`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
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
