`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________
`
`NICHIA CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DOCUMENT SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`___________
`
`Case IPR2018-00966
`Patent 7,652,297 B2
`___________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: July 30, 2019
`___________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, SCOTT C. MOORE, BRENT M.
`DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00966
`Patent 7,652,297 B2
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`PATRICK R. COLSHER, ESQ.
`THOMAS R. MAKIN, ESQ.
`Shearman & Sterling LLP
`599 Lexington Avenue
`New York, New York 10022-6069
`(212) 848-4000
`patrick.colsher@shearman.com
`thomas.makin@shearman.com
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`WAYNE HELGE, ESQ.
`JAMES WILSON, ESQ.
`Davidson Berquist Jackson & Gowdey, LLP
`8300 Greensboro Drive, Suite 500
`McLean, Virginia 22102
`571-765-7708
`whelge@dbjg.com
`jwilson@dbjg.com
`
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday, July 30,
`2019, commencing at 1:00 p.m. at the U.S. Patent and Trademark
`Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00966
`Patent 7,652,297 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S
`
`12:59 p.m.
`
`USHER: All rise.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Please be seated. Good afternoon.
`This is the hearing for IPR2018-00966, Nichia Corporation versus
`Document Security Systems involving U.S. patent number 7,652,297.
`At this time we'd like the parties to please introduce counsel for the
`record beginning with the Petitioner.
`MR. COLSHER: For Petitioner, Patrick Colsher from
`Sherman & Sterling LLP. And with me is my co-counsel, Thomas
`Makin.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Thank you. And for Patent Owner.
`MR. HELGE: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Wayne Helge
`here for Patent Owner, Document Security Systems. With me is my
`co-counsel James Wilson.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Thank you. Each party has 40 minutes
`total time to present arguments. Petitioner will proceed first, and
`may reserve some of your argument time. Patent Owner, you'll
`respond to Petitioner's presentation, and you can reserve argument
`time also. Are there any questions as to the order of presentations?
`MR. COLSHER: No, Your Honor.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00966
`Patent 7,652,297 B2
`
`
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: As a reminder, please refer to the slide
`numbers so that Judges Moore and Dougal may follow along, and also
`please speak into the microphone at the podium so that they may hear.
`We'd like to remind the parties the hearing is open to the public. A
`transcript will be entered into the public record as the proceeding.
`At this time, Petitioner, you may proceed. And would you like to
`reserve time?
`MR. COLSHER: I'd like to reserve 10 minutes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. And I will not stop you at the
`30 minute mark. You're on your own. All right, you may -- yes?
`MR. HELGE: Your Honor, just a quick note that don't have
`any of the judges appear on the screen here, the other two judges.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Do we -- we typically have their faces
`up here.
`(Off the record comments.)
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay.
`(Off the record comments.)
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay, we can see them now. Thank
`you. Appreciate that. Okay, go ahead.
`MR. COLSHER: Good afternoon, Your Honors. And I'm
`on slide number 2. We're here today to talk about Petitioner
`challenges to the ’297 patent, and as you can see in the lower left-
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00966
`Patent 7,652,297 B2
`
`
`hand corner of the screen on slide 2 we have an excerpt of the ’297
`patent. In particular, we're looking at figure number 1. Now the
`’297 patent is directed to what it calls a typical or a conventional LED
`package with a reflector and a substrate, and its alleged point of
`novelty is to add what it refers to as a notch to the reflector such as the
`notch 134 that can be seen in the screen.
`If we turn to Slide 3, we have outlined for Your Honors the
`challenges to claims 1 through 17 of the ’297 patent. And one sort
`of scene setting note, there's no real dispute between the parties that
`claims 10 through 17 rise and fall with claims 1 through 9, so I'll
`focus today primarily on certain issues that remain with respect to
`claims 1 through 9.
`On claim -- or excuse me, on slide number 5, we've outlined a
`table that we believe shows the key remaining disputes. I'm going to
`focus today in my opening remarks primarily on certain issues with
`respect to claims 1, 3, 4, 6 and 9. We don't think there's really much
`of a dispute with respect to claims 5, and 7 and 8. But I'm, of course,
`happy to answer any questions the Board may have.
`So if we turn to slide number 6 we get to the first dispute, and
`we're not talking about the allegedly novel notch at all, in fact, with
`respect to claim 1. There's no dispute that both of the main prior art
`references, the Loh '842, and the Loh '819 have this claimed notch in
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00966
`Patent 7,652,297 B2
`
`
`the square-shaped, or rectangular-shaped configuration. Instead
`what we're talking about are the conventional components, and in
`particular with respect to Loh '842, we're talking about whether the
`reflector extends from the substrate.
`And so if we turn to slide 7, on the left-hand side we have the
`claim language. And the claim is fairly simple, it's a reflector
`extending from said substrate. On the right-hand side we have what
`Patent Owner has put forth, and Patent Owner has said that the
`reflector must extend from the substrate meaning that there can be no
`intervening materials or layers such as bonding material. It's taken
`the position that it's not a claim construction issue, although we're a
`little bit confused on that point because we do view this as a claim
`construction issue.
`And so on Slide 8, what we have is, Your Honors, an excerpt
`from the institution decision which we think was entirely correct, and
`we don't think that anything has changed in this proceeding to warrant
`a departure from this. We think that Your Honors were correct when
`you interpreted the reflector extending from said substrate as a claim
`construction issue, and to encompass both direct and indirect contact.
`Patent Owner at this point has never argued any disavowal or
`disclaimer, and we think that really should be the end of the matter.
`But there is actually some critical testimony that we obtained from
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00966
`Patent 7,652,297 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner's expert, Mr. Credelle, during his deposition which
`throughout this entire proceeding, the Patent Owner has never actually
`addressed.
`And so I'm on slide number 9 and to sort of set the stage, what
`we have is during the deposition Mr. Credelle took the position that
`the reflector extending from the substrate in the claim language
`actually refers back to column 1 at line 38, this disclosure that the
`reflector is mounted to the substrate.
`And now on slide number 10 we have Mr. Credelle's
`testimony saying that, well, yes, it refers back to this mounting, but
`the ’297 patent doesn't actually tell you how you would mount a
`reflector to a substrate. And then on slide number 11, we have Mr.
`Credelle's testimony that sure, the ’297 patent doesn't tell you, but a
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’297 patent would
`understand that mounting means attaching or locating one device to
`another. There's a number of possible ways that it can be done in the
`time frame such as using an adhesive layer or an intervening material.
`And now Patent Owner has never responded to Mr. Credelle's
`testimony. We think it's directly contradictory to the position that
`Patent Owner took, and we think that should end the matter with
`respect to this issue. But just to quickly close the loop, and I'm on
`slide number 12 now, we can see what Loh '842 actually discloses.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00966
`Patent 7,652,297 B2
`
`
`And at column 6 beginning on line number 11, we see that Loh '842
`reference specifically says that the reflective lens coupler 106, which
`can be seen in green in the annotated figure, is bonded to substrate
`102. It's mounted. It's attached. And that really should be the end
`of the matter.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Excuse me. Do we have record
`evidence that mounting and bonded were synonymous to a person
`skilled in the art at the time of the invention?
`MR. COLSHER: That mounting and bonding?
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Yes. You just said that bonding, you
`know, in other words mounting.
`MR. COLSHER: During Mr. Credelle's deposition he used
`various words, mounting, attaching, bonding. I don't think there's
`any real dispute between that. If we actually look on slide number
`13, what we have is Dr. Shealy, petitioner's expert, testifying to what
`bonding in the Loh '842 patent would mean. It would mean
`mounting, it would mean you're attaching the two together.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. So this is all relevant to the
`indirect --
`MR. COLSHER: It would be --
`JUDGE MEDLEY: -- interpretation?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00966
`Patent 7,652,297 B2
`
`
`
`MR. COLSHER: Yes, Your Honors. And whether you can
`use a bonding material to attach the reflector and the substrate.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Thank you.
`MR. COLSHER: And so if we turn to slide number 15, we
`get to somewhat of a related disputed. Again, we're not talking about
`the allegedly novel notch. Instead, we're talking about the reflector
`and the substrate, and in this context, we're actually talking about
`whether it forms a cavity in Loh '842. And we would submit here
`that the answer is also yes.
`On slide number 16, sort of set the stage, we have Patent
`Owner's petition, and Patent Owner has taken a similar position that
`you can't have any other materials that are used to bond or attach any
`components here. I guess it's attached by air perhaps. But we think
`that this ignores the expressed teachings of Loh '842 as well as Dr.
`Shealy, Petitioner's expert's unrebutted testimony on this point.
`And so if we turn to slide number 17, what we can see in the
`lower left-hand column is an excerpt of Loh '842, and Loh '842
`expressly states that a space 400 is defined between substrate 102,
`lens 104, and a lens coupler 106. In other words, it's treating that
`cavity space 400, which you can see on the screen, Your Honors, and
`highlighted in orange, as a cavity. Patent Owner has never addressed
`this expressed teaching in Loh '842. Never addressed Dr. Shealy's
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00966
`Patent 7,652,297 B2
`
`
`testimony on this point. And so we think with respect to this issue it
`is also clear on the record that Loh '842 teaches a reflector that forms
`a cavity in conjunction with the substrate.
`To turn to slide number 18, and now we're talking about the
`other main reference that Petitioner has used in this proceeding, that's
`the Loh '819 reference, to the same inventor as Loh '842, although,
`they're not actually related patents.
`JUDGE DOUGAL: Counsel?
`MR. COLSHER: Yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE DOUGAL: Can I pause you for a minute? So back
`on Loh '842 we have the lens coupler, we have it bonded, and if you
`look at this description on figure 6 talks about 600 being the epoxy.
`But do we have any record of evidence telling us what the kind of --
`in your figure, the uncolored, patched material is in between the lens
`coupler and the substrate? Do we know for sure what that is?
`MR. COLSHER: Yes, Your Honor. So the uncolored
`material there is what the Loh '842 patent refers to as a mounting
`patent. And so it's a device that's used to attach different
`components to each other as Dr. Shealy testified during his -- in his
`declaration. And then if you look on slide 14, for example, we can
`see Dr. Shealy's deposition testimony which confirms that, you know,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00966
`Patent 7,652,297 B2
`
`
`a mounting pad is a very old term and sometimes solder is used as an
`adhesive to mount the components together.
`JUDGE DOUGAL: And so that would be in addition to the
`epoxy, I guess, 600?
`MR. COLSHER: It depends on the particular figure that
`you're looking at in Loh '842.
`JUDGE DOUGAL: Yeah.
`MR. COLSHER: In some instances it says that, you know,
`there can be two layers, and I don't think anything in the, you know,
`claim 1 of ’297 patent has anything about the number of possible
`layers that could exist to act as a bonding material. In some figures
`there is no -- there is only a single layer such as a mounting pad.
`Loh '842 also talks about you can use a quantity of epoxy or other
`suitable adhesives in order to mount the two. But I think the point is
`that it doesn't really matter what is used to bond it. The fact is that
`Loh '842 expressly discloses that you would bond the reflector, the
`lens coupler 106 and the substrate 102 to each other.
`JUDGE DOUGAL: Okay. Thank you.
`MR. COLSHER: And so just to shift back, and I'm on slide
`number 18, and again, we're now talking about Loh '819, the issue
`here is actually the opposite issue. And we think that -- we're not
`really sure how Patent Owner can reconcile these two positions. On
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00966
`Patent 7,652,297 B2
`
`
`the one hand, it's taken the position with respect to Loh '842 that you
`can't have an intervening layer such as a bonding material to bond the
`reflector and the substrate.
`Now with respect to Loh '819, they say, well, there is no
`intervening material, but it still does not meet the claim limitations
`because it's formed by an injection-molding process. And so if we
`look on slide number 19 we can see Patent Owner's position, and
`Patent Owner has taken the position that this package body 230 that's
`described in Loh '819 is a single structure. Whereas, the ’297 patent
`consistently refers to the substrate and the reflector as two different
`structures. We think that this point sort of harps a little bit too much
`on the number identification in Loh '819 and actually ignores Loh
`'819's teachings as well as the record evidence of both parties' experts.
`To sort of set the stage a little bit, and I'm on slide number 20,
`we have an agreement from both sides, both sides' experts, Mr.
`Credelle on the Patent Owner's side, and Dr. Shealy on the Petitioner's
`side that a substrate is a base material.
`On slide number 21, we have some testimony from Mr.
`Credelle that was elicited during the deposition, and he made two
`what we think are fairly important points. The first point he said is
`that the claimed reflector in the substrate can be the same material.
`The ’297 patent never actually tells you what material the reflector is
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00966
`Patent 7,652,297 B2
`
`
`or what material the substrate is. It just says it's conventional, it's
`typical.
`He also testified, and we think rightly so, that claim 1 is not a
`method claim. It's a structure claim. It's a device claim. In other
`words, it doesn't matter the method of manufacture in order to
`achieve. What matters is whether the device in Loh '819 meets the
`relevant claim limitations, and we would submit that it does.
`And how we get there? Well, we look at Dr. Shealy's
`testimony from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art,
`and we look at the expressed disclosure in Loh '819. And what we
`see is a substrate, a base material that's separately described from a
`reflector cup. And so I'm on slide number 22 right now, and if we
`look at, for example, column 10 beginning at line number 4, we have
`a leadframe 200 that has a series of recesses or reduced thickness
`regions that are then filled with this injection molding process in order
`to create this substrate which we've highlighted in purple on slide
`number 22 on the figure.
`With respect to the reflector, and I am now on slide number
`23, Loh then separately describes a reflector cup. And this reflector
`cup is shown in green, and it's described at column 10 beginning on
`line 45, and I'll just read from it quickly to set the stage. "The upper
`side walls 234 may include oblique inner surfaces 238 that define a
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00966
`Patent 7,652,297 B2
`
`
`reflector cup above and surrounding the die mounting regions 202."
`And we would submit that this is the claimed reflector.
`There's nothing in the ’297 patent that talks about how the
`reflector in the substrate in their conventional manner have to be
`formed. They can be the same material. They can be formed by
`injection molding which was a known process at the time. And so
`we would submit that the Loh '819 reference discloses a separate
`reflector and a substrate, and therefore anticipates claim 1.
`To shift to claims 3 and 4, and I'm on slide number 30 right
`now, this is the first time that we're going to start talking about the
`notch, the claimed notch. And now there's no dispute that Loh '842
`and Loh '819 have a notch, or that it's in the claimed shape, which
`after prosecution you can think of as a sort of a square or a rectangular
`shape when reviewed from a cut-out side view. Instead, with respect
`to these dependent claims 3 and 4 which both depend back to claim 1,
`the issue with respect to claim 3 is whether the notch is proximate to
`the upper portion, and with respect to claim 4 whether the notch is
`proximate to the lower portion.
`And so on slide number 31, we have an excerpt on the left-
`hand side of the claims, and there's an upper portion and a lower
`portion. The claim has no further bound on what the upper portion
`is. It says that the lower portion is proximate to substrate. And
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00966
`Patent 7,652,297 B2
`
`
`then with respect to claim 3, as I mentioned, the notch is proximate to
`that upper portion. And with respect to claim 4, the notch is
`proximate to the lower portion. Again, not inside the notch. It just
`needs to be proximate. So it's basically two levels of proximately
`that we're dealing with here.
`And on the right-hand side, we have an excerpt of Your
`Honors' institution decision, and we think Your Honors were correct
`when you said that the ’297 patent does not describe or define the
`boundaries of the upper portion or lower portion by explaining what is
`included in the respective portions, or by defining the relationship of
`one to another.
`On slide number 32, we see in the lower left-hand corner an
`excerpt of the Patent Owner's response, and highlighted -- or the circle
`in the red we understand to be what Patent Owner views as the upper
`portion, and circled in green we understand to be the lower portion.
`We think the Board was also correct, again, I'm on slide 32, when
`Your Honors said that it's not proper for the Patent Owner to say that
`in order to meet this claim limitation, the notch much be in the exact
`location of the exemplary figure. In fact, the notch doesn't even need
`to be inside the lower or the upper portion as they're drawn. It just
`needs to be proximate.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00966
`Patent 7,652,297 B2
`
`
`
`With respect to Loh '842, and I'll first talk about figure number
`8B, and I'm on slide number 33, we have Dr. Shealy, Petitioner's
`expert, explaining his position that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would understand that a notch that was approximately in the middle of
`this relatively short type reflector to be proximate to both the upper
`and lower portion in Loh '842.
`On slide 34, we have a similar description in Dr. Shealy's
`testimony with respect to Loh '819, and figure 8B. This one has a
`single notch in sort of a square shape that also approximately bisects.
`So if we turn to slide number 35, we can see on the screen two
`annotations. The one on the left is the annotation we were looking at
`a couple of slides ago from Patent Owner and its position relative to
`the upper and the lower portions. And on the right side we see Mr.
`Credelle's position as to the boundaries of the upper and the lower
`portion. And significant to this, the position has been that these are
`the boundaries with respect to the upper portion that makes it
`proximate to the top of the reflector, and it's the boundaries with
`respect to the lower portion that makes it proximate to the substrate.
`And so if we look at slide number 36, if we sort of follow this
`to the logical conclusion, and we take a look at Mr. Credelle's
`annotation and we double the distance from the top of the reflector to
`the bottom of the upper portion, we end up with a notch in the middle
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00966
`Patent 7,652,297 B2
`
`
`that is proximate to both the upper and the lower portions consistent
`with Loh '842 and Loh '819 as Dr. Shealy has explained.
`If we move to slide number 37, Petitioner has offered an
`additional view with respect to anticipation in Loh '842. And what
`Petitioner has said, and what Dr. Shealy explained, and it's unrebutted
`at this point, Patent Owner has put in now expert evidence to the
`contrary, that if you follow the teachings of Loh '842, what you end
`up with is a square notch that's applied to reflectors at varying heights.
`And you can see this on slide number 41.
`And so on slide number 41, we have a series of excerpts of
`various figure eights in Loh '842. We see circular notches that it
`describes. We see the triangular notches, and we see them at
`differing heights along its reflector wall.
`And so if we turn back to slide number 40, we have Dr.
`Shealy's unrebutted explanation that if you follow the teachings of
`Loh '842, it actually teaches you to apply the square-shaped notches
`such as shown in figure 8B to the other shaped reflectors and the other
`-- at varying heights. For example, apply the square shapes to the
`triangular reflector in figure 8C.
`Now there is one more issue with respect to claims 3 and 4,
`and so even if the Loh '842 is found not to be able to combine the
`figures for an anticipatory purpose, I don't think there's any real
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00966
`Patent 7,652,297 B2
`
`
`credible dispute that it would at least have been obvious. And there's
`two primary reasons why it would have been obvious as Dr. Shealy
`has explained.
`We look to slide 43 just to set the scene a little bit, and
`Petitioner has challenged the sort of -- the motivations of why you'd
`use the square shape notches in order to allegedly meet these, the
`claim limitations of 3 and 4. And with respect to Loh '842 for
`example, it's contended that Dr. Shealy conceded that no prior
`reference relied upon in this preceding describes how the radiation
`pattern is altered based on the particular shapes of the depressions.
`And it also took the position that Loh '842 provides no discussions of
`the pros and cons of using different shaped depressions, or how those
`shapes would affect delamination. And I think both of these points
`ignore what the record actually shows us.
`With respect to radiation patterns, now I'm on slide number
`44, Dr. Shealy explained in his declaration that a person of ordinary
`skill in the art at a very minimum would have thought to use the
`various shaped notches and the various shaped reflectors in Loh '842
`in order to alter the radiation pattern. The notches and the reflectors
`are taught for example to control the meniscus which will alter the
`radiation pattern.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00966
`Patent 7,652,297 B2
`
`
`
`And during his deposition, and I'm on slide number 45, Dr.
`Shealy explained these exact points. With respect to, for example,
`Loh '842's disclosure at column 5 beginning on line 32, Dr. Shealy
`explained that altering the notch shape would have a pronounced
`effect on the radiation pattern.
`On slide 46, he made a similar comment with respect to
`column 6, his teachings in Loh. And I think probably the most
`important thing which Patent Owner has never actually addressed in a
`way in this proceeding is Dr. Shealy's unrebutted testimony based on
`the teachings of Nii, of the Nii prior art reference that it was known to
`use square-shaped notches or rectangular-shaped notches because they
`increased surface area, and thereby, better prevent delamination.
`And so we see on slide number 47, the disclosure in Nii which
`expressly tells you to use these. It calls it a trench, but as you can
`see it's a rectangular -- a square shape when viewed from the side.
`And it tells you use this shape. This is a good shape because it
`prevents delamination because it increases surface area.
`Now Patent Owner has said in its response Loh '842 doesn't
`tell us about delamination. But that's the wrong test. The test in
`our KSR isn't whether it was known in a particular reference. This
`isn't -- we're not in the teaching suggestion motivation context that we
`were pre-KSR. We're in a KSR world, and in a KSR world we have
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Case IPR2018-00966
`Patent 7,652,297 B2
`
`
`Dr. Shealy's unrebutted testimony based on this prior Nii reference
`telling us that to use this square/rectangular-shaped notch to prevent
`delamination which just happens to be the same purpose as the ’297
`patent.
`
`And so I'm going to shift to slide number 6. Excuse me,
`slide number 51 and claim 6. The dispute here really centers around
`what does at mean, and that's in the context of at the intersection of
`the reflector's slanted portion and platform.
`If we look at slide number 52, we can see on the left-hand side
`the claim language of claim 6 which depends back from claim 1, and
`it adds further restrictions relative to the particular geometry of the
`conventional or typical substrate. On the right hand side you can see
`Patent Owner's position and its response, and it effectively argues that
`in order to meet this claim limitation, it needs to be a notch that's in
`the location such as the one that it highlighted in yellow which
`corresponds to notch 146 of the ’297 patent.
`So if we turn to slide number 53, on the left-hand side what
`we see is Loh '842, and figure 8C has a notch at that very same
`position as the notch in the figure 1 patent. Now again, I understand
`that in both of these we're actually not talking about the claim shape
`with respect to the square notches here. But we would submit that it
`would have -- and claim 6 would have been anticipated or at least
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00966
`Patent 7,652,297 B2
`
`
`obvious for the same reasons as claims 3 and 4, and that is if you
`follow the teachings of Loh '842 it teaches you to apply a square
`shaped notch to the various reflectors such as in figure 8C, or at a
`minimum, it would have been obvious. And frankly, we don't see
`any difference between how the figures are lined up here with respect
`to the annotations.
`Now with respect to Loh '819, and I'm on slide number 54, we
`have a little bit different dispute. The notch, as you can see, is
`highlighted in red, and you can see the intersection which is the
`yellow and the blue cross-lines that are hatched. And you can see
`there that the notch is actually located near rather than inside or
`exactly, you know, on the point as Mr. Credelle has annotated on the
`right-hand figure on slide number 54.
`But we don't think that actually matters for the purpose of
`what at the intersection means, and I'm on slide number 55 right now.
`And what we can see is Dr. Shealy's explanation that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood at to commonly refer
`to in, on or near. We have contemporary evidence from a dictionary
`at the time, the plain and ordinary meaning of at is in, on or near, and,
`you know, we think that the Board was correct that Patent Owner did
`not explain why the dictionary usage of at was incorrect. Or why
`there was any disavowal or disclaimer. We still haven't -- we've
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00966
`Patent 7,652,297 B2
`
`
`never heard any disavowal or any disclaimer throughout this
`proceedings for any issue here. And we think that with respect to
`that, that shows that Loh '819 also meets the claim 6 limitations.
`And so just one final claim that I wanted to talk about in my
`opening remarks, and this is dependent claim number 9, and again,
`we're talking about the reflector shape. And this particular reflector
`shape is a little bit more detailed, has a few extra bells and whistles so
`to speak. But we don't think actually impacts the patentability
`relative to this claim.
`And so if we look on slide number 64, we have Dr. Shealy's
`testimony from a person of ordinary skill in the art, and again, we
`have no expert testimony on the other side to contradict these points.
`We have Dr. Shealy explaining based on the teachings of Loh '842,
`based on the teachings of Nii, based on the state of the art, based on,
`you know, the understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art,
`that it was known to alter the reflector shapes. Loh '842 expressly
`tells you you should try different shapes.
`We also know that using a square-shaped notch, for example,
`from Nii was advantageous because it better prevented delamination.
`And so if you put all of the combination -- if you put all this record
`evidence together we would submit that claim 9 is obvious, for
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00966
`Patent 7,652,297 B2
`
`
`example, if you would take the combined teachings, for example, of
`figure 8B and 8C.
`On slide number 65, we have a somewhat similar issue for
`Loh '819. With respect to Loh '819 we actually think it's a little bit
`simpler, and the reason is you have the Andrews Reference, and the
`Andrews Reference is incorporated by reference into Loh '819. It's
`expressly incorporated for the purpose of its moat teachings. It uses
`moat which is synonymous in this proceeding with a notch, and you
`can see on the lower left-hand side of the screen, you can see an
`excerpt of Andrews’ figure 10C which has this double -- which has
`this double notch.
`Now Andrews tells you you should use the notch for meniscus
`control in order to, for example, shape the radiation pattern. And so
`if you start with the teachings of Andrews, which as Dr. Shealy
`explained, a person of ordinary skill in the art certainly would because
`it is, in fact, incorporated into Loh '819 for the purpose of its moat or
`notch teachings, and you double the notch in Loh '819, which we
`understand, for example, from Nii, is very useful to prevent
`delamination, you end up with the claim shape which is basically
`doubling the Loh '819 figure. And you can see that on the screen on
`the left-hand side. So unless there is any other questions, I will --
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00966
`Patent 7,652,297 B2
`
`
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: I have a question for you. So you have
`several challenges against these claims. If you were to have to elect
`just one ground for each claim, which would you elect as your
`strongest?
`MR. COLSHER: I think we would focus on the Loh '842
`grounds.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. And then between the Fujiwara
`and Uraya secondary references for 7, 8, 10, 17, how