`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,462,905
`Declaration in Support of Patent Owner’s Response in Inter Partes Review
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`Sony Corporation
`Petitioner
`v.
`
`Fujifilm Corporation
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 6,462,905
`Issue Date: October 8, 2002
`Title: MAGNETIC TAPE CARTRIDGE
`_______________
`Inter Partes Review Nos. 2018-00876 and 2018-00877
`____________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF WILLIAM VANDERHEYDEN IN SUPPORT OF
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE IN INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`FUJIFILM, Exh. 2008, p. 1
`FUJIFILM v. Sony, 2018-00876
`
`

`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 4 
`I. 
`A.  Background ...................................................................................................... 4 
`B.  Publications and Patents .................................................................................. 8 
`C.  Materials and Other Information Considered .................................................. 8 
`II.  UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW ........................................................... 8 
`A.  Legal Standard for Anticipation ...................................................................... 8 
`B.  Legal Standard for Obviousness ...................................................................... 9 
`C.  Legal Standard for Claim Construction ......................................................... 13 
`III.  LEVEL OF SKILL OF ONE OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .. 18 
`IV.  TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND ............................................................ 19 
`V. 
`THE ’905 PATENT ..................................................................................... 28 
`A.  Summary of the ’905 Patent .......................................................................... 28 
`B.  ’905 Patent Prosecution History .................................................................... 34 
`VI.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................ 35 
`VII.  ANALYSIS OF THE PRIOR ART ............................................................ 36 
`A.  U.S. Patent No. 5, 901,916 (“McAllister-I”) (Ex. 1005) ............................... 36 
`B.  European Patent Publication No. 0 284 687 A2 (“Laverriere”) (Ex. 1007) . 39 
`C.  Japanese Patent Pub. No. H11-273307 (“Mizutani”) (Ex. 1006) .................. 41 
`D.  Japanese Patent Publication No. S63-11776 (“Morita-I”) (Ex. 1010) .......... 42 
`E.  European Patent Publication No. 0 926 676 A1 (“Morita-II”) (Ex. 1011) ... 44 
`F.  Japanese Patent Publication No. H11-288571 (“Tsuyuki”) (Ex. 1012) ........ 46 
`VIII.  VALIDITY ANALYSIS OVER PRIOR ART REFERENCES CITED
`IN IPR 2018-00876 ................................................................................................. 47 
`A.  Claims 1 and 2 are novel and non-obvious over McAllister-I and Laverriere
` ....................................................................................................................... 48 
`a.  One of ordinary skill in the art would not have sought to combine
`McAllister-I and Laverriere ....................................................................... 48 
`b.  The projecting means of Laverriere do not disclose or suggest the guide
`member recited in claim 1 .......................................................................... 66 
`B.  Claim 3 is novel over McAllister-I ................................................................ 67 
`C.  Claim 3 is novel and non-obvious over McAllister-I and Laverriere ........... 77 
`a.  A POSA would not have sought to combine McAllister-I and Laverriere to
`reach claim 3 .............................................................................................. 77 
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`FUJIFILM, Exh. 2008, p. 2
`FUJIFILM v. Sony, 2018-00876
`
`

`

`
`
`D.  Claim 3 is novel and non-obvious over Mizutani ......................................... 81 
`a.  Mizutani does not disclose the outer diameter of an engagement gear
`being larger than that of a braking gear ..................................................... 81 
`b.  Mizutani does not disclose an engagement gear tooth on an engagement
`gear projection ............................................................................................ 90 
`IX.  VALIDITY ANALYSIS OVER PRIOR ART REFERENCES CITED
`IN IPR 2018-00877 ................................................................................................. 91 
`A.  Claim 1 is novel and non-obvious over Morita-I and Morita-II ................... 92 
`a.  A POSA would not have sought to combine Morita-I and Morita-II ........ 92 
`b.  The “guide surface” of Morita-I does not satisfy the “guide member” of
`claim 1 ......................................................................................................101 
`B.  Claim 2 is novel and non-obvious over Morita-I, Morita-II, and Laverriere
` .....................................................................................................................103 
`a.  One of ordinary skill would not have sought to combine Morita-I, Morita-
`II, and Laverriere ......................................................................................103 
`b.  Projecting means of Laverriere are not “guide members” under
`Petitioner’s proposed construction ...........................................................107 
`C.  Claim 3 is novel and non-obvious over Tsuyuki .........................................109 
`a.  Tsuyuki fails to disclose or suggest that the outer diameter of the
`engagement gear is larger than that of the braking gear ..........................109 
`X.  RESERVATION OF RIGHTS .................................................................117 
`XI.  APPENDIX .................................................................................................118 
`EXHIBIT 1: CURRICULUM VITAE OF WILLIAM VANDERHEYDEN .118 
` ................................................................................................................................118 
`EXHIBIT 2: MATERIALS CONSIDERED IN THE PREPARATION OF
`THIS DECLARATION .......................................................................................120 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`FUJIFILM, Exh. 2008, p. 3
`FUJIFILM v. Sony, 2018-00876
`
`

`

`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`
`1. My name is William Vanderheyden, I have over twenty-five
`
`years of experience in the design of tape cartridges and I am the founder of V1
`
`Design & Manufacturing, a design to manufacturing engineering service. I have
`
`prepared the following declaration and analysis as an expert witness on behalf of
`
`FUJIFILM Corporation (“Fujifilm”). In this declaration, I provide my technical
`
`basis and analysis as to the validity of claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 6,462,905 (the
`
`“’905 Patent”).
`
`2.
`
`I was retained as an expert witness in this matter and this
`
`declaration contains my expert opinions formed to date and the reasoning for those
`
`opinions. I may offer additional opinions based on further review of materials in
`
`this case, including opinions and/or testimony of other expert witnesses.
`
`3. My
`
`relevant qualifications,
`
`including my
`
`educational
`
`background and career history is summarized below. My full curriculum vitae is
`
`attached as Exhibit 1 to this declaration.
`
`A. Background
`I have over
`twenty-five years of product development
`
`4.
`
`experience in data storage tape products. I obtained a Bachelor of Science in
`
`Mechanical Engineering from the University of Wisconsin–Madison in 1991.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`FUJIFILM, Exh. 2008, p. 4
`FUJIFILM v. Sony, 2018-00876
`
`

`

`
`
`5.
`
`After graduating from the University of Wisconsin–Madison, I
`
`worked as a Senior Development Engineer at 3M. In this role, I was involved in
`
`the development of components for data storage cartridges, including part design,
`
`analysis, prototyping, tool design and modeling. Around 1990, 3M reached an
`
`agreement with IBM to purchase the rights to the 3480-type cartridge technology.
`
`I was part of a technical team at 3M that was sent over to IBM to meet with the
`
`team that developed the 3480-type cartridge. In this role, I became familiar with
`
`the components of the 3480-type cartridge, and held meetings with various IBM
`
`employees who were instrumental with the initial design and development of the
`
`3480-type cartridge.
`
`6.
`
`Using this foundational knowledge of the 3480-type cartridge, I
`
`was able to work on the design of several future iterations of data storage tape
`
`products that were designed and developed at 3M. Such products include 3490,
`
`Timberline, SD-3, 3590, & QIC. On one particular project, I designed a hub for
`
`the Timberline data storage tape cartridge.
`
`7.
`
`After 3M spun off its data storage business into Imation
`
`Corporation, I worked at Imation as a Product Development Specialist. As a
`
`Product Development Specialist, I was part of a laboratory team that focused on
`
`cartridge development. I was also involved in the design and analysis of tape
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`FUJIFILM, Exh. 2008, p. 5
`FUJIFILM v. Sony, 2018-00876
`
`

`

`
`
`cartridges, including developing the mechanical components for the 9840-type data
`
`storage tape cartridge.
`
`8.
`
`During my time at Imation, I was involved in the initial review
`
`of
`
`the first generation Linear Tape-Open (“LTO”) consortium cartridge
`
`specification. The LTO consortium was a group of companies, including HP and
`
`Imation, charged with the design of the first generation LTO cartridge, as well as
`
`its interface to an LTO drive. I was part of a team at Imation that reviewed the
`
`initial LTO design. During my review of the LTO cartridge specification I
`
`assessed in detail the components of the LTO cartridge, and considered additional
`
`design changes that would be needed to improve the LTO cartridge design.
`
`9.
`
`In 1999, I joined Benchmark Storage Innovation as an Advisory
`
`Development Engineer. In this role, I led the mechanical design and development
`
`of the VS80 DLT tape drive and VS Tape cartridge. I designed and developed 8
`
`tape cartridge components including a base, cover, door, spring, hub, flange, reel
`
`lock, and write protect. I also designed and developed 25 tape drive components,
`
`including a take-up reel, deck assembly and loading mechanism. During my time
`
`at Benchmark, I remained involved in the review and evaluation of the LTO
`
`cartridge specification. The LTO cartridge was one of Benchmark’s main market
`
`competitors, and as such I remained up to date on LTO advances. Benchmark used
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`FUJIFILM, Exh. 2008, p. 6
`FUJIFILM v. Sony, 2018-00876
`
`

`

`
`
`to reverse engineer LTO cartridges to review and measure any new or updated
`
`components.
`
`10. From 2003 to 2017 I worked as a Senior Principal Hardware
`
`Engineer for Oracle/Sun Microsystems/StorageTek1, in which I led design teams
`
`developing the T10000 series of tape cartridges and tape drive mechanisms. The
`
`T10000 series are an updated model of the 3480-type cartridges, which are used by
`
`high end commercial clients. During this time, I was also involved in competitive
`
`analysis of each generation of LTO cartridges, and was the main point of contact
`
`for advising the tape drive group, as well as Oracle’s internal tape library group, on
`
`all cartridge matters.
`
`11. For the past 3 years, I have been an adjunct instructor for the
`
`Mechanical Engineering Department at the University of Colorado in Boulder,
`
`acting as a project director for the Senior Design Project class. This is a year long
`
`class in which seniors in the mechanical engineering department take an industry
`
`sponsored product from concept design through to manufacturing and testing.
`
`12. Recently I started my own consulting firm, V1 Design &
`
`Manufacturing, where I provide guidance on designing and manufacturing
`
`products.
`
`
`1 StorageTek was acquired by Sun Microsystems in 2005 which was then acquired
`by Oracle in 2010.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`FUJIFILM, Exh. 2008, p. 7
`FUJIFILM v. Sony, 2018-00876
`
`

`

`
`
`B. Publications and Patents
`I am a named inventor on fifty-six mechanical patents,
`
`13.
`
`including over twenty-five patents relating to the design of a tape cartridge or
`
`components therein. For example, I am a named inventor in U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,077,353 for “Tape Cartridge with Movable Access Door.”
`
`C. Materials and Other Information Considered
`I have considered information from various sources in forming
`
`14.
`
`my opinions. A list of materials considered is appended hereto as Exhibit 2.
`
`II. UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW
`15.
`I have been informed of the following legal principles and they
`
`have guided my opinions in this declaration.
`
`A. Legal Standard for Anticipation
`I understand that, once the claims of a patent have been
`
`16.
`
`properly construed, a comparison of the properly construed claim language to the
`
`prior art on a limitation-by-limitation basis is required to determine anticipation of
`
`a patent claim.
`
`17.
`
`I understand that a prior art reference “anticipates” an asserted
`
`claim, and thus, renders the claim invalid, if all elements of the claim are disclosed
`
`in that prior art reference, either explicitly or inherently (i.e., necessarily present or
`
`implied).
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`FUJIFILM, Exh. 2008, p. 8
`FUJIFILM v. Sony, 2018-00876
`
`

`

`
`
`18.
`
`I understand
`
`that anticipation must be shown by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence in an inter partes review, and I have written this
`
`declaration accordingly.
`
`B. Legal Standard for Obviousness
`I understand that even if a patent is not anticipated, it is still
`
`19.
`
`invalid if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are
`
`such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`
`invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art (“POSA”).
`
`20.
`
`I understand that a POSA provides a reference point from
`
`which the prior art and claimed invention should be viewed. This reference point
`
`prevents a POSA from using one’s hindsight in deciding whether a claim is
`
`obvious.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that an obviousness determination includes the
`
`consideration of various factors such as (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`
`(2) the differences between the prior art and the asserted claims; (3) the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and (4) the existence of secondary considerations
`
`such as commercial success, long-felt but unresolved needs, failure of others, etc.
`
`22.
`
`I am informed that such secondary considerations may include
`
`(1) a long felt but unmet need in the prior art that was satisfied by the invention of
`
`the patent; (2) commercial success or lack of commercial success of products
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`FUJIFILM, Exh. 2008, p. 9
`FUJIFILM v. Sony, 2018-00876
`
`

`

`
`
`covered by the patent; (3) unexpected results achieved by the invention; (4) praise
`
`of the invention by others skilled in the art; (5) taking of licenses under the patent
`
`by others; and (6) deliberate copying of the invention. I also understand that there
`
`must be a relationship between any such secondary consideration and the
`
`invention.
`
`23.
`
`I further understand that contemporaneous and independent
`
`inventions by others is a secondary consideration supporting an obviousness
`
`determination.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that an obviousness evaluation can be based on a
`
`combination of multiple prior art references. I am aware that the prior art
`
`references themselves may provide a suggestion, motivation, or reason to combine
`
`their teachings. In other circumstances, a nexus linking two or more prior art
`
`references is simple common sense. I further understand that an obviousness
`
`analysis recognizes that market demand, rather than scientific literature, often
`
`drives innovation, and that a motivation to combine references may be supplied by
`
`the direction of the marketplace.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that if a technique has been used to improve one
`
`device, and a POSA would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the
`
`same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his
`
`or her skill.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`FUJIFILM, Exh. 2008, p. 10
`FUJIFILM v. Sony, 2018-00876
`
`

`

`
`
`26.
`
`I also understand
`
`that practical and common
`
`sense
`
`considerations should guide a proper obviousness analysis, because familiar items
`
`may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes. I further understand that a
`
`POSA looking to overcome a problem will often be able to fit the teachings of
`
`multiple publications together like pieces of a puzzle. However, I also understand
`
`that the prior art need not be like two puzzle pieces that must fit perfectly together.
`
`I understand that an obviousness analysis therefore takes into account the
`
`inferences and creative steps that a POSA would employ under the circumstances.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that a particular combination may be proven
`
`obvious by showing that it was obvious to try the combination. For example, when
`
`there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite
`
`number of identified, predictable solutions, a POSA has good reason to pursue the
`
`known options within his or her technical grasp because the result is likely the
`
`product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
`
`28.
`
`I understand
`
`that
`
`the combination of familiar elements
`
`according to known methods may be proven obvious when it does no more than
`
`yield predictable results. Design incentives and other market forces can prompt
`
`variations of a work in one field of endeavor or a different field of endeavor. If a
`
`POSA can implement a predictable variation, such a variation is likely obvious and
`
`bars its patentability.
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`FUJIFILM, Exh. 2008, p. 11
`FUJIFILM v. Sony, 2018-00876
`
`

`

`
`
`29.
`
`It is further my understanding that a proper obviousness
`
`analysis focuses on what was known or obvious to a POSA, not just the patentee.
`
`Accordingly, I understand that any need or problem known in the field of endeavor
`
`at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for
`
`combining the elements in the manner claimed.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that a claim can be obvious in light of a single
`
`reference, without the need to combine references, if the elements of the claim that
`
`are not found explicitly or inherently in the reference can be supplied by the
`
`common sense of one of skill in the art.
`
`31.
`
`I understand that a POSA could have combined two pieces of
`
`prior art or substituted one prior art element for another if the substitution can be
`
`made with predictable results, even if the swapped-in element is different from the
`
`swapped-out element. In other words, the relevant question is whether prior art
`
`techniques are interoperable with respect to one another, such that a POSA would
`
`view them as a design choice, or whether a person of skill could apply prior art
`
`techniques into a new combined system.
`
`32.
`
`In sum, my understanding is that prior art teachings are
`
`properly combined where a POSA having the understanding and knowledge
`
`reflected in the prior art and motivated by the general problem facing the inventor,
`
`would have been led to make the combination of elements recited in the claims.
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`FUJIFILM, Exh. 2008, p. 12
`FUJIFILM v. Sony, 2018-00876
`
`

`

`
`
`Under this analysis, the prior art references themselves, or any need or problem
`
`known in the field of endeavor at the time of the invention, can provide a reason
`
`for combining the elements of multiple prior art references in the claimed manner.
`
`33.
`
`I have been informed and understand that the obviousness
`
`analysis requires a comparison of the properly construed claim language to the
`
`prior art on a limitation-by-limitation basis.
`
`34.
`
`I understand that an inter partes review obviousness must be
`
`shown by a preponderance evidence, and I have written this declaration
`
`accordingly.
`
`C. Legal Standard for Claim Construction
`I understand that a patent may include two types of claims,
`
`35.
`
`independent claims and dependent claims. An independent claim stands alone and
`
`includes only the limitations it recites. A dependent claim can depend from an
`
`independent claim or another dependent claim. I understand that a dependent
`
`claim includes all the limitations that it recites in addition to all of the limitations
`
`recited in the claim from which it depends.
`
`36.
`
`I understand that in this proceeding before the United States
`
`Patent and Trademark Office, the claims of the ’905 Patent are to be given their
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification from the perspective
`
`of one of skill in the art.
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`FUJIFILM, Exh. 2008, p. 13
`FUJIFILM v. Sony, 2018-00876
`
`

`

`
`
`37.
`
`In comparing the claims of the ’905 Patent to the prior art, I
`
`have carefully considered the ’905 Patent and its file history in light of the
`
`understanding of a person of skill at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`38.
`
`I understand that to determine how a person of ordinary skill
`
`would understand a claim term, one should look to those sources available that
`
`show what a POSA would have understood disputed claim language to mean.
`
`Such sources include the words of the claims themselves, the remainder of the
`
`patent’s specification, the prosecution history of the patent (all considered
`
`“intrinsic” evidence), and “extrinsic” evidence concerning relevant scientific
`
`principles, the meaning of technical terms, and the state of the art.
`
`39.
`
`I understand that, in construing a claim term, one looks
`
`primarily to the intrinsic patent evidence, including the words of the claims
`
`themselves, the remainder of the patent specification, and the prosecution history.
`
`40.
`
`I understand that extrinsic evidence, which is evidence external
`
`to the patent and the prosecution history, may also be useful in interpreting patent
`
`claims when the intrinsic evidence itself is insufficient.
`
`41.
`
`I understand that words or terms should be given their ordinary
`
`and accepted meaning unless it appears that the inventors were using them to mean
`
`something else. In making this determination, the claims, the patent specification,
`
`and the prosecution history are of paramount importance. Additionally, the
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`FUJIFILM, Exh. 2008, p. 14
`FUJIFILM v. Sony, 2018-00876
`
`

`

`
`
`specification and prosecution history must be consulted to confirm whether the
`
`patentee has acted as its own lexicographer (i.e., provided its own special meaning
`
`to any disputed terms), or intentionally disclaimed, disavowed, or surrendered any
`
`claim scope.
`
`42.
`
`I understand that the claims of a patent define the scope of the
`
`rights conferred by the patent. The claims particularly point out and distinctly
`
`claim the subject matter which the patentee regard as his invention. Because the
`
`patentee is required to define precisely what he claims his invention to be, it is
`
`improper to construe claims in a manner different from the plain meaning of the
`
`terms used consistent with the specification. Accordingly, a claim construction
`
`analysis must begin and remain centered on
`
`the claim
`
`language
`
`itself.
`
`Additionally, the context in which a term is used in the asserted claim can be
`
`highly instructive. Likewise, other claims of the patent in question, both asserted
`
`and unasserted, can inform the meaning of a claim term. Differences among
`
`claims can also be a useful guide in understanding the meaning of particular claim
`
`terms.
`
`43.
`
`I understand that the claims of a patent define the purported
`
`invention. I understand that the purpose of claim construction is to understand
`
`how one skilled in the art would have understood the claim terms at the time of the
`
`purported invention.
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`FUJIFILM, Exh. 2008, p. 15
`FUJIFILM v. Sony, 2018-00876
`
`

`

`
`
`44.
`
`I understand that a POSA is deemed to read a claim term not
`
`only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but
`
`in the context of the entire patent, including the specification. For this reason, the
`
`words of the claim must be interpreted in view of the entire specification. The
`
`specification is the primary basis for construing the claims and provides a
`
`safeguard such that correct constructions closely align with the specification.
`
`45.
`
`I understand that it is improper to place too much emphasis on
`
`the ordinary meaning of the claim term without adequate grounding of that term
`
`within the context of the specification of the asserted patent. Hence, claim terms
`
`should not be broadly construed to encompass subject matter that, although
`
`technically within the broadest reading of the term, is not supported when the
`
`claims are read in light of the invention described in the specification. Put another
`
`way, claim terms are given their broadest reasonable interpretation that is
`
`consistent with the specification and the prosecution history.
`
`46.
`
`I understand that the role of the specification is to describe and
`
`enable the invention. In turn, the claims cannot be of broader scope than the
`
`invention that is set forth in the specification. Care must be taken to not remove
`
`words of the specification from the context of the patent which leads to an overall
`
`result that departs significantly from the patented invention.
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`FUJIFILM, Exh. 2008, p. 16
`FUJIFILM v. Sony, 2018-00876
`
`

`

`
`
`47.
`
`I understand that claim terms must be construed in a manner
`
`consistent with the context of the intrinsic record. In addition to consulting the
`
`specification, one should also consider the patent’s prosecution history, if
`
`available. The prosecution file history provides evidence of how both the Patent
`
`Office and the inventors understood the terms of the patent, particularly in light of
`
`what was known in the prior art. Further, where the specification describes a claim
`
`term broadly, arguments and amendments made during prosecution may require a
`
`more narrow interpretation.
`
`48.
`
`I understand that while intrinsic evidence is of primary
`
`importance, extrinsic evidence, e.g., all evidence external to the patent and
`
`prosecution history, including expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and
`
`learned treatises, can also be considered. For example, technical dictionaries may
`
`help one better understand the underlying technology and the way in which one of
`
`skill in the art might use the claim terms. Extrinsic evidence should not be
`
`considered, however, divorced from the context of the intrinsic evidence.
`
`Evidence beyond the patent specification, prosecution history, and other claims in
`
`the patent should not be relied upon unless the claim language is ambiguous in
`
`light of these intrinsic sources. Furthermore, while extrinsic evidence can shed
`
`useful light on the relevant art, it is less significant than the intrinsic record in
`
`determining the legally operative meaning of claim language.
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`FUJIFILM, Exh. 2008, p. 17
`FUJIFILM v. Sony, 2018-00876
`
`

`

`
`
`III. LEVEL OF SKILL OF ONE OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`49.
`In determining the characteristics of a hypothetical POSA of the
`
`’905 patent at the time of the claimed inventions (which I take to be November
`
`1999, the month the applications leading to the ’905 Patent was filed), I considered
`
`several things, including various prior art techniques for preventing rotation of a
`
`reel in a tape cartridge, and the rapidity with which innovations were made. I also
`
`considered the sophistication of the technologies involved, and the educational
`
`background and experience of those actively working in the field. Further, I
`
`considered the level of education that would be necessary to understand the ’905
`
`Patent. Finally, I placed myself back in the relevant period of time, and considered
`
`the academics, engineers, and students that I had worked with in the field of
`
`mechanical engineering.
`
`50.
`
`I came to the conclusion that the characteristics of a POSA of
`
`the ’905 Patent would be a person with a bachelor’s degree in mechanical
`
`engineering or a closely related field with two years of experience in the field of
`
`magnetic tape systems, or similar advanced post-graduate education in this area. A
`
`person with less education but more relevant practical experience may also meet
`
`this standard. I believe it would be necessary for a person to have these
`
`qualifications in order to read and understand the ’905 Patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`FUJIFILM, Exh. 2008, p. 18
`FUJIFILM v. Sony, 2018-00876
`
`

`

`
`
`51. Mr. von Alten appears to propose a substantially similar level
`
`of skill. See Declaration of Thomas W. von Alten ¶ 28 (Ex. 1004). My opinions
`
`would not change if Mr. von Alten’s proposed level of skill is adopted.
`
`IV. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
`52. The ’905 Patent is directed to magnetic tape technology.
`
`Today, more data is stored on magnetic tape than ever before. Tape cartridges are
`
`often used for archival storage such as backup data for computer systems.
`
`53. Commercially available magnetic tape often consists of a
`
`substrate material of an organic polymer coated with particles that can be
`
`magnetized (e.g., iron particles). See The 3480 Type Tape Cartridge: Potential
`
`Data Storage Risks, and Care and Handling Procedures to Minimize Risk at 3
`
`(1991) (Ex. 2011). Data can be recorded on the tape by magnetizing areas of the
`
`surface using a tape head.
`
`54. Magnetic tape is often provided as a continuous roll, and often
`
`stored in cartridges having a single or double reel. See Ex. 2011 at 5. Well-known
`
`examples of such cartridges include tape cartridges on which music was sold
`
`before CDs, and video tape cartridges (e.g., tape cartridges that can be played in a
`
`VCR).
`
`55. There have been several distinct mechanical designs for
`
`magnetic tape cartridges since their initial introduction. The industry generally
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`FUJIFILM, Exh. 2008, p. 19
`FUJIFILM v. Sony, 2018-00876
`
`

`

`
`
`rejects older technology when a new mechanical design is introduced. For
`
`example, the first magnetic tape data storage device was introduced by IBM in
`
`1952, and is known as a 7-track tape. The 7-track tape was a half an inch wide
`
`with six data tracks and one parity track spanning the length of the tape. In 1964
`
`IBM introduced the 9-track tape. While the 9-track tape has the same width and
`
`reel size as the 7-track tape, the 9-track tape includes eight data tracks and one
`
`parity track. The 9-track tape introduced data storage as an 8-bit character,
`
`spanning the full width of the tape.
`
`56. As another example, in 1984 a major design shift occurred
`
`when the 3480-type magnetic tape data storage cartridge, also referred to as
`
`IBM3480-type cartridge, was first introduced. The 3480-type magnetic tape
`
`cartridge was meant to replace the 9-track open reel tapes. Upon introduction, it
`
`was believed that the 3480-type magnetic tape cartridge would retain data for at
`
`least 10 years, which was considered a conservative estimate. See Ex. 2011 at vii.
`
`57. The 3480-type magnetic tape cartridge was designed, in part, to
`
`replace open reel tapes. Open reel tapes were merely composed of an exposed reel
`
`with a magnetic tape wound around the reel. To release the magnetic tape, a user
`
`would have to lift the end of the tape, and manually thread a tape head assembly
`
`attached to a take-up reel. One of the major flaws of the open reel tape, however,
`
`was a lack of housing to protect the reel, and the need to manually thread the tape
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`FUJIFILM, Exh. 2008, p. 20
`FUJIFILM v. Sony, 2018-00876
`
`

`

`
`
`through the tape head assembly. In view of the above, open reel tapes have been
`
`widely rejected by the industry in favor of tape cartridges, such as the 3480-type
`
`cartridges.
`
`58. The 3480-type cartridge is housed in a single reel cartridge, and
`
`stored within a cartridge body, known as a case. See Ex. 2011 at 5. Unlike the
`
`open reel tape, the 3480-type cartridge has an outside shell capable of protecting
`
`the magnetic tape stored within the cartridge. To prevent the 3480-type cartridge
`
`from being rotated when not in use, a locking mechanism with a