trials@uspto.gov
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01439, Paper No. 36
`Case IPR2014-01441, Paper No. 35
`Case IPR2014-01443, Paper No. 37
`February 5, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TOSHIBA CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`OPTICAL DEVICES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-01439, Patent RE42,913
`Case IPR2014-01441, Patent RE43,681
`Case IPR2014-01443, Patent RE40,927
`____________
`
`Held: January 12, 2016
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE: ERICA A. FRANKLIN, GLENN J. PERRY,
`and JAMES B. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday,
`January 12, 2016, commencing at 10:01 a.m., at the U.S.
`Patent and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street,
`Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01439, Paper No. 36
`Case IPR2014-01441, Paper No. 35
`Case IPR2014-01443, Paper No. 37
`February 5, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TOSHIBA CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`OPTICAL DEVICES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-01439, Patent RE42,913
`Case IPR2014-01441, Patent RE43,681
`Case IPR2014-01443, Patent RE40,927
`____________
`
`Held: January 12, 2016
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE: ERICA A. FRANKLIN, GLENN J. PERRY,
`and JAMES B. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday,
`January 12, 2016, commencing at 10:01 a.m., at the U.S.
`Patent and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street,
`Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01439, Patent RE42,913
`Case IPR2014-01441, Patent RE43,681
`Case IPR2014-01443, Patent RE40,927
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ALAN A. LIMBACH, ESQ.
`ROBERT C. WILLIAMS, ESQ.
`DLA Piper, LLC
`2000 University Avenue
`East Palo Alto, California 94303-2215
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`STEPHEN J. TYTRAN, ESQ.
`Optical Devices, LLC
`20 Depot Street, Suite 2A
`Peterborough, New Hampshire 03458
`
`and
`
`THEODOSIUS THOMAS, ESQ.
`CHERYL RAMEY, ESQ.
`Scenera Research
`5400 Trinity Road, Suite 303
`Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01439, Patent RE42,913
`Case IPR2014-01441, Patent RE43,681
`Case IPR2014-01443, Patent RE40,927
`
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
` JUDGE PERRY: Good morning. Be seated.
` Judge Arpin, can you hear us okay?
` JUDGE ARPIN: Yes, Judge Perry.
` JUDGE PERRY: Good, okay. Well, welcome,
`everyone. We're going to be together for two
`days, about three hours on each day. So I want
`to say right off the bat if anyone feels the need
`for a break, please let us know, and we'll take a
`short recess. Also, I don't know whether you
`want to have a long break in between -- so
`you have an opportunity to go eat something,
`since we're running over the lunch hour. If you
`do, you know, let me know, and we'll take a
`longer break. Otherwise, I'll assume we're going
`to take perhaps ten minutes between sides.
` We're here today to hear argument, Toshiba
`versus Optical Devices, the patent owner, in
`three cases, IPR2014-01439, 41, and 43 dealing
`with Patents RE42,913; 43,681; and Reissue 40,927.
` As you see, Judge Arpin is attending by
`video, so I'd like to request that we all be
`extra careful to refer clearly to the exhibit
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01439, Patent RE42,913
`Case IPR2014-01441, Patent RE43,681
`Case IPR2014-01443, Patent RE40,927
`
`we're talking about and to stay near the
`microphone. If you drift too far from the
`microphone, he won't be able to hear very well.
`So I would appreciate that accommodation. Some
`of us have a tendency to drift away. Please
`fight that urge if you -- if it's happening to
`you.
` Judge Arpin, please jump in whenever you
`feel the need with a question. I know there's a
`very slight delay, and we'll try to accommodate
`that, of course.
` I'm presuming that you wish to present
`argument with Petitioner handling its entire
`argument and then Patent Owner handling its
`entire argument. If you've agreed otherwise,
`please tell me. If you'd prefer to bounce it
`back and forth for each the case or some other
`approach, whatever way you've agreed to is fine.
`Otherwise, we'll have Petitioner argue their 90
`minutes and then Patent Owner.
` MR. TYTRAN: Hello, Judge. I had planned
`at least to have Mr. Limbach present his case in
`chief, then my case in chief on the Motion to
`Amend and then let him --
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01439, Patent RE42,913
`Case IPR2014-01441, Patent RE43,681
`Case IPR2014-01443, Patent RE40,927
`
` JUDGE PERRY: You know --
` JUDGE ARPIN: This is perhaps a good time
`to remind you that if you don't speak at the
`microphone, I cannot hear what you're saying.
` MR. TYTRAN: Apologies, Judge Arpin.
` My name is Stephen Tytran for Optical
`Devices. I had planned that Mr. Limbach would
`present his case in chief; that I would present
`my case in chief on the Motion to Amend; and then
`rebuttal; and then I would also reserve time at
`the end for rebuttal.
` MR. LIMBACH: Alan Limbach for Toshiba.
`That was my understanding as well, that I would
`begin by our case in chief on the original
`claims; and then they would rebut, as well as
`present on their Motion to Amend; and then I
`would come up and oppose their Motion to Amend.
` JUDGE PERRY: Yes, okay. That works just
`fine. So we will then begin with Petitioner.
` When you're ready, please begin. And
`if you want to reserve time for rebuttal, please
`tell us how much, and we'll try to keep track of
`the clock for you.
` MR. LIMBACH: Okay. So good morning, your
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01439, Patent RE42,913
`Case IPR2014-01441, Patent RE43,681
`Case IPR2014-01443, Patent RE40,927
`
`Honors. Alan Limbach for Toshiba. Also with me
`is Rob Williams from our DLA office. And I would
`like to reserve 45 minutes of my 90 minutes for
`rebuttal on the Motions to Amend. And my
`arguments this morning are for all three IPR
`proceedings that you announced earlier into the
`record.
` JUDGE PERRY: You have copies of your
`demonstratives here --
` MR. LIMBACH: I do.
` JUDGE PERRY: -- that you printed out that
`you can give us?
` MR. LIMBACH: Would you like copies?
` JUDGE PERRY: I would love a copy. Thank
`you.
` MR. LIMBACH: So Slide 1 of our
`demonstrative exhibits identified the IPRs that
`we discussed today.
` Moving to Slide 2, this slide indicates the
`patents that we'll be discussing today. The
`original patents -- we've referred to them as the
`“Wild” patents. The original patent was applied
`for back in 1967 and was held up in prosecution
`due to a secrecy order which was then eventually
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01439, Patent RE42,913
`Case IPR2014-01441, Patent RE43,681
`Case IPR2014-01443, Patent RE40,927
`
`issued as the '134 patent. That patent then was
`submitted back into reissue, and three reissue
`patents issued from that, the '927 patent; the
`'681 patent; and the '913 patent. And those are
`the patents that are the subject of the IPRs
`today.
` Moving to Slide Number 3, so the basic
`concept behind all of the patents -- and I should
`say for the record, the patents all have the same
`specifications. It's just the claims that are
`different. So it's a single specification. The
`specification talks about the discovery the
`applicants made, and that is that they discovered
`that a lens in front of a reflective surface
`where the reflective surface is at the focal
`plane of the lens acts as a retroreflector. And
`a retroreflector is device that will reflect
`light back to the source even if you're hitting
`it at an angle that's not perpendicular to the
`device. And based on that, they came up with a
`-- basically a scanning system which is shown in
`Figure 12 on page 3 of demonstrative exhibits.
`And basically, they would scan a field looking
`for retroreflectors, and then they'd see an
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01439, Patent RE42,913
`Case IPR2014-01441, Patent RE43,681
`Case IPR2014-01443, Patent RE40,927
`
`increase in the signal that comes back. That
`would indicate they've locked on or found one.
`And the main application of this is military.
`You scan looking for, say, binoculars where
`there's a lens on a reflective surface spaced
`just right. But there are other applications, as
`well.
` Moving to Slide 4, this slide identifies
`the claims in each of the IPRs at issue. So in
`the 01439 which deals with the '913 patent,
`Claims 48 through 53 were instituted. And in
`response, OD [Optical Devices] has contested the invalidity
`of all those claims. For IPR2014-014441 which involves
`the '681 patent, Claims 48; 50 to 53; and 60 to
`69 were instituted. OD does not contest the
`invalidity of these claims. Finally, for IPR
`01443 involving the '927 patent, Claims 37 to 38;
`48 to 49; 51 through 53; 55; 57 to 58; 60 through
`61; 63 through 64; 67 through 69; and 71 were
`instituted. OD only contests the invalidity of
`Claims 37 to 38; 58; and 61. The remaining
`claims, OD did not contest the invalidity.
` Moving to Slide 5, there were number of
`constructions that were adopted by the Board.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01439, Patent RE42,913
`Case IPR2014-01441, Patent RE43,681
`Case IPR2014-01443, Patent RE40,927
`
`They're listed on this page. They're really not
`at issue in this case, so I -- unless the Board
`has any questions, I'm going to move on to the
`only real contested claim construction.
` JUDGE PERRY: Please continue.
` MR. LIMBACH: Okay. So moving to page 6,
`Slide 6. So the only construction that's really
`in dispute here is a term, optical gain. So
`Toshiba's construction is an actual increase in
`the radiant flux density of the retroreflective
`beam to the narrowing thereof. That construction
`is applied as compared to or measured against
`relative to a Lambertian radiator. OD's
`construction is a change in radiant flex density
`of the reflective radiant energy, and that's
`measured against any standard reference. And
`this is probably a little backwards than what you
`were used to because normally, the petitioner
`would be moving for a broader construction to try
`to invalidate the claims and the patent owner would
`be going for a narrow construction to try and
`save their patent.
` Here, it's the other way around. And the
`only reason we're contesting this really is
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01439, Patent RE42,913
`Case IPR2014-01441, Patent RE43,681
`Case IPR2014-01443, Patent RE40,927
`
`they've adopted such a broad construction. It's
`just nonsensical. So we believe that the Board
`should construe optical gain so it's corrected in
`the record and base its findings on the proper
`construction of optical gain.
` One other note is that Optical Devices, and
`I'm referring -- I'm going to refer to them today
`as OD if that's okay with the Board. OD says,
`well, we grafted additional limitations onto our
`construction; suggest that maybe our construction
`has additional limitations to it such as
`collimated light or no vignetting. We've done no
`such thing. This is our construction. We've
`never taken the position that those additional
`limitations are part of our construction. We've
`not asserted that optical gain is inherent in
`retroreflectors and all retroreflection. We've
`never taken that position. Their argument
`suggests that we have, and we have not.
` Now, the Board adopted Toshiba's
`construction in the -- for the '913 and the '927
`patents. That's because both sides argued
`optical gain in the Petition, in response to the
`Petition, and the Board took a position. For the
`
` 10
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01439, Patent RE42,913
`Case IPR2014-01441, Patent RE43,681
`Case IPR2014-01443, Patent RE40,927
`
`Petition for the '681 patent, we did not provide
`a construction for optical gain because we were
`not relying on that claim turn in any of the --
`the name of the claims being challenged. The
`Board adopted OD's construction because it was
`uncontested. It's our position that a single
`construction should apply to all the patents
`because it's a common specification. And so one
`construction should --
` (Overlapping voices.)
` JUDGE ARPIN: Counselor.
` MR. LIMBACH: Yes.
` JUDGE ARPIN: Counselor, I know that no
`Patent Owner Response was filed in the 1441 and
`1442 consolidated case. So we have no
`Petitioner's construction of optical gain in that
`case, and Patent Owner has waived all argument
`regarding optical gain. Where does that leave us
`as far as the construction in the 1441 and the
`1442 case, as opposed to other cases?
` MR. LIMBACH: In the 1141 case, we did not
`argue optical gain. In their Motion to Amend the
`claims, they argued optical gain. So for OD,
`they have argued optical gain in that IPR. And
`
` 11
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01439, Patent RE42,913
`Case IPR2014-01441, Patent RE43,681
`Case IPR2014-01443, Patent RE40,927
`
`then in our response to the Motion to Amend, or
`in our Opposition, we did argue the same
`arguments for optical gain that we did in the
`other two IPRs. So the same arguments for
`optical gain have been in our record in all three
`IPRs.
` JUDGE ARPIN: My question though,
`Counselor, is whether it can be of record in the
`Motion to Amend cases since Patent Owner waived
`all arguments regarding optical gain when it
`failed to file a Patent Owner Response in that
`case. Could it have been raised in the Motion to
`Amend if it was waived by the failure to file a
`Patent Owner Response?
` MR. LIMBACH: I don't know the answer to
`that. Maybe that's a question for OD. I hadn't
`thought of that.
` JUDGE ARPIN: Thank you, counselor. Please
`continue.
` MR. LIMBACH: Okay. So moving to Slide
`Number 7. So Toshiba's construction is
`identical, word for word, with the definition,
`the explicit definition that was provided in this
`patent specification. It says that it is to be
`
` 12
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01439, Patent RE42,913
`Case IPR2014-01441, Patent RE43,681
`Case IPR2014-01443, Patent RE40,927
`
`noted that there's an actual increase in the
`radiant flux density of the retroflective beam
`due to the narrowing thereof. This increase in
`radiant flux density is herein termed optical
`gain. So they provided a definition. This is
`the definition -- is our construction. And the
`drawing below illustrates what's going on here.
`On the right, you have standard scattering. We
`have a beam that's coming in from the left. It
`hits a scattering surface where the reflected
`light is scattered in all directions. So very
`few rays come back all the way to the source, and
`so it's -- there's a very little amount of energy
`make it back towards the source. When you have a
`retroreflector, the retroreflector will take the
`beam -- the lens of the retroreflector will take
`the beam and focus it to a spot where a lot of
`the light is reflected back to the lens. What
`the lens does -- it captures this diverging beam
`and it narrows it so that more of the light makes
`it back to the source. So this is what they were
`talking about when they were talking about
`optical gain. You're narrowing the beam to
`provide more light back to the source.
`
` 13
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01439, Patent RE42,913
`Case IPR2014-01441, Patent RE43,681
`Case IPR2014-01443, Patent RE40,927
`
` JUDGE PERRY: Counselor, wasn't there also
`an embodiment described in the specification that
`dealt with absorption? I think it was an antenna
`microwave embodiment.
` MR. LIMBACH: Yes.
` JUDGE PERRY: And, therefore, the radiation
`would be less due to absorption, would it not?
` MR. LIMBACH: So in that embodiment --
`well, first of all, that's not an optical
`configuration. That's a radio frequency or an RF
`embodiment. So at the end of the patent they
`say, well, by the way, these concepts of
`retroreflectivity are similar in an RF situation.
`They say in an RF situation, you can take RF
`waves, put it -- direct it to a microwave dish,
`and the microwave dish will retroreflect back.
`And so they say so you can use the same concepts
`in that case. And in addition to that, once
`you're locked on, using this gain that's coming
`back, once you've locked onto it, you can get
`additional information. What you can do is you
`can vary the frequency of the microwave, the RF
`going out. And if you sweep past the oscillating
`frequency of the microwave dish, it will have an
`
` 14
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01439, Patent RE42,913
`Case IPR2014-01441, Patent RE43,681
`Case IPR2014-01443, Patent RE40,927
`
`increased absorption, and it will go down.
`That's not optical gain. That's -- once you've
`locked onto it, you can now fiddle with the
`signal in order to make the signal go up and down
`to get additional information. It would be akin
`if you were in the optical realm of changing the
`color of the light and trying to figure out what
`type of coating is on the binoculars you just
`found.
` JUDGE PERRY: Right.
` MR. LIMBACH: But that's not optical gain
`because that's -- that has nothing to do with
`narrowing the beam to get more light back to the
`source.
` JUDGE PERRY: So you're saying that optical
`must be limited to what humans perceive to be
`light.
` MR. LIMBACH: Precisely. That's optical --
`there's nothing optical about RF.
` JUDGE PERRY: Don't Maxwell's equations
`apply equally to RF and optical, to the optical
`spectrum?
` MR. LIMBACH: Yes, but when -- by putting
`the word optical in the spec and in the claims,
`
` 15
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01439, Patent RE42,913
`Case IPR2014-01441, Patent RE43,681
`Case IPR2014-01443, Patent RE40,927
`
`they did limit it to Maxwell's equations that we
`can see.
` JUDGE PERRY: Okay.
` MR. LIMBACH: Moving slightly, please.
`Now, Toshiba -- it's our position that what you
`do with our construction is you apply it relative
`to -- you have to do a comparison, and the
`parties agree to that. The patent is very
`specific, and it's our position that -- our
`construction you apply it against a Lambertian
`scattering. The specifications explain that in
`the passage that -- it's on Slide 8. It says, in
`order to obtain the measure of optical gain, you
`must compare the retroreflector to a standard or
`a reference. This reference has been taken to be
`a diffuse surface known as a Lambertian radiator.
`So it provides a standard of reference to which
`you apply the construction of optical gain. And
`with that comparison, you determine when optical
`gain is present or not.
` Now, OD's expert has taken the position
`that when it said standard or reference that
`those are two different things, that they weren't
`being appended, that the Lambertian radiator is
`
` 16
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01439, Patent RE42,913
`Case IPR2014-01441, Patent RE43,681
`Case IPR2014-01443, Patent RE40,927
`
`just an example of a standard, not a reference,
`but a standard, and that there are other
`standards and other reference that may be used,
`as well. But it doesn't say, you know, one --
`you know, a standard can be Lambertian surface.
`It says this reference. Not even a standard,
`this reference, single, one thing. This
`reference has been taken to be a Lambertian
`surface. So it's our position that in order to
`determine whether or not there's optical gain,
`you measure the light coming back from the
`retroflector relative to the light that would
`have come back had it just hit a Lambertian
`scatterer.
` Toshiba's construction is also consistent
`with the word gain. Gain means an increase, a
`positive change. So our construction is also
`consistent with the actual words used in the
`claim phrase.
` Go to Slide 9, please. Now, OD's
`construction which is just a mere change
`contradicts the specification. Wild patents
`refer to an increase. It says an actual increase
`in the radiant flux density. Just increase. It
`
` 17
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01439, Patent RE42,913
`Case IPR2014-01441, Patent RE43,681
`Case IPR2014-01443, Patent RE40,927
`
`doesn't say an increase or a decrease. It makes
`reference to an increase. More importantly, the
`whole concept of optical gain is a narrowing of
`the beam. When you narrow the beam, you're
`necessarily only going to result in an increase.
`You're not going to get a decrease from the
`narrowing to the beam.
` What OD's construction is doing is they're
`rewriting gain to mean gain or loss. There's no
`basis for that.
` Slide 10. Now, OD makes another argument.
`They say, well, you know, when you track -- the
`tracking embodiment involves the detection of
`increases and decreases. So, therefore, optical
`gain could be an increase or a decrease. What
`they're doing here is they're confusing the
`concept of optical gain which is an increase of
`the light coming back with the signals that you
`use to detect it. The signal's going to go up
`when you see optical gain. It's going to go down
`when optical gain goes away. So optical gain is
`not a positive or negative. It's always a
`positive. The signals that you use to detect it
`will go up and down, but the signals are not
`
` 18
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01439, Patent RE42,913
`Case IPR2014-01441, Patent RE43,681
`Case IPR2014-01443, Patent RE40,927
`
`optical gain.
` Then they argue the radar embodiment, well,
`that has an increase and a decrease, and that's
`the situation that Judge Perry just referred to.
`And I've explained that the concept of optical
`gain, first of all, doesn't apply to RF. But
`more importantly, once you've locked on, this is
`just additional information you can get by
`fooling around with the type of signal you send
`out to the retroreflector. There is -- for the
`RF embodiments, there is no mention of detecting
`radiant flex density, and there is no mention of
`optical gain.
` JUDGE ARPIN: Counselor, regardless whether
`it's an increase or a change, is it in both cases
`over time?
` MR. LIMBACH: No, because when you are --
`if you've got a claim that refers just to your
`retroreflecting with optical gain, what you're
`doing is you're saying is the light coming back
`higher than it would be had you compared it to a
`Lambertian surface. What you have to do is you
`have to take the signal that's coming back and
`compare it to a -- what would be from a
`
` 19
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01439, Patent RE42,913
`Case IPR2014-01441, Patent RE43,681
`Case IPR2014-01443, Patent RE40,927
`
`Lambertian surface. So there is no time variable
`on that instance. And there are a lot of claims
`that are directed to retroreflection with optical
`gain and nothing more.
` JUDGE ARPIN: So in each case, it's just a
`comparison of a point to a standard?
` MR. LIMBACH: Correct.
` JUDGE ARPIN: Thank you. Please continue.
` MR. LIMBACH: And if we go over to
`Slide 11, please. OD makes another argument.
`They say well, you know, there's this concept of
`negative gain for antennas and microwave devices,
`and so, therefore, that also supports their
`construction. The claims don't recite negative
`gain. They don't recite negative optical gain.
`The Wild patents don't even contemplate negative
`gain. And like I said before, there is no
`optical gain in -- for antennas and microwave
`devices because they're not optical.
` JUDGE PERRY: So you're saying these claims
`at issue don't even apply to the microwave
`embodiment?
` MR. LIMBACH: They would not. And that
`makes sense because if you look at the claims,
`
` 20
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01439, Patent RE42,913
`Case IPR2014-01441, Patent RE43,681
`Case IPR2014-01443, Patent RE40,927
`
`what's the source? It's a radiant energy source.
`It's light.
` JUDGE PERRY: Doesn't radiant -- doesn't
`the term radiant energy apply to microwaves as
`well as optical --
` MR. LIMBACH: I don't believe so, not in
`the context of the patent. I don't think either
`side has taken the position that those claims are
`broad enough to capture that concept.
` JUDGE PERRY: Thank you.
` JUDGE ARPIN: Counselor, are there any
`claims, challenged or unchallenged, that are
`directed to the antenna and microwave
`configuration?
` MR. LIMBACH: I believe the answer's no,
`but I don't -- I can't say for certain. I'd have
`to go back and look at the unasserted claims.
` JUDGE ARPIN: In none of these three
`patents, there are any claims that address this
`embodiment, the embodiment that you say does
`not -- is not directed to optical gain?
` MR. LIMBACH: If you give me a minute, I
`can look if you'd like.
` JUDGE ARPIN: While you're looking, let me
`
` 21
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01439, Patent RE42,913
`Case IPR2014-01441, Patent RE43,681
`Case IPR2014-01443, Patent RE40,927
`
`explain that the question is asked because I'm
`trying to understand how we are to apply these
`portions of the specification when we are
`supposed consider the specification as a whole to
`the claims; if there are some other claims that
`address -- or that are directed to this specific
`embodiment or if there are no other claims
`directed to the specific embodiment.
` MR. LIMBACH: Understood. I don't recall
`any claims directed to the RF embodiments. Maybe
`during their presentation, I can review the
`claims and verify that and then address it on
`reply.
` JUDGE ARPIN: When you do that, please
`consider whether we should then assume that the
`patent applicant did not seek to cover this
`embodiment or whether this embodiment should be
`considered in some other way in the
`interpretation of the claims that it did file.
` MR. LIMBACH: Understood. If you'd like,
`Claim 44 of the '927 patent is an example of the
`RF, a claim directed to the RF embodiment and not
`the optical embodiment.
` JUDGE ARPIN: Thank you, counselor, I'm sorry
`
` 22
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01439, Patent RE42,913
`Case IPR2014-01441, Patent RE43,681
`Case IPR2014-01443, Patent RE40,927
`
`to interrupt your argument. Please continue.
` MR. LIMBACH: No worries. Now, OD has
`misstated our position on several fronts when
`their -- on this argument of optical gain being
`rendered superfluous because it's an inherent
`property of a retroreflector. And as I've said
`before, we have not argued that optical gain is
`inherent in all retroflectors. What we have said
`is if you have a lens plus surface
`retroreflector, and, in addition to that, you have
`incoming light that's collimated and no
`significant vignetting, then you will necessarily
`have optical gain.
` This is not adding additional limitations
`to our construction. This is a invalidity
`argument. We made this position, we took this
`position and explained it because this is what
`the prior art teaches. And we provided this
`because, say, for the Ando reference, it's got a
`lens and a surface and collimated light. We
`don't have to build or simulate the Ando device
`to establish that there's optical gain because if
`the light's collimated, there's no significant
`vignetting. You have to have optical gain
`
` 23
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01439, Patent RE42,913
`Case IPR2014-01441, Patent RE43,681
`Case IPR2014-01443, Patent RE40,927
`
`because what you've done is you've narrowed the
`light coming back relative to Lambertian surface,
`and you cannot get more light off of a Lambertian
`surface back to the retroflector if these two
`additional conditions are met. So this is not in
`addition to our construction. This is an
`invalidity argument supporting our case with
`respect to, say, for example, the Ando reference.
`Now -- go ahead.
` JUDGE ARPIN: Counselor, is there another
`limitation that the surface must not be a
`Lambertian radiator since you said that the gain
`or, I mean, the change or the increase is
`measured as a point in comparison to a Lambertian
`radiator?
` MR. LIMBACH: I guess I don't understand
`your question.
` JUDGE ARPIN: Well, I'm saying -- you said
`that the -- regardless of whether we accept the
`construction that it's a change, optical gain is
`change or that it's an increase, it's not over
`time. It's in comparison to a standard, the
`standard is a Lambertian radiator. So if the
`thing that you're pointing the light at is a
`
` 24
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01439, Patent RE42,913
`Case IPR2014-01441, Patent RE43,681
`Case IPR2014-01443, Patent RE40,927
`
`Lambertian radiator, there would by definition be
`no gain or increase because there's no change.
`Is that not correct?
` MR. LIMBACH: So the comparison is
`retroreflector versus a Lambertian scatterer.
`And it -- the question is --
` JUDGE ARPIN: And if the reflector is a
`Lambertian radiator, then there would be no
`difference, correct?
` MR. LIMBACH: I believe the answer is
`incorrect. I think your question is, if your
`retroreflector is a lens in front of a Lambertian
`surface -- is that your question?
` JUDGE ARPIN: As the -- whether the
`retroreflector is a Lambertian surface since you
`told me that optical gain is the change or the
`difference between the standard and what is
`measured.
` MR. LIMBACH: But what is measured is from
`a retroreflector. The comparison is, is the
`signal coming back from a retroreflector to the
`signal coming back from a Lambertian surface
`without the aid of the lens in front of it. So
`it's always a comparison of --
`
` 25
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01439, Patent RE42,913
`Case IPR2014-01441, Patent RE43,681
`Case IPR2014-01443, Patent RE40,927
`
` JUDGE ARPIN: May I please --
` MR. LIMBACH: I'm sorry. Did that answer
`your question.
` JUDGE ARPIN: Yes, it did. Thank you.
` MR. LIMBACH: Okay. So I want to talk a
`little bit about what vignetting means, so that
`everybody understands what the applicants are
`talking about. Vignetting is where some of the
`rays are lost because of the particular optical
`setup. So if you look at the example for Figure
`2, you see that the -- once you get to a steep
`enough angle, some of the rays are going to miss
`being collected by the lens. So you can see an
`example of that with Ray 34R. Here's an example
`of where you have retroreflection. The light
`that is captured by the lens is sent back
`parallel, but some of the rays are lost, and your
`signal's going to drop a bit. You're still going
`to have optical gain, and you're still going to
`have retroreflection. But you're going to get to
`the point if you continue to vignette higher and
`higher and higher that eventually, the signal
`coming back is going to drop equal or less than
`what would be from the Lambertian surface.
`
` 26
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01439, Patent RE42,913
`Case IPR2014-01441, Patent RE43,681
`Case IPR2014-01443, Patent RE40,927
`
` Another example of vignetting is you can
`see that you're starting to clip the very edge of
`the surface there at 22-A. As you slowly go off
`the edge of that, your signal's going to go fr
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
