Optical Devices, LLC
`Thomas Engellenner
`Reza Mollaaghababa
`Pepper Hamilton LLP
`125 High Street
`19th Floor, High Street Tower
`Boston, MA 02110
`
`By:
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`
`
`PANASONIC CORPORATION and
`
`PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`OPTICAL DEVICES, LLC,
`
`PATENT OWNER.
`___________________
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00303
`U.S. Patent RE40,927
`___________________
`
`
`DECLARATION OF EDWARD L. SINOFSKY, PH.D.
`
`#30382485 v1
`
`
`
`
`Thomas Engellenner
`Reza Mollaaghababa
`Pepper Hamilton LLP
`125 High Street
`19th Floor, High Street Tower
`Boston, MA 02110
`
`By:
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`
`
`PANASONIC CORPORATION and
`
`PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`OPTICAL DEVICES, LLC,
`
`PATENT OWNER.
`___________________
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00303
`U.S. Patent RE40,927
`___________________
`
`
`DECLARATION OF EDWARD L. SINOFSKY, PH.D.
`
`#30382485 v1
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`IPR2014-00303
`U.S. Patent RE40,927
`
`
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS .......................................................... 2
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS ............................................................................................ 3
`Anticipation .................................................................................................... 3
`Obviousness .................................................................................................... 4
`
`INDEPENDENT AND DEPENDENT CLAIMS .................................................... 7
`
`METHOD CLAIMS AND APPARATUS CLAIMS ............................................... 7
`
`SUMMARY OF MY STUDY .................................................................................. 7
`
`ONE OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................................... 8
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE ‘927 PATENT .................................................................... 10
`
`OPINION AS TO CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ...................................................... 11
`
`SUMMARY OF U.S. PATENT NO. 3,552,857 (“HOCK”) .................................. 12
`
`SUMMARY OF U.S. PATENT NO. 3,481,672 (“ZOOT”) .................................. 15
`
`OPINION AS TO ANTICIPATION OF CLAIM 68 ............................................. 17
`
`OPINION AS TO THE UNOBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 57 AND 68 .............. 18
`
`
`
`
`#30382485 v1
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`I, Edward L. Sinofsky, hereby declare:
`
`IPR2014-00303
`U.S. Patent RE40,927
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`
`I have been retained by Counsel for Patent Owner to provide
`
`opinions on certain issues concerning Inter Partes Review No. IPR2014-00303 of
`
`U.S. Patent RE40,927 (“the ‘927 Patent”).
`
`2.
`
`I am aware that the Petition filed in the above-identified
`
`proceeding asserted various grounds and that the Board instituted this proceeding
`
`on a subset of the asserted grounds. I am also aware that Petitioner submitted with
`
`the Petition a declaration of Masud Mansuripur, Ph.D. (“the Mansuripur Report”),
`
`which opined on claim construction and the validity of the challenged claims.
`
`3.
`
`I have been asked to analyze the ‘927 Patent, the art cited by the
`
`Petitioner, the Mansuripur Report, and the Institution Decision dated July 11, 2014
`
`(“the Institution Decision”) as they relate to the particular grounds instituted by the
`
`Board. My opinions are set forth below. I make these statements based upon facts
`
`and matters within my own knowledge or on information provided to me by others.
`
`All such facts and matters are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
`
`4.
`
`I am an independent consultant. I am being compensated at my
`
`standard rate of $300 per hour for my work on this matter. This compensation is
`
`not dependent on my opinions or testimony or the outcome of this matter.
`
`#30382485 v1
`
`
`
`
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`5.
`
`A copy of my curriculum vitae is attached as Appendix A.
`
`IPR2014-00303
`U.S. Patent RE40,927
`
`
`
`6.
`
`I received a Bachelor’s degree in Physics from the State
`
`University of New York at Birmingham in 1980. I completed my master’s and
`
`doctoral studies in Optical Sciences at the University of Arizona. I received both
`
`my master’s degree and my Ph.D. in Optical Sciences in 1984.
`
`7.
`
`I have over 30 years of experience in photonics (optical
`
`applications). In the course of my professional career I had worked for Quantronix
`
`Laser Corporation (1981); Bell Labs AT&T Technologies (1982-1983); C.R. Bard
`
`(1984-1988); and Boston Advanced Technologies, Inc. (1988-1989) developing
`
`optical systems and laser-based medical devices. I helped found and was a
`
`Visiting Industrial Professor at the Tufts University Electro-Optics Center from
`
`1985-1988. I have also founded several companies in the field of optical sciences
`
`and I am an inventor on over 56 U.S. and International Patents in the field of
`
`optical applications. These applications included the specific fields of laser
`
`medical devices, solid state lasers, illumination of art, and energy efficient LED
`
`lighting fixtures. My appended CV provides additional details on my experience
`
`in the relevant field.
`
`#30382485 v1
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00303
`U.S. Patent RE40,927
`
`
`
`By virtue of the above experiences, I have gained a detailed
`
`8.
`
`understanding of the technology that is at issue in this proceeding. My experience
`
`with optical systems is directly relevant to the subject matter of the ‘927 Patent.
`
`9.
`
`I have given testimony previously as an expert by deposition
`
`and at trial, including in areas that relate to the technology described in the ‘927
`
`Patent, in a patent infringement case, Rentrop v. Spectranectics Corp, 04 CIV
`
`0101(PKC) in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York.
`
`10.
`
`I believe I am qualified to provide opinions about how one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art in March 1967 would have interpreted and understood the
`
`‘927 Patent and the art relied upon by the Petitioner, as discussed below.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`Anticipation
`11.
`
`I understand that a claim is anticipated if a single prior art
`
`reference discloses, explicitly or inherently, all limitations of the invention
`
`arranged or combined in the same way as in the claim. I further understand that
`
`inherency may not be established by probabilities or possibilities, and the fact that
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art understands that the missing limitation could exist
`
`under certain circumstances is not sufficient. Instead, the party claiming inherency
`
`must prove that the missing matter is necessarily present and that it would be so
`
`#30382485 v1
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`recognized by a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art. Whether the inherent
`
`IPR2014-00303
`U.S. Patent RE40,927
`
`
`
`disclosure was recognized at the time of the reference is immaterial.
`
`12.
`
`I further understand that the disclosure of an anticipatory
`
`reference must describe the claimed invention to a degree adequate to enable a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art to not only comprehend the invention, but also to
`
`make, or in the case of a method, use, the claimed invention without undue
`
`experimentation. Provided that the reference asserted is enabling, it is my
`
`understanding that it need not disclose any independent use or utility to anticipate a
`
`claimed invention.
`
`Obviousness
`13.
`
`It is my understanding that an invention is unpatentable if the
`
`differences between the invention 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. I further understand that obviousness is
`
`determined by evaluating: (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) the
`
`differences between the prior art and the claim, (3) the level of ordinary skill in the
`
`art, and (4) secondary considerations of non-obviousness. To establish
`
`obviousness based on a combination of the elements disclosed in the prior art, it is
`
`my understanding that a petitioner must identify a specific combination that
`
`#30382485 v1
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`teaches all limitations and establish that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`IPR2014-00303
`U.S. Patent RE40,927
`
`
`
`time of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to make that
`
`combination.
`
`14. To guard against hindsight and an unwarranted finding of
`
`obviousness, I understand that an important component of any obviousness inquiry
`
`is whether the petitioner has identified any teaching, suggestion or motivation that
`
`would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the claimed
`
`combination and have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. I
`
`understand that this test should not be rigidly applied, but can be an important tool
`
`to avoid the use of hindsight in the determination of obviousness.
`
`15.
`
`I further understand that the teaching, suggestion, or motivation
`
`may be found explicitly or implicitly: (1) in the prior art; (2) in the knowledge of
`
`those of ordinary skill in the art that certain references, or disclosures in those
`
`references, are of special interest or importance in the field; or (3) from the nature
`
`of the problem to be solved. Additionally, I understand that the legal
`
`determination of the motivation to combine references allows recourse to logic,
`
`judgment, and common sense. In order to resist the temptation to read into prior
`
`art the teachings of the invention in issue, however, it should be apparent that the
`
`expert is not conflating “common sense” and what appears obvious in hindsight.
`
`#30382485 v1
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00303
`U.S. Patent RE40,927
`
`
`
`I understand that if the teachings of a prior art reference would
`
`16.
`
`lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to make a modification that would render
`
`another prior art device inoperable, then such a modification would generally not
`
`be obvious. I also understand that if a proposed modification would render the
`
`prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, then
`
`there is no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification.
`
`17.
`
`I understand that it is improper to combine references where the
`
`references teach away from their combination. I understand that a reference may
`
`be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art, upon
`
`reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out by the
`
`applicant, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by
`
`the applicant. In general, a reference will teach away if it suggests that the line of
`
`development flowing from the reference’s disclosure is unlikely to be productive
`
`of the result sought by the patentee. I understand that a reference teaches away, for
`
`example, if (1) the combination would produce a seemingly inoperative device, or
`
`(2) the references leave the impression that the product would not have the
`
`property sought by the patentee. I also understand, however, that a reference does
`
`not teach away if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative
`
`#30382485 v1
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`invention but does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation
`
`IPR2014-00303
`U.S. Patent RE40,927
`
`
`
`into the invention claimed.
`
`INDEPENDENT AND DEPENDENT CLAIMS
`18.
`
`I understand that an independent claim stands alone and is not
`
`dependent on, and does not include limitations of, any other claim. I also
`
`understand that a dependent claim refers to another claim or claims and
`
`incorporates all the limitations of the antecedent claim(s).
`
`METHOD CLAIMS AND APPARATUS CLAIMS
`19.
`
`I understand that a method claim recites one or more steps for
`
`performing a function or accomplishing a result. I also understand that an
`
`apparatus claim defines a device or system by reciting its structural components
`
`that together make up the device or system.
`
`SUMMARY OF MY STUDY
`20.
`
`I have read the ‘927 Patent and have considered its disclosure
`
`from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art in March 1967.
`
`21.
`
`I have also read and considered inter alia the Petition for Inter
`
`Partes Review of the ‘927 Patent, the Mansuripur Report, and the Institution
`
`Decision.
`
`#30382485 v1
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00303
`U.S. Patent RE40,927
`
`
`
`I have also read the following references upon which the Board
`
`22.
`
`instituted this proceeding, and considered them from the perspective of the person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art in March 1967:
`
`•
`•
`23.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,552,857 to Hock (“Hock”); and
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,481,672 to Zoot et al. (“Zoot”);
`
`I am also familiar with a number of other prior art references in
`
`the field of the invention, including but not limited to references cited by the
`
`Petitioner in this IPR proceeding.
`
`ONE OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`24.
`
`It is my opinion that the relevant field with respect to the ‘927
`
`Patent is photonics. The person of ordinary level of skill in the art in March 1967
`
`would hold a Bachelor of Science and Master of Science Degrees in either Physics
`
`or Electrical Engineering with coursework in photonics, and additionally, two-
`
`three (2-3) years of experience in physics or electrical engineering photonics
`
`research.
`
`25.
`
`In reaching the opinions contained herein, I have considered the
`
`types of problems encountered in the art in March 1967, the sophistication of the
`
`technology, and the education level and professional capabilities of workers in the
`
`field. The basis of my familiarity with the level of skill in the art is my years of
`
`#30382485 v1
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`interaction with large numbers of workers in the field and my knowledge of the
`
`IPR2014-00303
`U.S. Patent RE40,927
`
`
`
`technical issues in the field.
`
`26. The Mansuripur Report indicates that a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art pertaining to the ‘927 Patent would have “a Master’s degree in electrical
`
`engineering or physics focusing on the applications of optics, or a Bachelor’s
`
`Degree in electrical engineering or physics and at least five years of experience in
`
`optical applications.” (Ex. 1011, ¶ 29.)
`
`27.
`
`In my opinion, there is no material difference in my and the
`
`Mansuripur Report’s opinion of the fields of experience (“photonics” versus
`
`“optical applications”). There is also little difference between my assessment and
`
`the Mansuripur Report’s opinion on the length of experience (“2-3 years” versus
`
`“five” years) required to attain “ordinary skill.” However, I do take issue with the
`
`Mansuripur Report’s open-ended definition of the level of experience of a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art (i.e., “at least five years of experience. . .”) because it
`
`obscures the issue of what “ordinary” skill means. In my opinion, a person with a
`
`Ph.D. in physics or electrical engineering whose thesis involved photonics – or a
`
`person with a master’s degree in the relevant field and more than five years of
`
`experience would possess more than ordinary skill in the art.
`
`#30382485 v1
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE ‘927 PATENT
`28.
`
`I have read the description of the ‘927 Patent that was provided
`
`IPR2014-00303
`U.S. Patent RE40,927
`
`
`
`in the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response and I agree with this description.
`
`Briefly, the ‘927 Patent discloses methods and apparatus for detecting
`
`retroreflective characteristics of an optical system. (Ex. 1007, Abstract.) One
`
`example of the use of such a system is the determination of the characteristics of a
`
`device exhibiting retroreflective characteristics. (Ex. 1007, 1:51-54.)
`
`29. Specifically, I have been asked to review claims 57 and 68 of
`
`the ‘927 Patent. Claims 57 and 68 are dependent claims and depend, respectively,
`
`on independent claims 48 and 61. Independent claim 48 recites a method of
`
`detecting characteristics or properties of an optical system based on a retroreflected
`
`beam, which comprises transmitting radiant energy at an optical system having
`
`retroreflective characteristics, receiving reflected radiant energy after
`
`retroreflection of the radiant energy, and detecting the reflected radiant energy after
`
`retroreflection to determine at least one characteristic or property of the optical
`
`system. Claim 57 refers to claim 48 and further requires that “the radiant energy is
`
`generated by a laser.” Independent claim 61 recites an apparatus for detecting
`
`characteristics or properties of an optical system based on a retroreflected beam,
`
`the apparatus comprising a source of radiant energy, a detector, and an optical
`
`#30382485 v1
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`system that directs radiant energy from the source toward a retroreflective surface
`
`IPR2014-00303
`U.S. Patent RE40,927
`
`
`
`and returns reflected radiant energy to the detector, wherein the detector
`
`determines at least one characteristic or property of the optical system. Claim 68
`
`refers to claim 61 and further requires that “the source of radiant energy is a laser.”
`
`OPINION AS TO CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`30.
`I understand that in an inter partes review, claim terms in an
`
`unexpired patent are interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction
`
`in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear from the vantage
`
`point of one of ordinary skill in the relevant art.
`
`31.
`
`I have read Patent Owner’s proposed definitions of “optical
`
`system,” “retroreflected,” “retroreflection,” and “focal plane.” It is my
`
`understanding that Patent Owner’s proposed definitions have been adopted by the
`
`Board in its Institution Decision and I agree with these constructions. More
`
`specifically, I understand that the Board has construed the term “retroreflected” as
`
`“having undergone reflection of an incident ray in a manner such that the reflected
`
`ray is parallel to the incident ray of any angle of incidence,” and has construed the
`
`term “reftroreflection” as “reflection of an incident ray in a manner such that the
`
`reflected ray is parallel to the incident ray for any angle of incidence.” (Paper 10,
`
`10.)
`
`#30382485 v1
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`SUMMARY OF U.S. PATENT NO. 3,552,857 (“HOCK”)
`32.
`
`I have reviewed Hock. This patent describes techniques for
`
`IPR2014-00303
`U.S. Patent RE40,927
`
`
`
`determining “spacing of an object and its angular deviation relative to an initial
`
`position.” (Ex. 1001, Title.) In my opinion, it does this by utilizing a light source
`
`to illuminate a scanning aperture to generate “an oscillating luminous scanning
`
`mark,” which is projected onto a reflective surface of the target. (See, e.g.,
`
`Ex.1001, 3:3-6.) In my opinion, one of ordinary skill in the art in 1967 would have
`
`understood the most logical choice for the Hock light source to be an incoherent
`
`light source, such as an incandescent light bulb. This is so because incoherent light
`
`sources were prevalent in the 1960’s and coherent light sources were in their
`
`infancy. Moreover, as discussed below, the use of a coherent light source in Hock
`
`would have posed a number of problems.
`
`33.
`
`In Hock’s system, the incident light reflected from the reflective
`
`surface of the target is incident on an “index,” which is made of clear and dark
`
`lines spaced appropriately for the sensitivity of the measurement desired. (Ex.
`
`1001, 3:14-17.) The lateral or angular displacement of the target can cause a
`
`modulation of the light passing through the index. (Ex. 1001, e.g., Abstract of the
`
`Disclosure and 3:33-39.) This modulation can be detected to determine the change
`
`#30382485 v1
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`in the distance or angular orientation of the target. (Ex. 1001, Abstract of the
`
`IPR2014-00303
`U.S. Patent RE40,927
`
`
`
`Disclosure.)
`
`34.
`
`I have reviewed Figure 3a in Hock in detail. This figure, which
`
`is reproduced below, depicts the only embodiment of Hock’s system in which a
`
`target surface is positioned at the focal point of a lens (i.e., lens 40):
`
`
`
`35.
`
`In my opinion, one of ordinary skill in the art in 1967 would
`
`have understood Figure 3a as describing a system in which the condenser 11
`
`focuses the light emitted by the light source 10 onto slot 12a of the diaphragm 12
`
`to generate a de-magnified, or smaller, image of the light source 10 on the slot 12a.
`
`This is so because Hock refers to lens 11 as a condenser. The term “condenser”
`
`#30382485 v1
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`was used in the art around 1967 and is still used in the art to refer to a lens that
`
`IPR2014-00303
`U.S. Patent RE40,927
`
`
`
`would concentrate (condense) the light the lens receives from an object (e.g., a
`
`light source) so as to generate, for example, an image of the object that is
`
`somewhat smaller than the object. (Ex. 2004 at 173.) Further, in my opinion, one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art in 1967 would have understood that selecting condenser
`
`11 to form an image of the light source onto slot 12a would be advantageous as it
`
`would result in passage of more light through the slot 12a to be projected onto the
`
`target 41. One of ordinary skill in the art would have further understood that the
`
`image of the light source on slot 12a should nonetheless be greater than the size of
`
`the aperture so that the back-and-forth movement of the slot 12a would generate an
`
`oscillating luminous mark.
`
`36.
`
`In my opinion, in the device of Figure 3a, the condenser 11
`
`does not collimate the light it receives from the light source 10. This is so because
`
`Figure 3a shows lens 34 generating a collimated beam. If the light reaching lens
`
`34 was already collimated, lens 34 would have no purpose.
`
`37.
`
`In my opinion, one of ordinary skill in the art in 1967 would
`
`have understood that lenses 34 and 40 receive the light passing through slot 12a
`
`and, respectively, collimate the light and project the collimated light onto target 41.
`
`#30382485 v1
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`SUMMARY OF U.S. PATENT NO. 3,481,672 (“ZOOT”)
`38. Zoot teaches a “non-contacting distance gauge and contour
`
`IPR2014-00303
`U.S. Patent RE40,927
`
`
`
`mapping apparatus utilizing a high intensity light source.” (Ex. 1002, Abstract of
`
`the Disclosure.) FIG. 1 of Zoot, which is reproduced below, depicts an
`
`embodiment of Zoot’s apparatus:
`
`
`
`39. The Zoot apparatus includes a laser 10 that generates a highly
`
`directional light beam (i.e., a collimated light beam) that diverges after passing
`
`through primary lens 12. (Ex. 1002, 3:48-50; 4:6-7.) The central portion of the
`
`diverging light is blocked by the back of reflector 18. (Ex. 1002, 4:9-10.) The
`
`outer portion of the diverging light passes through objective lens 14 of composite
`
`lens-reticle structure 13, and is split into four somewhat pie-shaped segments by
`
`transmitting reticle 15 and is focused onto object 11. (Ex. 1002, 4:11-14.) Thus,
`
`the combination of primary lens 12 and objective lens 14 focuses the parallel laser
`
`#30382485 v1
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00303
`U.S. Patent RE40,927
`
`
`light beam incident on primary lens 12 onto object 11. The light reflected from the
`
`spot focused on the object 11 passes through the objective lens 16, “which causes
`
`the beam to converge.” (Ex. 1002, 4:39-41.)
`
`40. The converging beam is directed to a rotating nutated plate 20,
`
`which generates a rotating nutated light beam. (Ex. 1002, 4:41-43.) The rotating
`
`nutated light beam is received by a reticle, which causes periodic interruption of
`
`the light beam so that it passes through optical filter 22 to detector 17 only four
`
`times per revolution of nutating plate 20. (Ex. 1002, 4: 46-52.)
`
`41. The output of the detector 17 is utilized to determine whether
`
`the light image on object 11 is formed as a highly illuminated point or is “larger
`
`and consists of four quadrants of light produced by the masking effect of the
`
`transmitting reticle.” (Ex.1002, 5:18-43.) The harmonic content of the detector
`
`output is used to determine the condition where the light image on the object is
`
`formed as a highly illuminated point. (Ex.1002, 5:61-64.) An error signal derived
`
`from the harmonic content of the detector output can be used to move the optical
`
`system relative to the object to minimize the harmonic content of the detector
`
`output. (Ex. 1002, 5:55-6:10.) The displacement of the optical system in response
`
`to the error signal can provide information about the contour of the object. (Ex.
`
`1002, 6:36-45.)
`
`#30382485 v1
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00303
`U.S. Patent RE40,927
`
`
`
`In my opinion, no part of the optical train in Zoot utilizes
`
`42.
`
`retroreflection as disclosed and claimed in the ‘927 Patent and construed by the
`
`Board.
`
`OPINION AS TO ANTICIPATION OF CLAIM 68
`43.
`
`I have been asked to render an opinion as to whether claim 68 is
`
`anticipated by Zoot. Claim 68 depends on claim 61 and hence incorporates the
`
`limitations of claim 61. In my opinion, Zoot fails to anticipate claim 61 and
`
`consequently fails to anticipate claim 68.
`
`44.
`
`In my opinion, Zoot’s apparatus does not detect “characteristics
`
`or properties of an optical system based on a retroreflected beam,” as recited in
`
`claim 61. Specifically, Zoot’s apparatus does not include an optical system that
`
`would return retroreflected radiant energy to the detector.
`
`45.
`
`It is well known in optics that a lens focuses an incident
`
`collimated beam at its focal point and conversely collimates an incident diverging
`
`beam emitted from its focal point. As discussed above, in Zoot, laser 10 generates
`
`a highly directional (i.e., collimated) light beam that is focused by the combination
`
`of lens 12 and objective lens 14 onto object 11. The lens 16 in Zoot’s apparatus
`
`receives the light reflected from the object 11. The light spot focused on object 11
`
`by the combination of lenses 12 and 14 is not, however, positioned at a distance
`
`#30382485 v1
`
`-17-
`
`
`
`relative to lens 16 corresponding substantially to the focal length of lens 16. This
`
`IPR2014-00303
`U.S. Patent RE40,927
`
`
`
`is so because the lens 16 does not collimate the diverging reflected light it receives
`
`from the illuminated spot on object 11. Rather, Zoot discloses that lens 16 causes
`
`the reflected light to converge, and the converging beam is directed to the detector.
`
`46.
`
`In my opinion, the converging light beam generated by lens 16
`
`is not a “retroreflected beam” as that term is used in the ‘927 Patent and construed
`
`by the Board. Specifically, the rays of the converging beam generated by lens 16
`
`are not parallel to respective incident rays of the collimated laser beam that is
`
`focused by the combination of lenses 12 and 14 onto object 11 for any angle of
`
`incidence. Thus, in Zoot, retroreflected radiant energy is not returned to the
`
`detector.
`
`47. Accordingly, in my opinion, Zoot does not anticipate claim 61
`
`and consequently does not anticipate claim 68 of the ‘927 Patent.
`
`OPINION AS TO THE UNOBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 57 AND 68
`48.
`
`I have been asked to render an opinion as to whether claims 57
`
`and 68 are obvious in view of the combination of Hock and Zoot. Specifically, I
`
`have been asked to provide my opinion on whether it would have been obvious to
`
`replace the light source for generating radiant energy in Hock’s system with the
`
`laser light source disclosed by Zoot.
`
`#30382485 v1
`
`-18-
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00303
`U.S. Patent RE40,927
`
`
`
`It is my understanding that Petitioner has argued that:
`
`49.
`
`Hock does not disclose a laser. Nevertheless, it would
`have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
`design such a system. Lasers were well known in the art
`before the priority date of the ’927 patent as shown by
`Zoot and Electronics. (Paper 1, 35.)
`
`50.
`
`It is my understanding that the Institution Decision has
`
`characterized the Petitioner’s argument with respect to replacing Hock’s light
`
`source 10 with Zoot’s laser as involving “no more than a simple substitution of one
`
`known element for another.” (Paper 10, 23.)
`
`51.
`
`It is also my understanding that the Institution Decision found
`
`“that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion
`
`that dependent claim 57 would have been obvious over Hock I in combination with
`
`of Zoot.” (Paper 10, 23.) Similarly, the Institution Decision found that Petitioner
`
`has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that
`
`dependent claim 68 would have been obvious over Hock in combination with Zoot.
`
`(Paper 10, 29.)
`
`52.
`
`I disagree with the assessment that the replacement of the light
`
`source for generating radiant energy in Hock’s system of Figure 3a with the laser
`
`disclosed by Zoot would have been a simple substitution – or an obvious one.
`
`#30382485 v1
`
`-19-
`
`
`
`53. There is no indication that using an incoherent light source in
`
`IPR2014-00303
`U.S. Patent RE40,927
`
`
`
`Hock would have been unsatisfactory in any respect. There is also no suggestion
`
`in Hock that higher intensity or spectral purity would be advantageous. Replacing
`
`the light source in Hock with a laser would not take advantage of any of the unique
`
`properties of a laser.
`
`54. When I taught my laser applications classes at Tufts University
`
`in the late 1980’s, I used to tell my students that “If you don’t have to use a laser,
`
`then don’t. If you can use an incoherent source, use it.” Hock is a perfect example
`
`of this; use of a laser source would add nothing, while necessitating numerous
`
`changes in the optical design of the device of Figure 3a of Hock, which are not
`
`taught nor suggested by Hock or Zoot.
`
`55. Zoot states that its light source 10 should be “capable of
`
`emitting a continuous beam of high intensity, highly directional, substantially
`
`monochromatic light.” (Ex. 1002, 3:48-50.)
`
`56. One of ordinary skill in the art in 1967 would have understood
`
`that the requirements imposed by Zoot on its light source could be satisfied by a
`
`recently developed type of coherent light source. The term “laser” had recently
`
`been coined to describe this type of light source. An example of these lasers would
`
`have been a Helium-Neon red laser (“HeNe laser”). The HeNe laser could
`
`#30382485 v1
`
`-20-
`
`
`
`generate a light beam that was extraordinarily collimated with very small diameter
`
`IPR2014-00303
`U.S. Patent RE40,927
`
`
`
`beam. For example, a typical beam diameter of a HeNe laser would have been
`
`about 1 – 2 mm. (Ex. 2005 at 799.)
`
`57. Using a laser for the light source 10 in Figure 3a of Hock would
`
`result in formation of a much smaller image of the light source by the condenser 11
`
`on the slot 12a. In fact, the spot size of the image would be many orders of
`
`magnitude smaller than the respective spot size of the image of an incoherent light
`
`source, such as an incandescent light bulb. This would necessitate using a slot 12a
`
`that would have been orders of magnitude smaller than one used with an
`
`incoherent light source.
`
`58. By way example, using a HeNe laser generating a light beam
`
`with a diameter of 1 – 2 mm and using a typical condenser having focal length of
`
`25 mm for imaging the light from the laser onto the slot 12a would result in an
`
`image spot size of the order of 25 - 50 microns. In such a situation, the slot size
`
`would have to be less than 25 - 50 microns such that the back-and-forth movement
`
`of the slot would generate a scanning luminous mark. Otherwise, the slot would
`
`either allow the entire light beam to pass through or would entirely block that light.
`
`For example, if ten data points were desired, the slot size would have to be about
`
`2.5 - 5 microns. In my opinion, it would have been extremely difficult in 1967 to
`
`#30382485 v1
`
`-21-
`
`
`
`form an aperture of this size. Further, it would been a significant engineering
`
`IPR2014-00303
`U.S. Patent RE40,927
`
`
`
`challenge in 1967 to design and make oscillatory control means for controllably
`
`moving such a slot back-and-forth over a range of 50-100 microns.
`
`59. Moreover, in my opinion, one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have understood that the movement of such a significantly smaller aperture over a
`
`small image formed on the slot 12a, even if feasible, would have severely limited
`
`the extent of excursion of any oscillating luminous scanning mark on lens 40,
`
`thereby significantly reducing the ability of the device of Figure 3a to detect
`
`angular deviation of the target 41.
`
`60.
`
`In my opinion, one of ordinary skill in the art in 1967 would
`
`have understood that if the high intensity, highly directional laser light of Zoot
`
`were to be focused on the target 41 in the device of Figure 3a of Hock, the light
`
`intensity at the focus would be many orders of magnitude greater than the
`
`respective intensity of light from an incoherent light bulb focused on target 41.
`
`61. Accordingly, in my opinion, one of ordinary skill in the a
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
