BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`Trial No.:
`
`IPR 2015-01644
`
`In re:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,785,065
`
`Patent Owner:
`
`Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea Corporation
`
`Petitioner:
`
`LG Electronics, Inc., and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.
`
`Inventors:
`
`Byung-youn Song and Kyung-sik Shin
`
`For: OPTICAL PICKUP ACTUATOR DRIVING METHOD AND APPARATUS
`THEREFOR
`
`
`
`* * * * * * * * * * *
`
`DECLARATION OF DAVID B. BOGY
`
`I, David B. Bogy, hereby declare as follows:
`
`1. My name is David B. Bogy. I reside at 8531 Buckingham Dr. El
`
`Cerrito, CA 94530, and work at the University of California, Berkley.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained by Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea
`
`Corporation (“TSST” or “Patent Owner”). I understand that TSST is the owner of
`
`patents involved in several Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs). This declaration relates to
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,785,065 (the ‘065 patent) and the IPR with which it is involved,
`
`which I understand to be IPR2015-01644.
`
`3.
`
`I am currently the William S. Floyd, Jr. Distinguished Professor of the
`
`Graduate School in Engineering and the Director of the Computer Mechanics
`
`1
`
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2015-01644
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`Trial No.:
`
`IPR 2015-01644
`
`In re:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,785,065
`
`Patent Owner:
`
`Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea Corporation
`
`Petitioner:
`
`LG Electronics, Inc., and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.
`
`Inventors:
`
`Byung-youn Song and Kyung-sik Shin
`
`For: OPTICAL PICKUP ACTUATOR DRIVING METHOD AND APPARATUS
`THEREFOR
`
`
`
`* * * * * * * * * * *
`
`DECLARATION OF DAVID B. BOGY
`
`I, David B. Bogy, hereby declare as follows:
`
`1. My name is David B. Bogy. I reside at 8531 Buckingham Dr. El
`
`Cerrito, CA 94530, and work at the University of California, Berkley.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained by Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea
`
`Corporation (“TSST” or “Patent Owner”). I understand that TSST is the owner of
`
`patents involved in several Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs). This declaration relates to
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,785,065 (the ‘065 patent) and the IPR with which it is involved,
`
`which I understand to be IPR2015-01644.
`
`3.
`
`I am currently the William S. Floyd, Jr. Distinguished Professor of the
`
`Graduate School in Engineering and the Director of the Computer Mechanics
`
`1
`
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2015-01644
`
`
`
`Laboratory of the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the University of
`
`California, Berkley. My curriculum vitae (CV) is attached at the rear of this
`
`declaration. My educational and professional background is summarized below.
`
`4.
`
`To summarize my educational and academic background, I attended
`
`Rice University where I earned a B.S. degree in Mechanical Engineering and
`
`Geology, and an M.S. degree in Mechanical Engineering. I then attended Brown
`
`University, where I earned a Ph.D. in the field of Applied Mathematics. After
`
`receiving my Ph.D., I took a position as a postdoctoral fellow in the Division of
`
`Engineering and Applied Science at the California Institute of Technology
`
`(Caltech).
`
`5.
`
`I thereafter held Assistant Professor and Associate Professor positions
`
`in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the University of California,
`
`Berkley. I became a Full Professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering
`
`at the University of California, Berkley, in 1975. I received my Distinguished
`
`Professor position in 2009, and I still hold that title. In 1989, I founded the
`
`Computer Mechanics Laboratory of the Department of Mechanical Engineering at
`
`the University of California, Berkley, and I have been its Director since then.
`
`6. While at the University of California, Berkley, I served as the Vice
`
`Chairman of Graduate Studies for the Department of Mechanical Engineering from
`
`2
`
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2015-01644
`
`
`
`1977-1980, the Department Chairman of the Department of Mechanical
`
`Engineering from 1991-1999.
`
`7.
`
`I have supervised to completion 65 Ph.D. degree dissertations. About
`
`one-third of these degree recipients are professors in major research universities,
`
`and most of the remaining ones are engineers in the computer storage device
`
`industry.
`
`8.
`
`I have received a number of awards during my professional career.
`
`For example, I am a member of the National Academy of Engineering (1994) and
`
`was elected Chair of the Mechanical Engineering Section in 1997. I served on its
`
`Membership Peer Committee. I also have served as Chair of the Executive
`
`Committees of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers’ Division of
`
`Applied Mechanics and its Division of Tribology. I received the ASME Tribology
`
`Division Mayo D. Hersey Award in 1999. I am a Fellow of the American
`
`Academy of Mechanics, a Life Fellow of the American Society of Mechanical
`
`Engineers, and a Life Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
`
`Engineers (IEEE). I received the Distinguished Contribution Award from the
`
`Information Storage Industry Consortium in 2006. I received the IEEE 2010
`
`Reynold B. Johnson Data Storage Device Technology Award. I also received the
`
`Berkeley Citation in May 2010, and the 2009-2010 Berkeley Faculty Service
`
`Award.
`
`3
`
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2015-01644
`
`
`
`9. My research interests are in solid and fluid mechanics, tribology, and
`
`dynamics, especially as regards their application to mechanical aspects in computer
`
`technology. The Computer Mechanics Laboratory, of which I was the founder and
`
`have served as the Director, is dedicated to research in computer storage devices.
`
`It is funded primarily by the computer industry, but also enjoys specific project
`
`funding by the state and national government agencies. It regularly has 4 faculty
`
`participants, about 20 graduate students, several undergraduates, postdocs, and
`
`visiting scholars or industrial fellows. Industrial member companies have included
`
`IBM, Digital Equipment, Digital Papyrus, DAS Devices, Hitachi Metals, Hitachi
`
`Ltd., HTI, Hysitron, Fuji Electric, Iomega, NEC, Read-Rite, Applied Magnetics,
`
`SAE Magnetics, Quantum, Seagate, Silmag, Sanyo, Yamaha, Yamagata Mitsumi,
`
`Fujitsu Ltd., Mitsubishi Chemical, Komag, NTT, SyQuest, Western Digital, and
`
`Zygo.
`
`10.
`
`I have authored or co-authored over 400 archive journal publications
`
`over the years in the field of mechanical engineering and applied mechanics,
`
`especially in connection with their application to mechanical aspects in computer
`
`technology. For example, many of these papers have been concerned with
`
`mechanics of particular configurations associated with computer magnetic
`
`recording disk drives.
`
`4
`
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2015-01644
`
`
`
`11. Since 1971, I have been an engineering consultant to several U.S. and
`
`foreign corporations including, for example, IBM, Western Digital, Samsung,
`
`Digital Equipment Corporation, and others. I also have been a consultant on
`
`intellectual property issues.
`
`12.
`
`I am being compensated for my time at my usual and customary rate.
`
`I have no personal or financial stake or interest in the outcome of this Inter Partes
`
`Review, or any related action. My compensation in no way depends upon my
`
`testimony or the outcome of this Inter Partes Review, or any related action.
`
`13.
`
`I have reviewed and am familiar with at least the following
`
`documents, and any other document mentioned herein: the ‘065 patent (Ex. 1001);
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,343,053 to Akanuma et al. (Akanuma, Ex. 1002); U.S. Patent
`
`No. 5,905,255 to Wakabayashi et al. (Wakabayashi, Ex. 1007); U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,428,481 to Ikegame et al. (Ikegame, Ex. 1005); the Declaration of Masud
`
`Mansuripur (Ex. 1011); the definition of “on” from Webster’s Third New
`
`International Dictionary (unabridged), copyright 2002 (Ex. 2001); and the Masud
`
`Mansuripur deposition transcript (Ex. 2002). It is my understanding that the ‘065
`
`patent has an effective filing date of at least as early as June 19, 2001.
`
`My Understanding of the Law Regarding Patent Validity
`
`14. The following is what I have been told about the law regarding
`
`validity of a patent, and it represents my understanding of the same. It is my
`
`5
`
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2015-01644
`
`
`
`understanding that LG Electronics, Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. (who I
`
`understanding are the “Petitioner” in this IPR proceeding) have the burden of
`
`proving invalidity in an IPR proceeding by a preponderance of the evidence. As
`
`explained below, it is my opinion that the challenged claims of the ‘065 patent are
`
`not invalid under this standard.
`
`15. Anticipation. It is my understanding that a claim of a patent is
`
`“anticipated” only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found,
`
`either expressly or inherently, in a single prior art reference. If even a single
`
`element is missing, the claim is not anticipated. It is my understanding that a
`
`feature is “inherent” in a reference only if that feature is necessarily present in the
`
`reference – not merely probably or possibly present. Furthermore, it is my
`
`understanding that in order to anticipate, a prior art reference must not only
`
`disclose all elements of the claim, but must also disclose those elements as
`
`arranged as in the claim. It is my understanding that there are no anticipation
`
`rejections at issue here.
`
`16. Obviousness. It is my understanding that a patent claim is invalid for
`
`“obviousness” if the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious to one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in view of a single prior art
`
`reference or a combination of prior art references. I understand that a
`
`determination of whether a claimed invention would have been obvious requires
`
`6
`
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2015-01644
`
`
`
`taking into consideration factors that include assessing the scope and content of the
`
`prior art, the differences between the prior art and the claimed invention, and the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. It is my understanding that the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art is determined by considering the type of problems
`
`encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to those problems, the rapidity with
`
`which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology involved, and the
`
`educational level of active workers in the field. It is my understanding that a prior
`
`art reference may be considered to teach away from the invention when a person of
`
`ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be led in a direction divergent
`
`from the path that was taken by the claimed invention; and that the general rule is
`
`that references that teach away cannot serve to create a prima facie case of
`
`obviousness.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`17. As of 2001, it is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art to
`
`which the ‘065 patent pertains would likely be a person with a bachelor’s degree in
`
`electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, and/or physics with two to five
`
`years of teaching or work experience in the relevant field. Of course, one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art might have either more formal education with less
`
`experience, or less formal education with more experience.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2015-01644
`
`
`
`Issues Involving the ‘065 Patent
`
`18.
`
`It is my understanding that the PTAB (Board), on January 29, 2016,
`
`instituted an IPR trial regarding the ‘065 patent for only the following grounds:
`
`1. Whether claims 1, 2, and 5-9 are unpatentable as obvious under 35
`
`U.S.C. §103(a) over Akanuma and the Admitted Prior Art (APA);
`
`2. Whether claims 1, 2, and 5-9 are unpatentable as obvious under 35
`
`U.S.C. §103(a) over Akanuma, the APA, and Ikegame;
`
`3. Whether claims 3 and 4 are unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§103(a) over Akanuma, the APA, and Wakabayashi; and
`
`4. Whether claims 3 and 4 are unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§103(a) over Akanuma, the APA, Ikegame, and Wakabayashi.
`
`The ‘065 Patent
`
`19. The ‘065 patent relates to, among other things, an apparatus and a
`
`method of driving an optical pickup actuator. More particularly, the ‘065 patent
`
`relates to, among other things, an apparatus and a method of driving an optical
`
`pickup actuator in which coils that drive an optical pickup in a focus direction, a
`
`track direction, and a tilt direction are provided on and in physical contact with two
`
`opposing side surfaces of a bobbin, and the focus coil(s) is also used as the tilt
`
`coil(s). See Ex. 1001, Abstract.
`
`8
`
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2015-01644
`
`
`
`Fig. 3 of ‘065 Patent
`
`Fig. 4 of ‘065 Patent
`
`
`
`
`
`20. Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 show an optical pickup actuator including “a base
`
`10, a holder 12 provided at one side of the base 10, a bobbin 15 on which an
`
`objective lens 14 is mounted, and a magnetic driving portion which drives the
`
`bobbin 14 in a focus direction, a tilt direction, and a track direction.” Id. at 5:9-15.
`
`21. As will be appreciated from Fig. 4, for example, an exemplary driving
`
`portion includes at least one focus and tilt coil and at least one track coil provided
`
`on each of opposite side surfaces 15a of the bobbin 15. Id. at 5:16-21 & 8:54-58.
`
`A magnet 22 is installed to face each combination of the focus and tilt coil and the
`
`track coil provided on each of the opposite side surfaces. Id. The ‘065 patent also
`
`states that “outer yokes 25 and inner yokes 27 may be further provided to guide
`
`9
`
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2015-01644
`
`
`
`lines of a magnetic force generated by the magnets 22 in a desired direction.” Id.
`
`at 6:33-36.
`
`22.
`
`In certain embodiments of the ‘065 patent, there is provided “a
`
`method of independently applying a signal to each of the first through fourth focus
`
`and tilt coils FC1, FC2, FC3, and FC4. That is, where a focus signal is applied to
`
`the first through fourth focus and tilt coils FC1, FC2, FC3 and FC4, the bobbin 15
`
`move up and down and is driven in the focus direction F. Id. at 7:46-52. The ‘065
`
`patent goes on to explain that, “[i]n contrast, the driving in the tilt radial direction
`
`Tir and the driving in the tilt tangential direction Tit can be controlled by
`
`selectively inputting an input signal to each of the first through fourth focus and tilt
`
`coils FC1, FC2, FC3, and FC4.” Id. at 7:54-57.
`
`23.
`
`In another embodiment, “in order to drive the actuator in the focus
`
`and tilt directions, a first input signal is applied to a first set and a second input
`
`signal is applied to a second set . . .” (Id. at 9:6-8). The specification of the ‘065
`
`patent, at col. 7:21-45 for example, describes the supporting embodiment where
`
`applying first and second input signals to the first and second coils sets,
`
`respectively, simultaneously drives the actuator in both the focus and tilt
`
`directions. As explained in the ‘065 patent specification at col. 7:21-35 (with
`
`emphasis added) and in connection with Figs. 7C and 8C, “the driving of the
`
`bobbin 15 in the focus and tilt directions can be simultaneously controlled by
`
`10
`
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2015-01644
`
`
`
`applying a sum signal of the first and second input signals for driving in the tilt
`
`direction as a signal for driving in the focus direction.”
`
`24. Advantageously, positioning the coils in the specifically claimed
`
`manner creates a sufficient space on the other side surfaces of the bobbin. See id.
`
`at 3:14-15. It also becomes possible to enable drive in the focus direction and the
`
`tilt direction to be controlled together by a single coil. Id. at 3:16-17. The claimed
`
`arrangement also advantageously enables a support member to be easily installed
`
`at opposite side surfaces of the bobbin, and for the number of support members to
`
`be reduced. Id. at 8:25-28. This, in turn, can help in lowering the number of
`
`defective units produced and aid in providing for three- or four-axis driving. Id. at
`
`8:28-30.
`
`Claim Interpretation
`
`25.
`
`In the next three sections, I set forth my understanding of certain
`
`terms from the ‘065 patent. I later may provide additional comments that may be
`
`seen as claim interpretations.
`
`My Interpretation of “on each of opposite side surfaces” (claim 1)
`
`26.
`
`In my opinion, one skilled of ordinary skill in the art giving the phrase
`
`“on each of opposite side surfaces” its broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`consistent with this specification, or assigning this term its ordinary and customary
`
`11
`
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2015-01644
`
`
`
`meaning in light of this specification, would understand it to mean “over and in
`
`contact with each of opposite side surfaces.”
`
`27.
`
`I believe that the PTAB and the Petitioner implicitly construed this
`
`term more broadly. See Paper 8, pp. 13-14 & Pet. 18-19. While the “on” might
`
`arguably be susceptible to a broader meaning if it were read in the abstract, it is my
`
`opinion that such interpretation would be unreasonably broad in this specific
`
`context, because it would conflict with the ‘065 patent specification.
`
`28. The ‘065 drawings illustrate that “on each of opposite side surfaces”
`
`means “over and in contact with each of opposite side surfaces.” Figs. 3-4, for
`
`example, show focus and tilt coils FC1-FC4 and track coils TC1-TC2 arranged
`
`over and in contact with each of the opposite side surfaces 15a of the bobbin 15.
`
`See Ex. 1001 at Figs. 3-4; 5:16-37. These figures are reproduced again, for ease of
`
`reference.
`
`12
`
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2015-01644
`
`
`
`Fig. 3 of ‘065 Patent
`
`Fig. 4 of ‘065 Patent
`
`
`
`
`
`29.
`
`In the ‘065 patent, there is consistent and repeated textual description
`
`and visual depiction of the focus and tilt coils FC1-FC4 and track coils TC1-TC2
`
`being arranged over and in contact with each of the opposite side surfaces 15a of
`
`the bobbin 15. The claims also are consistent in this regard.
`
`30. Based on my review of the ‘065 patent, the word “on” appears therein
`
`approximately 25 times. Ignoring the appearance of the word “on” in the claims,
`
`in the “Cross-Reference to Related Applications” Section (which specifies a date
`
`that a Korean application was filed “on”), and in the two instances that the phrase
`
`“[o]n the other hand” appears, I find that the ‘065 patent uses the term “on” about
`
`17 times. Each of these 17 instances uses the term “on” as a function word to
`
`indicate position.
`
`13
`
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2015-01644
`
`
`
`31.
`
`In my view, each of the approximate 17 instances in which the term
`
`“on” is used as a function word to indicate position indicates a position in contact
`
`with. This is true, regardless of whether the positional relationship pertains to (1)
`
`“form[ing] a light spot on the optical disk” (Ex. 1001 at 1:33-35), (2) “first and
`
`second magnets 117 and 119 [being] installed on the base 100” (id. at 2:2-3), (3)
`
`“a bobbin 15 on which an objective lens 14 is mounted” (id. at 5:9-15), (4) or even
`
`a “fine pattern coil 20 [being] manufactured by patterning a coil shape on a film”
`
`(id. at 6:10-13). In my view, the ‘065 patent consistently uses the word “on” to
`
`describe in contact with.
`
`32.
`
`In my view, the ‘065 patent consistently avoids using the word “on”
`
`to refer to non-contacting positional relationships. For example, the support
`
`members 30 shown in Figs. 3-4 are not shown as being “on” (i.e., in position over
`
`and in contact with) side surfaces of the bobbin 15. Nor are they described or
`
`claimed as such. For example, the ‘065 patent states that “[a] support member 30
`
`is arranged at each of the other opposite side surfaces 15b of the bobbin (where the
`
`focus and tilt coils FC1-FC4 and the tracks coils TC1-TC2 are not arranged)” (id.
`
`at 5:30-33), and concludes by noting that “a support member can be easily
`
`installed at the other opposite side surfaces” (id. at 8:26-28).
`
`33. The ‘065 patent claims maintain this distinction between the use of
`
`the word “on” to refer to being in position over and in contact with, and other
`
`14
`
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2015-01644
`
`
`
`terms that avoid this meaning. For example, claim 1 requires, among other things,
`
`“at least one focus and tilt coil . . . and at least one track coil . . . arranged on each
`
`of opposite side surfaces of the bobbin”, with “support members . . . provided to
`
`the other side surfaces of the bobbin . . .” (id. at 8:54-60).
`
`34.
`
`In my view, the inventors distinguished between different types of
`
`positional relationships – and did so in both the specification and in claims. By
`
`contrast, accepting simply for the sake of argument that the term “on” may or may
`
`not “indicate position over and in contact with” would result in two terms clearly
`
`intended to have different meanings in the claim’s context meaning the same thing.
`
`That is, “on . . . side surfaces” and “provided to . . . side surfaces” – which are two
`
`different terms intended to have different meanings in the claim’s context (e.g., as
`
`further evidenced by the figures and descriptions of the ‘065 patent) – would mean
`
`the same thing if “on” were given a broader meaning. In my view, this would be
`
`contrary to the examples in the specification, the consistent usage of the term “on”
`
`throughout, and would be contrary to how one skilled in the art would read the
`
`patent in its entirety.
`
`35.
`
`In a similar vein, I believe that the ‘065 patent specification indicates
`
`that the inventors knew how to avoid indicating a contacting relationship. For
`
`example, the ‘065 patent states that “[a]n optical pickup performs recording and/or
`
`reproduction of information with respect to a recording medium . . . in a non-
`
`15
`
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2015-01644
`
`
`
`contact manner while moving in a radial direction of the optical disk.” Ex. 1001 at
`
`1:27-32. This careful use of language clearly and unequivocally indicates a “non-
`
`contact” positional relationship.
`
`36.
`
`In view of the foregoing, I believe that the inventors knew exactly
`
`how to distinguish between (1) a positional relationship indicating “over and in
`
`contact with,” (2) a positional relationship that might be over and in contact with,
`
`and (3) a positional relationship that is not “over and in contact with.” Thus, the
`
`specification as a whole confirms that the term “on each of opposite side surfaces”
`
`in claim 1 should be interpreted to mean “over and in contact with each of opposite
`
`side surfaces.” This interpretation is consistent with the specification and every
`
`embodiment shown and described therein. By contrast, an interpretation that reads
`
`the term more broadly would conflict with the specification, at least because it
`
`would blur together the specification’s teachings concerning when something may
`
`or may not be provided over and in contact with, the express disclaimer of non-
`
`contact portions, and the claim 1 language identified above, which draws a
`
`distinction between something that is “provided to” something else (and thus may
`
`or may not be over and in contact with it) and an element that is actually “on”
`
`something else (and thus is in contact with it).
`
`37. My belief in this regard is further supported by the inclusion of the
`
`term “surfaces” in claim 1. That is, claim 1 specifically requires both “at least one
`
`16
`
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2015-01644
`
`
`
`focus and tilt coil . . . and at least one track coil . . . arranged on each of opposite
`
`side surfaces of the bobbin” and “support members . . . provided to the other side
`
`surfaces of the bobbin . . .” (id. at 8:54-60). This claim language is specific in
`
`twice referring to “side surfaces,” not just “sides.” The inclusion of the term
`
`surfaces is significant, and further emphasizes the existence of a physical contact
`
`surface, as opposed to generally orientation “at” or “near” or “in” or “adjacent” a
`
`side.
`
`38.
`
`In my view, the careful and repeated use of the term “side surfaces”
`
`as opposed to just “sides” should not be overlooked in trying to understand what
`
`this language of claim 1 means. In this regard, an interpretation that does not take
`
`into account actual “contact” with a “surface” would instead refer to “at each of
`
`opposite sides” – thereby allowing the structures to be anywhere near the sides.
`
`That would make superfluous the term “surfaces” in the phrase “side surfaces.” In
`
`my view, it would be improper to read the word “surfaces” out of claim 1. And in
`
`my view, the presence of the term “surfaces” further confirms that an
`
`interpretation indicative of a positional relationship “over and in contact with” is
`
`correct.
`
`39. Dictionary definitions also support this view. For example, the very
`
`first definition in Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (unabridged)
`
`17
`
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2015-01644
`
`
`
`indicates that “on” is “used as a function word to indicate position over and in
`
`contact with that which supports from beneath.” Ex. 2001.
`
`My Interpretation of “in order to drive the actuator in the focus and tilt
`
`directions, a first input signal is applied to a first set and a second input
`
`signal is applied to a second set . . . ” (claim 3)
`
`40. Claim 3 is dependent on claim 2, which is dependent on claim 1.
`
`Claim 3 recites, among other things, that “in order to drive the actuator in the focus
`
`and tilt directions, a first input signal is applied to a first set and a second input
`
`signal is applied to a second set . . .” (Ex. 1001 at 9:6-8).
`
`41.
`
`In my view, this language should be interpreted to require, among
`
`other things, that the actuator is driven in both the focus direction and the tilt
`
`direction when the recited first and second input signals are applied to the first and
`
`second coil sets, respectively. In my view, this interpretation is consistent with the
`
`plain and ordinary meaning of claim 3 and the specification, and is needed to give
`
`full weight to all claim terms therein.
`
`42. The specification of the ‘065 patent, at col. 7:21-45 for example,
`
`describes the supporting embodiment where applying first and second input signals
`
`to the first and second coils sets, respectively, simultaneously drives the actuator in
`
`both the focus and tilt directions. As explained in the ‘065 patent specification at
`
`col. 7:21-35 (with emphasis added) and in connection with Figs. 7C and 8C:
`
`18
`
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2015-01644
`
`
`
`[T]he driving of the bobbin 15 in the focus and tilt directions
`
`can be simultaneously controlled by applying a sum signal of
`
`the first and second input signals for driving in the tilt direction
`
`as a signal for driving in the focus direction. That is, a sum
`
`signal (FIG. 7C) of the focus driving signal (FIG. 7A) and the
`
`first input signal (FIG. 7B) for driving in the tilt direction is
`
`input to the first set coil. A sum signal (FIG. 8C) of the focus
`
`driving signal (FIG. 8A) and the second input signal (FIG. 7C)
`
`for driving in the tilt direction is input to the second set coil.
`
`Thus, driving in the focus direction F, and the tilt radial
`
`direction Tir or the tangential tilt direction Tit can be controlled
`
`simultaneously.
`
`43. This disclosure, and the Fig. 7C and 8C drawings, confirm that this
`
`language of claim 3 should be interpreted to require, among other things, that the
`
`actuator is driven in both the focus direction and the tilt direction when the recited
`
`first and second input signals are applied to the first and second coil sets,
`
`respectively.
`
`My Interpretation of “the radial, track, tilt and focusing directions”
`
`44. Claim 1 requires, among other things, “a control unit driving the
`
`spindle motor and the optical pickup to transfer the information with respect to the
`
`recording medium and controlling the actuator of the optical pickup in the radial,
`
`track, tilt and focusing directions.” My understanding is that Petitioner has alleged
`
`confusion as to what this language means. However, my understanding is that the
`
`19
`
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2015-01644
`
`
`
`clarity or “definiteness” of this language cannot be resolved in the context of this
`
`IPR.
`
`45. Although this language is not relevant to patentability of the
`
`challenged claims in this proceeding, my view is that this language is not
`
`confusing at all – especially when the structure and function of the optical pickup
`
`is considered in context. In this regard, I note first that the optical pickup has to
`
`move in the radial direction in order to access all tracks on the disk. See, e.g., Ex.
`
`1001 at 1:26-31. Second, the actuator in Fig. 3 has a base 10 and a bobbin 15. It is
`
`important to distinguish the actuator from just one of its parts, namely, the bobbin
`
`15. See, e.g., id. at 5:9-15. Third, claim 1 clearly is directed to an optical
`
`recording and/or reproducing apparatus, not just the bobbin.
`
`46.
`
`It is important to remember that the bobbin is just part of the actuator,
`
`and that the actuator has to also move the optical pickup in the radial direction as
`
`described in the Description of the Related Art of the ‘065 patent. The control unit
`
`in claim 1 drives not just the bobbin, but also the spindle motor as well as the
`
`actuator (including the base) in the radial direction. It also controls the bobbin
`
`relative to the base to adjust along the track, the tilt and the focus.
`
`47. As a result, when the technology of the ‘065 patent is understood, and
`
`when claim 1 is read fully and completely and in this context, I believe that there
`
`20
`
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2015-01644
`
`
`
`are no issues in understanding what the above-identified language of claim 1
`
`means. In my view, one skilled in the art would find this language clear.
`
`AKANUMA AND THE APA
`
`48. Claim 1 requires, among other things, “at least one focus and tilt coil
`
`which drives the bobbin in the focus and the tilt directions and at least one track
`
`coil which drives the bobbin in the track direction arranged on each of opposite
`
`side surfaces of the bobbin.” In my opinion, Akanuma and the APA, alone and in
`
`combination, do not teach or suggest at least this language of claim 1.
`
`Furthermore, in my opinion, Akanuma has a particular structure that would prevent
`
`this arrangement from being realized in any realistic or reasonable combination
`
`with the APA.
`
`49. Akanuma’s drive coil assemblies 21 include focusing coils 27 and
`
`tracking coils 28. Ex. 1002 at Figs. 5A-8; 6:63-65; 7:24-27; 8:10-13; and 8:17-18.
`
`My understanding is that Petitioner asserts that Akanuma’s focusing coil 27 and
`
`tracking coil 28 correspond to the claimed at least one focus and tilt coil and at
`
`least one track coil, respectively. Pet. 36-37. The Petition seems to rely on two
`
`different embodiments of Akanuma. Pet. 18-19. The first relied-on embodiment
`
`in Akanuma is shown in Figs. 5A-6, and the second relied-on embodiment in
`
`Akanuma is shown in Figs. 7A-8. Petitioner asserts that:
`
`21
`
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2015-01644
`
`
`
`In the first embodiment of Akanuma, drive coil assemblies 21
`
`each including focusing coils 27 and tracking coils 28 are
`
`arranged on the outer surface of two side walls 20 on opposite-
`
`sides of the objective lens supporting member 14 by mounting
`
`the drive coil assemblies to the side walls 20. . . . In the second
`
`embodiment, the drive coil assemblies 21 including the
`
`focusing coils 27 and the tracking coils 28 are again arranged
`
`on surfaces of the side walls 20 on opposite-sides of the
`
`objective lens supporting member 14. . . .
`
`Pet. 18-19. In my view, these statements do not reflect what is shown in and
`
`described in connection with the relevant figures of Akanuma.
`
`50. Fig. 5A and Fig. 7A of Akanuma are shown below:
`
`Fig. 5A of Akanuma
`
`Fig. 7A of Akanuma
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2015-01644
`
`
`
`Akanuma states that the drive coil assembly 21 in its entirety is mounted to the side
`
`walls 20 of the objective lens supporting member 14 in the first embodiment. This
`
`is visually shown in Fig. 5A. Ex. 1002 at Fig. 5A; 6:63-65. By contrast, Akanuma
`
`shows that the drive coil assembly 21 in its entirety is embedded within the side
`
`walls 20 in the second embodiment, as shown by Fig. 7A. Ex. 1002 at Fig. 7A;
`
`8:17-18.
`
`51.
`
`In my view, regardless of the arrangement of Akanuma’s focusing
`
`coils 27 and tracking coils 28 in its drive coil assembly 21 in its second
`
`embodiment, claim 1 cannot be met because Akanuma’s second embodiment
`
`involves both of the focusing coils 27 and tracking coils 28 being embedded in its
`
`side walls 20 (i.e., by virtue of their being included in the drive coil assembly 21
`
`clearly shown as being embedded in the side walls 20 in Fig. 7A and being
`
`described as such in Akanuma). And the furthest coil from the bobbin center does
`
`not appear to contact the surfaces of the bobbin.
`
`52.
`
`In my view, in Akanuma’s second embodiment, the focusing coils 27
`
`and tracking coils 28 cannot reasonably be said to be “on each of opposite side
`
`surfaces of the bobbin.” Embedding within side walls is not providing “on . . .
`
`side surfaces” as required by ‘065 patent claim 1. This is further emphasized when
`
`“on each of opposite side surfaces” is properly interpreted to mean “over and in
`
`23
`
`Exhibit 2003
`IPR2015-01644
`
`
`
`contact with each of opposite side surfaces,” as embedding within side walls lacks
`
`an “over and in contact with” relationship regarding the side surface.
`
`53. Figs. 6 and 8 of Akanuma are exploded views, showing the positional
`
`relationship of the focusing coil 27 and the tracking coil 28 relative to one another.
`
`These drawings are as follows:
`
`Fig. 6 of Akanuma
`
`Fig. 8 of Akanuma
`
`54. A visual check of the positional relationship of the focusing coils 27
`
`
`
`
`
`and tracking coils 28 that compose the drive coil assembly 21 in Figs. 6 and 8 of
`
`Akanuma confirms that the
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
