`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 10
`Entered: October 9, 2018
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SONY CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FUJIFILM CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00877
`Patent 6,462,905 B1
`____________
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, GREGG I. ANDERSON, and
`SHEILA F. McSHANE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00877
`Patent 6,462,905 B1
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Sony Corporation (“Petitioner”)1 filed a Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”)
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–19 to institute an inter partes review of claims
`1–4 (“challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,462,905 (“the ’905 patent”),
`filed November 8, 2000. 2 Ex. 1001, [22]. The Petition is supported by the
`Declaration of Thomas W. von Alten (“von Alten Declaration,” Ex. 1004).
`FUJIFILM Corporation (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response
`(Paper 6, “Prelim. Resp.”).
`We have authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). A
`final written decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) must decide the patentability
`of all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S.Ct.
`1348 (2018). At the institution phase, once it is determined that there is a
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will succeed on a single claim, review
`of all claims is justified. Id. at 1356. After considering the evidence and
`arguments presented in the Petition and Preliminary Response, we determine
`that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success in
`proving that at least claim 1 of the ’905 patent is unpatentable. We therefore
`institute an inter partes review of all of the challenged claims.
`
`
`1 The Petition identifies Sony Corporation of America, Sony Electronics
`Inc., Sony Storage Media Solutions Corporation, Sony Storage Media
`Manufacturing Corporation, Sony Latin America, Inc., and Sony Digital
`Audio Disc Corporation as additional real parties in interest. Pet. 6.
`2 The ’905 patent lists two Japanese applications, JP 11-317166 and JP 11-
`318464, filed respectively November 8, 1999, and November 9, 1999. Ex.
`1001, [30]. The Petition assumes the claims are entitled to the benefit of the
`foreign priority dates of the two Japanese applications. Pet. 8.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00877
`Patent 6,462,905 B1
`
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`The parties advise us that the following litigation is pending and may
`be affected by this proceeding: (1) Fujifilm Corp. v. Sony Corp., 1-17-cv-
`01309 (D. Del. 2017); and (2) Certain Magnetic Data Storage Tapes and
`Cartridges Containing the Same, 337-TA-1076 (USITC Sept. 19, 2017).
`Pet. 6; Paper 4, 2. Petitioner has filed a second petition for inter partes
`review of the ’905 patent, 3 which also challenges claims 1–4. Id.
`
`B. Technology and the ’905 Patent
`The ’905 patent relates to a magnetic tape cartridge comprising a
`cartridge casing and a single reel about which magnetic tape is wound, all of
`which is maintained in a housing. Ex. 1001, 1:6–11. A reel stopper means
`prevents rotation of the reel when the magnetic tape cartridge is not being
`used. Id.
`
`1. Technology
`Magnetic tape cartridges (Fig. 5 below at 1) are used as a recording
`medium for external memory of a computer. Ex. 1001, 1:13–15. Magnetic
`tape is wound around a single reel (Fig. 5 below at 2) for rotation in a
`cartridge casing housing the reel. Id. at 1:15–17. The magnetic tape
`cartridge is provided with “a reel stopper means which prevents rotation of
`the reel when the magnetic tape cartridge is not being used,” preventing tape
`jams or accidentally drawing out the tape. Id. at 1:20–24.
`
`
`3 Sony Corporation v. FUJIFILM Corporation, IPR2018-00876 (“’876
`IPR”). Paper 4, 2.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00877
`Patent 6,462,905 B1
`
`
`A tape drive of an external memory of the computer rotates the reel
`when the magnetic tape cartridge is loaded in a tape drive. Ex. 1001, 25–31.
`A brake member of the reel stopper means engages and disengages the reel
`to prevent or permit rotation of the reel by the tape drive. Id. The brake
`member locks the reel so that the reel is not accidentally rotated or drawn
`out. Id. at 1:46–47. A release member “drives the brake member to release
`the reel in response to a reel chucking action” of the tape drive so the reel
`can be rotated and thus loaded and unloaded. Id. 1:47–51.
`The prior art described above is illustrated in Figure 5 of the ’905
`patent. Ex. 1001, 1:58–61. Figure 5 is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 5 is a fragmentary cross-sectional view showing a magnetic tape
`cartridge where braking member 4 is inclined. Ex. 1001, 5:5–7, 5:52
`(braking member 4). When release member 6 drives the brake member to
`release the reel, the brake member can be inclined. Id. at 5:57–59. The
`“gear teeth on the brake member can be brought into contact with the rear
`teeth on the reel while the reel is rotated.” Id. at 1:61–63. This
`misalignment can cause “generation of noise, obstruction of rotation of the
`reel and unstable magnetic tape loading/unloading action.” Id. at 1:63–65.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00877
`Patent 6,462,905 B1
`
`
`The prior art also experiences problems “when the braking gear and
`the engagement gear are engaged with each other at a substantially normal
`surface facing against the tape-unwinding direction.” Ex. 1001, 2:17–20.
`Specifically, the magnetic tape may be cut when the reel is rotated in the
`tape-winding direction “due to drop impact when the magnetic tape cartridge
`drops.” Id. at 2:15–16. Drop impact occurs when the brake member is
`moved and the braking gear is disengaged from the engagement gear. Id. at
`2:25–29. Further, “[s]ince the reel cannot be rotated in the tape-unwinding
`direction or the direction in which the tension on the magnetic is released,
`the tape winding force acting on the magnetic tape can stretch the tape to
`deteriorate the magnetic recording” and reliability of the tape cartridge. Id.
`at 2:29–38.
`2. ’905 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ’905 patent purports to resolve the problems with the prior art by
`three different approaches reflected in the three independent claims. The
`first approach is a guide member, which is recited in claim 1. When the
`braking gear of the braking member is meshed with the engagement gear,
`“the outer periphery of the braking member 4 is guided by guide members
`39 formed on the inner surface of the reel hub 21 of the reel 2.” Ex. 1001,
`6:26–30. The guide members help center the braking member, keeping it
`away from the inclined position shown in Figure 5. Id. at 9:61–63.
`Figure 2 of the ’905 patent is reproduced below.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00877
`Patent 6,462,905 B1
`
`
`
`Figure 2 is a fragmentary cross-sectional view of the magnetic tape cartridge
`when the magnetic tape cartridge is being used. Ex. 1001, 4:65–67.
`Referring to Figure 2, the “guide members 39 are respectively provided
`between each pair of engagement projections 27, and accordingly three
`guide members 39 are provided on the inner surface of the reel hub 21.” Id.
`at 6:30–34. Claim 2 further defines the guide members as “having an
`inclined surface which inclines downward from the upper portion of the
`inner surface of the reel hub toward the center of the reel.” Id. at 10:2–4.
`The second approach is recited in claim 3. Instead of guide members,
`the outer diameter of the engagement gear is larger than the diameter of the
`braking gear. Ex. 1001, 8:44–55. This is shown in Figure 2 above where
`the braking gear diameter “d” is smaller than that of the engagement gear 29.
`Id. at 8:46–48, Fig. 3 (diameter of engagement gear “D” is “larger than the
`outer diameter d of the braking gear 42 on the braking member 4”). The
`braking gear meshes with the engagement gear teeth 29 holding the braking
`member 4 in a horizontal position. Id. at 8:51–55. Thus, “the braking
`member 4 is prevented from being inclined in the locking position.” Id.
`The third and final approach is recited in claim 4. Figure 4 of the ’905
`patent is reproduced below.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00877
`Patent 6,462,905 B1
`
`
`
`Figure 4 is a cross-sectional view taken along line B-B of Figure 2. Ex.
`1001, 5:3–4. The gear teeth of the braking gear having first and second
`inclined surfaces of the gear teeth are inclined at an angle where “the reel 2
`is rotated in the unwinding direction U to reduce the tension on the magnetic
`tape, and the magnetic tape can be prevented from being stretched or cut.”
`Id. at 8:65–67. Because “the interior angles β for the second inclined
`surfaces 42b and 29b of the braking gear 42 and the engagement gear teeth
`29 are not smaller than 30°,” the reel 2 can be rotated even if the braking
`member 4 is in the locking position. Id. at 9:1–5. The tape can be rewound
`onto the cartridge reducing tension in the tape. Id. at 9:6–9. Still referring
`to Figure 4, when the interior angle α is larger than 45°, the force between
`the gear teeth for preventing rotation in the unwinding direction is small. Id.
`at 9:12–14.
`That is, in order to ensure both the effect of reducing the tension
`on the magnetic tape and the sufficient locking force, it is
`necessary that the apical angle γ is not larger than 90° and the
`interior angles α for the first inclined surfaces 42a and 29a which
`are brought into abutment against each other when the reel 2 is
`rotated in the unwinding direction U are smaller than the interior
`angles β for the second inclined surfaces 42b and 29b which are
`brought into abutment against each other when the reel 2 is
`rotated in the winding direction W.
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00877
`Patent 6,462,905 B1
`
`Id. at 9:14–23.
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Claims 1, 3, and 4 of the challenged claims are independent claims to
`a magnetic tape cartridge. Claim 2 depends from claim 1. The three
`independent claims are in Jepson claim format, i.e., “wherein the
`improvement comprises.”4
`Each of the independent claims concludes with one of the approaches
`to solving the prior art problems discussed in Section II.B.2 above.
`Claim 1 is reproduced below as illustrative.
` A magnetic tape cartridge comprising a
`1[preamble]5
`magnetic tape wound around a single reel, a cartridge casing in
`which the reel is housed for rotation and a reel stopper means
`which locks the reel not to rotate when the magnetic tape
`cartridge is not being used and releases the reel to permit rotation
`thereof when the magnetic tape cartridge is to be used, wherein
`the improvement comprises
`
`that the reel stopper means comprises a braking member
`1a
`which is movable between a locking position where it is in
`contact with the reel to restrict rotation of the reel and a releasing
`
`
`4 “The Jepson form allows a patentee to use the preamble to recite ‘elements
`or steps of the claimed invention which are conventional or known.’ 37
`C.F.R. § 1.75(e) (1996). When this form is employed, the claim preamble
`defines not only the context of the claimed invention, but also its scope.”
`Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 479 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citations omitted).
`5 We follow the format adopted by Petitioner. See, e.g. Pet. 48 (claim 1
`preamble), 50 (limitation 1a), Appendix A: Claim Listing. Accordingly,
`each limitation of the Petition includes the claim number followed by either
`“preamble” or letters alphabetically arranged, each representing the claim
`preamble and subsequent claim limitations. The word “while” of limitation
`1e is missing in Petitioner’s Claim Listing. We have included it. The Claim
`Listing brackets the alphabetical letters but the Petition uses the above
`described format.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00877
`Patent 6,462,905 B1
`
`
`position where it is away from the reel to permit rotation of the
`same,
`
`an urging member which urges the braking member
`1b
`toward the locking position, and
`
`a releasing member which is rotated integrally with the
`1c
`reel and moves the braking member toward the releasing position
`in response to a reel chucking action of the reel drive means of a
`tape drive, and
`
`the braking member is provided with a braking gear which
`1d
`is adapted to be engaged, to restrict rotation of the reel, with an
`engagement gear tooth on an engagement projection formed on
`the reel
`
`1e while the reel is provided with a guide member which
`centers the braking member with respect to the reel.
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner challenges claims of the ’905 patent as unpatentable on the
`following grounds. Pet. 6, 40–93.
`Reference(s)
`Basis
`Morita-I6 and
`§1038
`Morita-II7
`
`
`6 JP S63-11776 U, to Kiyoo Morita, published January 26, 1988 (“Morita-I,”
`Ex. 1010). Exhibit 1010 is an English translation of the Japanese
`application, which is not a part of the record. At this stage, Patent Owner
`has not objected and for purposes of this Decision we proceed on the basis
`that the translation is admissible evidence and accurate.
`7 EP 0 926 676 A1, to Kiyoo Morita and Kanagawa-ken Odawara-shi,
`published June 30, 1999 (“Morita-II,” Ex. 1011).
`8 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125
`Stat. 284, 285–88 (2011), which revised 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, became
`effective March 16, 2013. The ’905 patent has an effective filing date of at
`least November 8, 1999 (see n.2 above), prior to the effective date of the
`
`Claim(s) Challenged
`1
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00877
`Patent 6,462,905 B1
`
`
`Reference(s)
`Morita-I, Morita-II,
`and Laverriere9
`Tsuyuki10
`
`Tsuyuki
`
`Morita-II
`
`Morita-II and
`Betzler11
`
`Claim(s) Challenged
`2
`
`3
`
`3
`
`4
`
`3
`
`Basis
`§103
`
`§102
`
`§103
`
`§102
`
`§102
`
`III.ANALYSIS
`A. Previous Consideration of References
`Patent Owner argues that Morita-II and Laverriere were previously
`presented to the Office in an Information Disclosure Statement (“IDS”)
`under 37 C.F.R. § 1.97. Prelim. Resp. 12–14, see id. at 13 (citing File
`History of US Patent No. 6,462,905, Ex. 1002, 103 (listing Morita-II and
`Laverriere)). Patent Owner also alleges “Morita-I and Tsuyuki are
`cumulative of art already considered by the Patent Office.” Id. at 12. Patent
`Owner argues Morita-I is cumulative of Martin, 12 specifically at least
`Figures 1 through 3 of Martin “have similar figures to Morita-I which was
`
`
`AIA. Thus, the grounds asserted are under the pre-AIA version of §§ 102
`and 103.
`9 EP 0 284 687, to Guy P. Laverriere, published October 5, 1988
`(“Laverriere,” Ex. 1007).
`10 H11-288571, to Seiji Tsuyuki, published October 19, 1999 (“Tsuyuki,”
`1012). Exhibit 1012 is an English translation of the Japanese unexamined
`application, which is not a part of the record. Patent Owner has not objected
`and we proceed as in n.6 above.
`11 WO 99/41513, to Hans Betzler and Hans Lindenthal, published August
`19, 1999 (“Betzler,” Ex. 1013).
`12 WO 97/15925 (document not of record).
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00877
`Patent 6,462,905 B1
`
`cited in the applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement submitted on
`October 30, 2011.” Id. at 13 (citing Ex. 1002, 103 (citing Martin)).
`According to Patent Owner, Tsuyuki’s figures are substantially similar to
`other prior art cited in the IDS. Id. (citing Ex. 1002, 103 (citing Figs. 7–9 of
`Morita-II, Figs. 1–3 of WO 99/65032).
`Specifically, Patent Owner contends we should not “revisit the
`prosecution that addressed the patentability of the challenged claims over the
`same previously-considered references that Petitioner advances here.”
`Prelim. Resp. 13 (citations omitted). Further, Patent Owner argues trial
`should not be instituted because “the same or substantially the same prior art
`or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” Id. (citing 35 U.S.C.
`§ 325(d)).
`Patent Owner does not show, nor does the prosecution history support,
`that any of the references relied on in this Petition were considered with
`respect to the patentability of any claim of the ’905 patent. The mere
`citation of a reference, or its arguable equivalent, in an IDS does not rise to
`the level of consideration. On this record, we decline to exercise our
`discretion and deny the Petition on that basis.
`
`B. Claim Construction
`In inter partes review, claim terms are given their broadest reasonable
`interpretation in light of the specification in which they appear. See 37
`C.F.R. § 42.100(b). We presume that claim terms have their ordinary and
`customary meaning. See Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1062
`(Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the
`claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent
`with the specification and prosecution history.”) (citation omitted); In re
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00877
`Patent 6,462,905 B1
`
`Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special
`definition for a claim term must be set forth in the specification with
`reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
`1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In the absence of such a special definition or
`other consideration, “limitations are not to be read into the claims from the
`specification.” In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
`“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to
`the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” See Nidec Motor Corp. v.
`Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir.
`2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed.
`Cir. 1999).
`Petitioner cites to our rules for the proposition that, if the claims
`include means-plus-function limitations under section 112 paragraph 6, the
`Petitioner must identify “the specific portions of the specification that
`describe the structure . . . corresponding to each claimed function.” Pet. 36
`(citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)). Petitioner proceeds to identify a function
`and structure for the following claim terms: “reel stopper means” (Pet. 38);
`“braking member” (Pet. 39–40); “urging member” (Pet. 40); “releasing
`member” (Pet. 40–41); “guide member” (Pet. 41–42); and “reel drive
`means” (Pet. 42). 13
`Patent Owner takes no position on whether any term is a means-plus-
`function term or not. See Prelim. Resp. 11. Indeed, Patent Owner contends
`
`
`13 Regardless of whether or not certain claims terms are means plus function,
`particular functionality recited with claimed structure may be claimed.
`Nazomi Communications, Inc. v. Nokia Corp., 739 F.3d 1339, 1344 (Fed.
`Cir. 2014) (“there is nothing unusual or improper in construing device
`claims to require particular functionality”).
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00877
`Patent 6,462,905 B1
`
`that, save one term it seeks to construe, it construes all terms “in accordance
`with their plain and ordinary meaning under the required broadest
`reasonable interpretation standard.” Id. Patent Owner seeks to construe are
`“inclined surface.” Id. at 11–12.
`At this stage of the proceeding, the parties’ arguments do not raise any
`dispute with respect to any means-plus-function term identified by
`Petitioner. Accordingly, we need not construe those terms at this time. See
`Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803.
`At the time it files its Response to the Petition, Patent Owner should
`include the proposed construction of any disputed claim term that may be
`dispositive on patentability with any supporting arguments on the proposed
`construction. In the normal course, Petitioner may respond in its Reply.
`The term identified by Patent Owner relates to the improvement
`recited in the independent claims and will be construed.
`
`1. “inclined surface” (claims 2 and 4)
`Patent Owner argues the plain and ordinary meaning of “inclined
`surface” should be applied and the term construed to mean “a surface that
`deviates from the vertical.” Prelim. Resp. 11 (citing MERRIAM-WEBSTER
`Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incline, Ex.
`200214). Patent Owner also relies on the Specification for additional
`support. Id. at 11–12. In one example, Patent Owner quotes from the
`Specification that “the interior angle α between the first inclined surface 42a
`
`
`14 “Definition of incline inclined; inclining intransitive verb 1: to bend the
`head or body forward: bow 2: to lean, tend, or become drawn toward an
`opinion or course of conduct 3: to deviate from a line, direction, or course;
`specifically: to deviate from the vertical or horizontal.”
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00877
`Patent 6,462,905 B1
`
`(or 29a) and the vertical S and the interior angle β between the second
`inclined surface 42b (or 29b) and the vertical β are not smaller than 30º.” Id.
`at 12 (quoting Ex. 1001 at 6:64–7:2). According to Patent Owner, “[t]his
`permits the reel some movement to avoid the tape from being damaged due
`to cartridge mishandling, such as could occur with prior art gears that were
`‘like sawteeth in shape.’” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 2:9–17; 2:29–39; 2:48–52;
`4:55–59).
`The term appears in both claim 2 and claim 4. In claim 2 it further
`specifies that the “ribs which are formed on the inner surface of the reel hub
`[in] at [] least three places, each having an inclined surface which inclines
`downward from the upper portion of the inner surface of the reel hub toward
`the center of the reel.” Patent Owner’s proposal does not address how its
`proposed construction applies to claim 2. Patent Owner’s proposal and what
`is recited in claim 2 about the way the surface “inclines” are difficult to
`reconcile, if not directly contradictory. Specifically, requiring that the
`surface needs to “deviate from the vertical” does not assist in achieving
`clarity of the claim language. Neither is the proposed construction
`consistent with the specification, which substantially tracks claim 2. See Ex.
`1001, 3:9–13, 4:34–40.
`We apply the plain and ordinary meaning of “inclined surface.”15 The
`plain and ordinary meaning of “inclined surface” is a “surface” that is
`“inclined.” To require more would present potential inconsistencies
`between claims 2 and 4. While claim 2 describes one way the surface is
`
`
`15 At such time as our rules are amended to the district court standard for
`claim interpretation, on this record our preliminary determination would not
`change.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00877
`Patent 6,462,905 B1
`
`inclined, claim 4 recites something potentially different, that the “gear teeth”
`have “first and second inclined surfaces forming therebetween an apical
`angle not larger than 90°.”
`
`C. Legal Standard for Obviousness (Grounds 1, 2, 4, and 6)
`A patent claim is invalid as obvious 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 having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.”
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`The ultimate determination of obviousness is a question of law, but
`that determination is based on underlying factual findings . . . . The
`underlying factual findings include (1) “the scope and content of the prior
`art,” (2) “differences between the prior art and the claims at issue,” (3) “the
`level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art,” and (4) the presence of secondary
`considerations of nonobviousness such “as commercial success, long felt but
`unsolved needs, failure of others,” and unexpected results. In re Nuvasive,
`Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing inter alia Graham v. John
`Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966)).
`“To satisfy its burden of proving obviousness, a petitioner cannot
`employ mere conclusory statements. The petitioner must instead articulate
`specific reasoning, based on evidence of record, to support the legal
`conclusion of obviousness.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d
`1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Furthermore, in assessing the prior art, the
`Board must consider whether a person of ordinary skill would have been
`motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00877
`Patent 6,462,905 B1
`
`Nuvasive, 842 F.3d at 1381. As stated in Personal Web Technologies, LLC
`v. Apple, Inc., 848 F.3d 987, 991–992 (Fed. Cir. 2017):
`The Supreme Court in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
`398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 167 L.Ed.2d 705 (2007), explained that,
`“because inventions in most, if not all, instances rely upon
`building blocks long since uncovered, and claimed discoveries
`almost of necessity will be combinations of what, in some sense,
`is already known,” “it can be important to identify a reason that
`would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant
`field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new
`invention does.” Id. at 418–19, 127 S. Ct. 1727.
`1. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Petitioner alleges a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`
`would have had a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering
`or related field with two years of experience designing magnetic
`tape cartridges or similar advanced post-graduate education in
`this area. A person with less education but more design
`experience may also meet this standard as would a person with
`less design experience and more education.
`
`Pet. 22–23 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 25–28). In its Preliminary Response, Patent
`Owner accepts Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill, reserving its
`“right to offer a competing definition” upon institution. Prelim. Resp. 10
`n.1. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill for purposes of
`this Decision.
`
`2. Prior Art Relied Upon
`As listed in Section II.D above, Petitioner relies on the following prior
`art for its obviousness grounds. 16
`
`
`16 Tsuyuki and Morita-II are also used for the anticipation grounds. See
`Section III.D.1 and 2 below.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00877
`Patent 6,462,905 B1
`
`
`a. Morita-I (Ex. 1010)
`Morita-I describes a conventional “magnetic tape cartridge used as a
`recording medium of a computer.” Ex. 1010, 2. The cartridge includes
`magnetic tape housed in a casing and wound around a single reel rotatably
`mounted in the casing. Id. The reel has a brake gear and a brake button
`having a second brake gear that is biased against “to prevent unexpected
`rotation of the reel at the time of cartridge non-use by the brake gear
`engaging the brake gear of the reel due to this biasing force.” Id. at 3.
`When the cartridge is loaded into a tape drive, “a rotation shaft” enters the
`cartridge, abuts the brake button and overcomes the biasing force of a coil
`spring of the brake button. Id. at 3–4. “As a result, the lock of the reel is
`released” and the reel can turn. Id. at 4. Morita-I recognizes a problem with
`the conventional tape during non-use when the two brake gears do not
`“occlude” or close and the reel can rotate if the reel and brake button are not
`centered. Id. at 4.
`Morita-I solves the problem described with a “guide surface that
`guides the brake-button occluding portion to the reel occluding portion.”
`Ex. 1010, 5. Morita-I’s Figure 1 is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 1 is a cross-sectional view of the Morita-I tape cartridge illustrating
`reel 3 wound with a magnetic tape 2 and a brake button 4 which, as
`described above, prevents unexpected rotation of the reel. Id. at 6. Still
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00877
`Patent 6,462,905 B1
`
`referring to Figure 1, when abutting portion 11 of the brake button is
`released, the centers of the brake button and reel 3 may not be aligned, i.e.,
`are off-center. Id. at 8. At an inner circumference of the reel and brake gear
`guide surface 17 guides bevel gear portion 9 of the brake button to the center
`of the reel. Id. Thus, even if misalignment were to occur, the guide surface
`centers the brake button. Id.
`
`b. Morita-II (Ex. 1011)
`Like Morita-I, Morita-II relates to known “single reel magnetic tape
`cartridge, comprising a cartridge casing and a single reel around which a
`magnetic tape is wound.” Ex. 1011 ¶ 2.
`Unlike Morita-I, which uses a brake button to prevent rotation of the
`reel, Morita-II is provided with reel stopper means 110 to prevent rotation of
`the reel when the cartridge is not used and permit rotation when in use. Ex.
`1011 ¶ 24, Fig. 7 below. Figure 7 of Morita-II is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 7 is a cross-sectional view of one embodiment of Morita-II. Id. ¶ 11.
`In the embodiment of Figure 7, the reel stopper means comprises brake
`member 104 and “urging member 105 which urges the brake member 104
`toward the reel 102 and a brake release member 106 which moves the brake
`member away from the reel 102.” Id. ¶ 27.
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00877
`Patent 6,462,905 B1
`
`
`Figure 8 is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 8 is an exploded perspective view of the reel stopper mechanism. Ex.
`1011 ¶ 11. As shown in Figure 8, three engagement projections 127, shaped
`like a gear tooth, extend through bottom wall 121a through holes 126.
`Id. ¶ 28. Gear teeth or stopper gear 141 engage the engagement projections.
`Id. ¶ 29.
`Rotation of the reel is prevented, when the spring of urging member
`105 forces stopper gear 141 into engagement with engagement projections
`127 on the reel. Ex. 1011 ¶30. Rotation of the reel is permitted when brake
`release member 106 is at its lowermost position. Id. ¶ 32. Upon inserting a
`cartridge into a tape drive, drive gear 113 meshes with reel gear 124, and
`engagement projections 127 are disengaged from stopper gear 141,
`permitting rotation of the reel. Id.
`
`c. Laverriere (Ex. 1007)
`Laverriere describes and claims a single-spool tape cartridge. Ex.
`1007, 1:1–15. Figure 2 of Laverriere is reproduced below.
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00877
`Patent 6,462,905 B1
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2 is a side, cross-sectional view of brake button and spool of a
`conventional cartridge illustrating the off-center orientation of the brake
`button relative to the spool. Id. at 2:29–33, 3:1, 2:52. As shown in Figure 2,
`the brake button includes a circular disk 44, first upper projection 50, and
`second lower projection 52. Id. at 3:18–20. Still referring to Figure 2, the
`spool includes a hub formed from an integrally formed planar flange 19 and
`a top portion 22 having three spaced protuberances 40. Id. at 3:4–8.
`The diameter d of the annular wall 38 of the hub in Figure 2 is
`significantly greater than the diameter d’ of the brake button, but the
`resulting loose fit may cause the brake button to become misaligned, i.e.,
`off-center. Ex. 1007, 3:37–46. “[T]he biased nature of the brake button 24
`aggravates this misalignment since the brake button 24 is necessarily urged
`in the misaligned position via the spring 28.” Id. at 3:48–51.
`Figure 3 of Laverriere is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00877
`Patent 6,462,905 B1
`
`Figure 3 is a side, cross-sectional view of brake button and spool of a
`conventional cartridge where the brake button is centered with the spool.
`Ex. 1007, 2:34–37. Still referring to Figure 3, concentric alignment between
`the brake button and hub is maintained by six projections or projecting
`means 70 or “centering ribs 70’ integrally molded to be equally, radially,
`spaced about the inner circumference of the annular wall 68.” Id. at 4:15–
`17, 4:37–41. “Alternatively, the projecting means 70 can constitute a single,
`continuous annular ring 70’’ as indicated by the phantom lines in FIG. 3.”
`Id. at 4:41–43.
`
`d. Tsuyuki (Ex. 1012)
`Tsuyuki also describes a tape cartridge having a case enclosing a reel
`that includes a hub. Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 11–12, Figs. 1, 2. Figure 1 of Tsuyuki is
`reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 1 is a sectional view of a magnetic tape cartridge of one embodiment
`of Tsuyuki. Id. ¶ 26. As shown in Figure 1, inside hub 21 is a “reel rotation
`inhibiting means 10 that allows said reel 2 rotation during use, and restrains
`said reel 2 rotation during non-use.” Id. ¶11. The reel rotation inhibiting
`means includes inhibiting member 4, pressing member 5 including a spring,
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00877
`Patent 6,462,905 B1
`
`and release member 6. Id. ¶¶ 14, 17. On the lower sur