
`would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`purported invention of the ’550 patent in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,322,206 to
`
`Boyd et al. (“Boyd”) (Ex. 1004) and U.S. Patent No. 6,250,738 to Waller et al.
`
`(“Waller”) (Ex. 1005). Further, in my opinion, claim 4 of the ’550 patent would
`
`have been obvious in view of Boyd, Waller, and U.S. Patent No. 4,463,359 to
`
`Ayata et al. (“Ayata”).
`
`A. The Prior Art
`
`46.
`
`I have been advised that Boyd constitutes prior art to the ’550 patent
`
`under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 102(e). Boyd was filed on Dec. 17, 1998,
`
`which is before the earliest-claimed priority date of the ’550 patent (i.e., May 24,
`
`2000). Compare Ex. 1004 with Ex. 1001. Further, I have been advised that the
`
`earliest valid priority date of the ’550 patent is October 28, 2004, and Boyd
`
`published on November 27, 2001, which is before the earliest valid priority date of
`
`the ’550 patent.
`
`47.
`
`I have been advised that Waller constitutes prior art to the ’550 patent
`
`under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 102(e). Waller was filed on Dec. 17,
`
`1998, which is before the priority date of the ’550 patent (i.e., May 24, 2000).
`
`18
`
`HP Ex. 1002
`HP Inc. v. Memjet Technology Ltd.
`
`HP 1002
`Page 21 of 71
`
`

`
`
`
`Compare Ex. 1005 with Ex. 1001. Further, I have been advised that the earliest
`
`valid priority date of the ’550 patent is October 28, 2004, and Waller published on
`
`June 26, 2001, which is before the earliest valid priority date of the ’550.
`
`48.
`
`I have been advised that Ayata constitutes prior art to the ’550 patent.
`
`Ayata issued on July 31, 1984, which is more than one year prior to the earliest-
`
`claimed priority date of the ’550 patent (i.e., May 24, 2000). Compare Ex. 1006
`
`with Ex. 1001.
`
`49.
`
`I understand that the Office considered Boyd during prosecution. In
`
`particular, in an Office Action dated August 7, 2013, the Examiner found that
`
`Boyd discloses all elements of the claims of the ’550 patent except one—the
`
`“cover” element of claim 1. Ex. 1003 at 58-63. Furthermore, I understand that
`
`Waller is cited on the face of the ’550 patent. Ex. 1001 at [56 – References Cites].
`
`However, the Office did not previously apply a combination of Boyd and Waller,
`
`which as is described below and further shown in the chart attached hereto as
`
`Appendix A, renders obvious the claimed combination including a “cover.” I
`
`understand that Ayata was neither cited nor considered by the Office during the
`
`prosecution of the ’550 patent.
`
`1.
`
`Disclosure of Boyd
`
`50. Boyd is directed towards an inkjet printhead with multiple printhead
`
`dies. Ex. 1004 at Abstract. Figure 17 of Boyd shows one embodiment, in which
`
`19
`
`HP Ex. 1002
`HP Inc. v. Memjet Technology Ltd.
`
`HP 1002
`Page 22 of 71
`
`

`
`
`
`three inks are distributed from reservoirs 202, 204, and 206 (shown in yellow,
`
`magenta, and cyan below), respectively, to a plurality of printheads 30 (shown in
`
`red below). The inks travel through channels that are formed in substrate 32
`
`(shown in purple, orange, and green). Id. at Abstract, Fig. 17.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1004 at Fig. 17.
`
`51. Substrate 32 consists of multiple layers. In particular, substrate 32
`
`includes a bottom layer 72 (purple), a top layer 70 (green), and intermediary layers
`
`73 (orange). Id. at Figs. 12-17.
`
`52. The bottom layer 72 includes inlets 86a, 86b, and 86c (shown in light
`
`purple above), and outlets 88a, 88b, and 88c for communicating with ink reservoirs
`
`202, 204, and 206 (yellow, magenta, and cyan). Id. at 8:9-12, 8:43-47. While the
`
`terms “inlet” and “outlet” may be used to describe certain holes, apertures or slots,
`
`these terms merely describe the function of the hole/aperture/slot in use and does
`
`not substantively impact the structure of the hole/aperture/slot.
`
`20
`
`HP Ex. 1002
`HP Inc. v. Memjet Technology Ltd.
`
`HP 1002
`Page 23 of 71
`
`

`
`
`
`53. The top layer 70 (green) includes outlet slots 84′, 84′′, and 84′′′. Id. at
`
`8:21-31, Fig. 16. The outlet slots 84′, 84′′, and 84′′′ are grouped such that a single
`
`printhead die 30 is mounted on the top layer 70 to fluidly couple to a group of three
`
`outlet slots 84′, 84′′, and 84′′′. Id. at 8:28-31, Fig. 16.
`
`54. The intermediary layers 73a, 73b, and 73c (collectively shown in
`
`orange above) include “slots” 100-135 and 137-166. Although Boyd terms all of
`
`these features “slots,” some of these features more closely resemble holes. One of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the terms “holes” and “slots”
`
`may be used interchangeably in the art. The slots 100-135 and 137-166 of Boyd
`
`are arranged such that, when the layers 70, 73a-c, and 72 are stacked, ink inlet 86a
`
`feeds the slots 84′ and the outlet 88a; ink inlet 86b feeds the slots 84′′ and the outlet
`
`88b; and ink inlet 86c feeds the slots 84′′′ and the outlet 88c. Id. at 8:31-37. Thus,
`
`three ink channels are formed, each serving a respective one of the reservoirs 202,
`
`204, and 206. Id. at 8:37-39.
`
`55. As another, but not mutually exclusive, embodiment, Boyd discloses a
`
`printhead assembly with multiple subassemblies. Id. at 5:43-57, Fig. 3. For
`
`example, Figure 3 shows two subassemblies 13, each having ten printhead chips
`
`(shown in red below).
`
`21
`
`HP Ex. 1002
`HP Inc. v. Memjet Technology Ltd.
`
`HP 1002
`Page 24 of 71
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1004 at Fig. 3.
`
`2.
`
`Disclosure of Waller
`
`56. Waller is a continuation-in-part of Boyd, and both Waller and Boyd
`
`are continuations-in-part of U.S. Pat. No. 6,123,410. Ex. 1004; Ex. 1005. Waller
`
`is directed towards an inkjet printhead with multiple printhead dies. Ex. 1005 at
`
`Abstract, Fig. 2.
`
`Ex. 1005 at Fig. 2.
`
`57.
`
`In the embodiment of Waller shown above, the printhead includes a
`
`
`
`22
`
`HP Ex. 1002
`HP Inc. v. Memjet Technology Ltd.
`
`HP 1002
`Page 25 of 71
`
`

`
`
`
`substrate 32 (green) with multiple printhead dies 30 (red) mounted on one of its
`
`surfaces. Id. at 5:7-10, Fig. 2. An ink manifold 33 (orange) is mounted on the
`
`other surface. Id. at 5:10-12, Fig. 2. The ink manifold (orange) includes channels
`
`60a, 60b, and 60c (one of which is shown in blue below, in Fig. 6A). Id. at 7:29-
`
`8:2, Figs. 5, 6A-6C. Waller discloses that the manifold 33 may be a molded
`
`plastic. Id. at 8:12-21.
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1005 at Figs. 5, 6A.
`
`58. The manifold 33 receive ink at inlets 37a, 37b, and 37c (shown in
`
`23
`
`HP Ex. 1002
`HP Inc. v. Memjet Technology Ltd.
`
`HP 1002
`Page 26 of 71
`
`

`
`
`
`yellow, magenta, and cyan), transfers the ink along the channels 60a, 60b, and 60c
`
`to fill openings 61a, 61b, and 61c, and then transfers the remaining ink to outlets
`
`39a, 39b, and 39c (also shown in yellow, magenta, and cyan). Id. at 7:29-8:2, Figs.
`
`6A-6C.
`
`3.
`
`Disclosure of Ayata
`
`59. Ayata is directed towards an inkjet printer. Ex. 1006 at Abstract. In
`
`one embodiment, staggered inkjet head blocks (shown in red below) together with
`
`substrates (shown in green below) are provided on a metal substrate (shown in
`
`yellow below). Id. at 13:54-61, Fig. 17.
`
`4. Motivation to Combine Boyd with Waller
`
`60.
`
`In my opinion, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to
`
`
`
`combine the teachings of Boyd and Waller.
`
`24
`
`HP Ex. 1002
`HP Inc. v. Memjet Technology Ltd.
`
`HP 1002
`Page 27 of 71
`
`

`
`
`
`61. As an initial matter, Boyd and Waller cover very similar technologies.
`
`Both are directed at distributing ink from ink sources to inlets in a substrate, which
`
`carries ink to a plurality of printheads. Specifically, Boyd discloses a three color
`
`embodiment