`
`
`
`
`
`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 46
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
` I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 2
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ................................................ 3
`
`III. DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED ..................................................................... 5
`
`IV. RELEVANT PATENT LAW AND LEGAL STANDARDS ........................ 5
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Priority Date ......................................................................................... 5
`
`Anticipation .......................................................................................... 6
`
`Standard of Proof .................................................................................. 6
`
`V.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................ 6
`
`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.
`
`B.
`
`The Prior Art ...................................................................................... 18
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-4 Are Anticipated by Silverbrook WO
`’849 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ............................................ 18
`
`IX. CONCLUDING STATEMENTS ................................................................. 31
`
`
`
`i
`
`HP Ex. 1002
`HP Inc. v. Memjet Technology Ltd.
`
`HP 1002
`Page 2 of 46
`
`
`
`
`
`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 in the year 2004. 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.
`
`4.
`
`I am being compensated at my normal rate of $500 per hour in
`
`2
`
`HP Ex. 1002
`HP Inc. v. Memjet Technology Ltd.
`
`HP 1002
`Page 3 of 46
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`1005. 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
`
`continuous inkjet demonstration, technical strategy and competitive technology
`
`3
`
`HP Ex. 1002
`HP Inc. v. Memjet Technology Ltd.
`
`HP 1002
`Page 4 of 46
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) consultant, working with outside
`
`4
`
`HP Ex. 1002
`HP Inc. v. Memjet Technology Ltd.
`
`HP 1002
`Page 5 of 46
`
`
`
`
`
`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. 1006
`Ex. 1007
`
`Ex. 1008
`
`Ex. 1010
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,678,550 to Silverbrook
`File History of U.S. Patent 8,678,550
`PCT Pub. No. WO 01/89849 A1 to Silverbrook
`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.)
`
`IV. RELEVANT PATENT LAW AND LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`A.
`
`13.
`
`Priority Date
`
`I have been asked to use October 28, 2004, as the priority date for the
`
`purpose of my analysis and this declaration.
`
`5
`
`HP Ex. 1002
`HP Inc. v. Memjet Technology Ltd.
`
`HP 1002
`Page 6 of 46
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`16.
`
`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
`
`17.
`
`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 2004. 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.
`
`6
`
`HP Ex. 1002
`HP Inc. v. Memjet Technology Ltd.
`
`HP 1002
`Page 7 of 46
`
`
`
`
`
`18.
`
`It is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill (i.e., a skilled artisan)
`
`in the art of the ʼ550 patent in the year 2004 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
`
`19.
`
`I have reviewed and understand the specification, claims, and file
`
`history of the ’550 patent.
`
`20. The application that led to the ’550 patent was filed on July 13, 2010,
`
`and 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.
`
`21.
`
`I have assumed, for purposes of this declaration, that the ’550 patent is
`
`not entitled to the earliest claimed priority date, and instead is entitled to a priority
`
`date no earlier than October 28, 2004.
`
`22. The ’550 patent describes a drop on demand printhead with
`7
`
`HP Ex. 1002
`HP Inc. v. Memjet Technology Ltd.
`
`HP 1002
`Page 8 of 46
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`5:24-6:6.
`
`23. 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.
`
`8
`
`HP Ex. 1002
`HP Inc. v. Memjet Technology Ltd.
`
`HP 1002
`Page 9 of 46
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 6.
`
`24. 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.
`
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 7.
`
`25. 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
`
`9
`
`HP Ex. 1002
`HP Inc. v. Memjet Technology Ltd.
`
`HP 1002
`Page 10 of 46
`
`
`
`then travel from transitional ducts 51 (light purple) to the laminated stack 36
`
`(green). Id. at 5:20-23.
`
`
`
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 8.
`
`26.
`
`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
`
`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).
`
`
`
`10
`
`HP Ex. 1002
`HP Inc. v. Memjet Technology Ltd.
`
`HP 1002
`Page 11 of 46
`
`
`
`Slots 59
`
`
`
`Slots 57
`
`
`
`Id. at Figs. 9a and 9b (annotated).
`
`27.
`
`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 12 of 46
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 12.
`
`28. 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 13 of 46
`
`
`
`Slots 59
`
`
`
`Slots 57
`
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 9b (annotated).
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`29.
`
`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”
`
`30. 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.
`
`31.
`
`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 14 of 46
`
`
`
`
`
`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.”
`
`32.
`
`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 of (i.e., five) sheets.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001 at Fig. 9B.
`
`33. 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 15 of 46
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`34. 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.
`
`35. 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 16 of 46
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1010 at p. 14, ll. 12-18 (internal citations to EP ’451 patent).
`
`36.
`
`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. 1010 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”
`
`37. 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.
`
`38.
`
`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.”
`
`39.
`
`If forming my opinion in this regard, I considered intrinsic and
`
`16
`
`HP Ex. 1002
`HP Inc. v. Memjet Technology Ltd.
`
`HP 1002
`Page 17 of 46
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`40. 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.
`
`41. 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 18 of 46
`
`
`
`
`
`to another.” Ex. 1008 at 1460.
`
`VIII. ANALYSIS OF THE ’550 PATENT CLAIMS IN LIGHT OF THE
`PRIOR ART
`
`42. For the reasons that follow, in my opinion, claims 1-4 of the ’550 are
`
`anticipated by PCT Pub. No. WO 01/89849 A1 to Silverbrook (“Silverbrook WO
`
`’849”) (Ex. 1004).
`
`A. The Prior Art
`
`43.
`
`I have been advised that Silverbrook WO ’849 constitutes prior art to
`
`the ’550 patent under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Silverbrook WO ’849
`
`published on November 29, 2001, which is more than one year prior to the priority
`
`date of the ’550 patent that I have used for this analysis (i.e., October 28, 2004).
`
`44. Silverbrook WO ’849, like the ’550 patent, relates to a printhead
`
`assembly (for example an assembly used in a pagewidth printer) that includes an
`
`ink distribution assembly for distributing ink from multiple sources to multiple
`
`printhead chips. Indeed, except for differences in their respective summaries, the
`
`’550 patent and Silverbrook WO ’849 include nearly identical disclosures.
`
`B. Ground 1: Claims 1-4 Are Anticipated by Silverbrook WO ’849
`under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
`
`45.
`
`In my opinion, each of claims 1-4 of the ’550 patent is anticipated by
`
`Silverbrook WO ’849. I have mapped the disclosures of Silverbrook WO ’849 to
`
`the features of claims 1-4 in the Chart in Appendix A (hereinafter “Chart”). I
`
`18
`
`HP Ex. 1002
`HP Inc. v. Memjet Technology Ltd.
`
`HP 1002
`Page 19 of 46
`
`
`
`
`
`provide further support for my opinion below.
`
`i.
`
`Claim 1
`
`(1) Printhead assembly for pagewidth printhead
`
`46. The preamble of claim 1 of the ’550 patent recites a “printhead
`
`assembly for a pagewidth printhead.” To the extent that the preamble is limiting,
`
`the preamble of claim 1 is disclosed by Silverbrook WO ’849.
`
`47. Silverbrook WO ’849 is directed to a printhead assembly comprising
`
`multiple modules butted together so as to print A4-sized paper without the need to
`
`scan the printhead across the paper width. Ex. 1004 at p. 1a, l. 9 – p. 2, l. 3; see
`
`also Chart.
`
`(2)
`
`Ink distribution molding
`
`48. Claim 1 of the ’550 patent further recites “an ink distribution
`
`molding comprising a plurality of longitudinally extending ink ducts
`
`corresponding to a plurality of different colored inks and one or more transitional
`
`ducts extending from each of the longitudinally extending ink ducts.” Silverbrook
`
`WO ’849 discloses this feature.
`
`49. Silverbrook WO ’849 discloses an ink distribution molding. This
`
`molding is identified as feature 35 in, for example, Figure 6 of Silverbrook WO
`
`’849 below (orange in the figures below).
`
`19
`
`HP Ex. 1002
`HP Inc. v. Memjet Technology Ltd.
`
`HP 1002
`Page 20 of 46
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1004 at Fig. 6
`
`50. The ink distribution molding 35 (orange) includes a plurality of
`
`longitudinally extending ink ducts, identified as element 40 (light orange) in Figure
`
`7 of Silverbrook WO ’849:
`
`Ex. 1004 at Fig. 7
`
`51. Silverbrook WO ’849 discloses that each ink duct corresponds to a
`
`different colored ink. This is made apparent from the above reproduced figures
`
`(which show six ducts and following passage: “Six ducts are suitable for a printer
`
`capable of printing four color process (CMYK) as well as infra-red and fixative.”
`20
`
`HP Ex. 1002
`HP Inc. v. Memjet Technology Ltd.
`
`HP 1002
`Page 21 of 46
`
`
`
`Ex. 1004 at p. 5, ll. 17-18; see also Chart.
`
`52. Finally, Silverbrook WO ’849 discloses transitional ducts, identified
`
`as features 51 (pink) in figure 8:
`
`
`
`Ex. 1004 at Fig. 8
`
`53. Thus, Silverbrook WO ’849 discloses “an ink distribution molding
`
`[35] comprising a plurality of longitudinally extending ink ducts [40]
`
`corresponding to a plurality of different colored inks [cyan, magenta, yellow,
`
`black, infra-red, and fixative] and one or more transitional ducts [51] extending
`
`from each of the longitudinally extending ink ducts [40].” See Chart.
`
`(3)
`
`Laminated ink distribution stack
`
`54. Claim 1 of the ’550 patent further recites “a laminated ink distribution
`
`stack connected to the ink distribution molding, the 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 ducts.” Silverbrook WO ’849
`
`discloses this feature.
`
`55. Silverbrook WO ’849 discloses a laminated ink distribution stack,
`
`which it identifies as feature 36 (shown in green) in for example, Figures 6 and 8:
`
`21
`
`HP Ex. 1002
`HP Inc. v. Memjet Technology Ltd.
`
`HP 1002
`Page 22 of 46
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1004 at Fig. 8
`
`Ex. 1004 at Fig. 6
`
`56. As shown in Figure 8 above, the laminated stack 36 (green) is
`
`connected to the ink distribution molding 35 (orange). Silverbrook WO ’849
`
`explicitly discloses that the layers of laminated stack 36 are glued or otherwise
`
`bonded: “The individual layers of the laminated stack as well as the cover molding
`
`39 and distribution molding can be glued or otherwise bonded together to provide a
`
`sealed unit.” Ex. 1004 at p. 7, ll. 1-2.
`
`57. Layer 52 (orange) is an uppermost layer, and uppermost layer 52
`
`22
`
`HP Ex. 1002
`HP Inc. v. Memjet Technology Ltd.
`
`HP 1002
`Page 23 of 46
`
`
`
`
`
`includes a plurality of ink holes 53. Id. at p. 5, ll. 33-37; Fig. 6. The ink holes 53
`
`in layer 52 receive ink from transitional ducts 51. Id. at p. 6, ll. 20-22, Figs. 9a, 9b.
`
`58. Thus, Silverbrook WO ’849 discloses “a laminated ink distribution
`
`stack [36] connected to the ink distribution molding [35], the laminated ink
`
`distribution stack [36] comprising a plurality of layers [52, 56, 60, 62, 64], wherein
`
`an uppermost layer [52] has a plurality of inlets [53] for receiving ink from the
`
`transitional ducts [51].” See Chart.
`
`(4) Cover with inlet ports
`
`59. Claim 1 of the ’550 patent further recites “a cover having an ink inlet
`
`port corresponding to each said longitudinally extending ink duct, each ink inlet
`
`port being in fluid communication with a respective ink source.” Silverbrook WO
`
`’849 discloses this feature.
`
`60. Silverbrook WO ’849 discloses “a plastics duct cover 39” which
`
`covers distribution molding 35.” Ex. 1004 at p. 5, l. 13. The cover 39 is shown in
`
`below in Figures 6 and 7 below:
`
`23
`
`HP Ex. 1002
`HP Inc. v. Memjet Technology Ltd.
`
`HP 1002
`Page 24 of 46
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1004 at Fig. 6
`
`Ex. 1004 at Fig. 7
`
`61. Cover 39 includes inlet ports inlet ports 34 (light blue). Different inks
`
`enter the inlet ports 34 (light blue) and are then transferred to ink ducts 40 (light
`
`orange) of ink distribution molding 35 (orange) by way of cross-flow ink channels
`
`42 (dark blue). Ex. 1004 at p. 5, ll. 11-18. With reference to Figure 26 of
`
`Silverbrook WO ’849, ink is supplied to inlet ports 34 by way of ink hoses 94
`
`24
`
`HP Ex. 1002
`HP Inc. v. Memjet Technology Ltd.
`
`HP 1002
`Page 25 of 46
`
`
`
`which originate at an ink cassette 931 (purple):
`
`
`
`Ex. 1004 at Fig. 26
`
`62. Thus, Silverbrook WO ’849 discloses “a cover [39] having an ink
`
`inlet port [34] corresponding to each said longitudinally extending ink duct [40],
`
`each ink inlet port [34] being in fluid communication with a respective ink source
`
`[93].” See Chart.
`
`(5) Print chips in a staggered overlapping
`arrangement
`
`63. Claim 1 of the ’550 patent further recites “a plurality of print chips
`
`
`1 Silverbrook WO ’849 uses two sets of reference numbers for the ink hoses in
`
`cassettes. Compare Ex. 1004 at p. 5, ll. 12-13 (38 and 37, respectively) with id. at
`
`p. 8, ll. 31-34, Figs. 26, 27 (94 and 93, respectively). In this Petition, the latter set
`
`of reference numbers is used.
`
`25
`
`HP Ex. 1002
`HP Inc. v. Memjet Technology Ltd.
`
`HP 1002
`Page 26 of 46
`
`
`
`extending across a pagewidth in a staggered overlapping arrangement.”
`
`Silverbrook WO ’849 discloses this feature.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1004 at Fig. 12 (partial)
`
`64. As shown in the figures above, print chips 27 (red) are “each disposed
`
`at a slight angle to the longitudinal axis of the printhead . . . with a slight overlap
`
`between each print chip [27 (red)] which enables continuous transmission of ink
`
`over the entire length of the array.” Ex. 1004 at p. 4, ll. 39-40.
`
`(6) Print chips in fluid communication with outlets
`
`65. Claim 1 of the ’550 patent further recites “each print chip being in
`
`fluid communication with a respective set of outlets defined in the laminated ink
`
`distribution stack, such that each print chip receives ink from each of the plurality
`
`of longitudinally extending ink ducts.” Silverbrook WO ’849 discloses this claim
`
`element.
`
`66. The flow path of the various inks of Silverbrook WO ’849 may be
`
`explained with reference to Figures 9a and 9b (reproduced below).
`
`26
`
`HP Ex. 1002
`HP Inc. v. Memjet Technology Ltd.
`
`HP 1002
`Page 27 of 46
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001 at Fig. 9A
`
`
`
`Ex. 1004 at Fig. 9a
`
`Slots 59
`
`Slots 57
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001 at Fig. 9B
`
`27
`
`HP Ex. 1002
`HP Inc. v. Memjet Technology Ltd.
`
`HP 1002
`Page 28 of 46
`
`
`
`Slots 59
`
`
`
`Slots 57
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001 at Fig. 9b
`
`67. The ink flow through the above-mentioned holes, recesses, slots, and
`
`channels is shown by the red arrows in Figure 9b above.
`
`68.
`
`In Silverbrook WO ’849, each print chip 27 receives ink from each
`
`longitudinally extending duct 40. In particular, Silverbrook WO ’849 discloses
`
`that “[a]ll of the ink ducts 40 have corresponding transfer ports 50 communicating
`
`with respective ones of the transitional ducts 51. The transitional ducts 51 are
`
`parallel with each other but angled acutely with respect to the ink ducts 50 so as to
`
`line up with the rows of ink holes of the first layer 52 of the laminated stack 36.”
`
`Ex. 1004 at p. 5, ll. 32-35.
`
`69. Thus, Silverbrook WO ’849 discloses “each print chip [27] being in
`
`fluid communication with a respective set of outlets [bottoms of slots 59 and end
`
`of channels 61] defined in the laminated ink distribution stack [36], such that each
`
`print chip [27] receives ink from each of the plurality of longitudinally extending
`28
`
`HP Ex. 1002
`HP Inc. v. Memjet Technology Ltd.
`
`HP 1002
`Page 29 of 46
`
`
`
`
`
`ink ducts [40].” See Chart.
`
`ii.
`
`Claim 2
`
`70. Claim 2 of the ’550 patent recites “the plurality of layers have a
`
`plurality of ink slots and ink holes defined therein for distributing ink from the
`
`plurality of inlets to the sets of outlets.” Silverbrook WO ’849 discloses this
`
`feature.
`
`71. Silverbrook WO ’849 discloses that layers 52, 56, and 60 include ink
`
`holes 53. Ex. 1004 at p. 5, ll. 33-40, p. 6, ll. 5-7, 15-16. Silverbrook WO ’849 also
`
`discloses that layer 56 includes slots 57 and that layer 60 includes slots 59. Id. at
`
`p. 6, ll. 3-4, 9-12. Accordingly, Silverbrook WO ’849 discloses “the plurality of
`
`layers [52, 56, 60] have a plurality of ink slots [57, 59] and ink holes [53] defined
`
`therein for distributing ink from the plurality of inlets [holes 53 in layer 52] to the
`
`sets of outlets [bottoms of slots 59 and end of channels 61].”
`
`iii. Claim 3
`
`72. Claim 3 recites “each ink duct extends longitudinally across a
`
`pagewidth.” Silverbrook WO ’849 discloses this.
`
`73. Silverbrook WO ’849 disclose
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
