throbber
Date filed: July 29, 2016
`
`Filed on behalf of: LG Electronics, Inc. and Paper ____
`
`
`
` LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.
`
`
`
`
`By: Brian A. Tollefson, Lead Counsel
`Michael V. Battaglia, Back-up Counsel
`Michael H. Jones, Back-up Counsel (Pro Hac Vice)
`ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C.
`607 14th Street, N.W., Suite 800
`Washington, DC 20005
`Phone: 202-783-6040
`Facsimile: 202-783-6031
`Emails: btollefson@rothwellfigg.com
`
` mbattaglia@rothwellfigg.com
`
` mjones@rothwellfigg.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC., and
`LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`TOSHIBA SAMSUNG STORAGE TECHNOLOGY KOREA CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2015-01644
`Patent 6,785,065 B1
`_______________
`
`
`
`PETITIONER REPLY TO PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iv 
`
`EXHIBIT LIST .......................................................................................................... v 
`
`INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`TSST-K’s construction of “on each of opposite side surfaces” (claim
`1) is overly narrow and does not comply with BRI. ....................................... 2 
`
`Claim 3 does not require simultaneous focusing and tilting. ........................ 10 
`
`The cited references render the claims obvious. ........................................... 10 
`
`a. 
`
`b. 
`
`c. 
`
`Under the proper construction, the coils of Akanuma are “on
`each of opposite side surfaces of the bobbin.” .................................... 10 
`
`Even under TSST-K’s erroneous construction, the coils of
`Akanuma are over and in contact with opposite side surfaces of
`the bobbin. ........................................................................................... 11 
`
`Even under TSST-K’s erroneous construction, Akanuma
`renders coils over and in contact with opposite side surfaces of
`the bobbin obvious. ............................................................................. 12 
`
`4. 
`
`Even if claim 3 were interpreted as driving an actuator in focus and
`tilt directions simultaneously, both Akanuma and Wakabayashi
`disclose driving an actuator in focus and tilt directions simultaneously. ...... 15 
`
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 23 
`
`CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT ...................................................................... 24 
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................ 25 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,785,065
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases 
`
`In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies v. Lee,
`2016 U.S. Lexis 3927 (U.S. June, 20, 2016) ......................................................... 9
`
`Senmed, Inc. v. Richard-Allan Medical Industries, Inc.,
`888 F.2d 815 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ................................................................................ 8
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,785,065
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Reference
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,785,065 to Song et al. (filed on Feb. 6, 2004)
`(issued on Aug. 31, 2004) (“the ’065 patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,343,053 to Akanuma et al. (filed Aug. 25, 1999)
`(issued Jan. 29, 2002) (“Akanuma”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,043,964 to Suzuki (filed May 8, 1990) (issued
`August 27, 1991) (“Suzuki”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,043,935 to Kim et al. (filed December 31, 1998)
`(issued March 7, 2000) (“Kim”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,428,481 to Ikegame et al. (filed November 1, 1990)
`(issued June 27, 1995) (“Ikegame”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,134,058 to Mohri et al. (filed June 29, 1999) (issued
`October 17, 2000) (“Mohri”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,905,255 to Wakabayashi et al. (filed January 14,
`1998) (issued May 18, 1999) (“Wakabayashi”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,265,079 to Getreuer et al. (filed February 15, 1991)
`(issued November 23, 1993) (“Getreuer”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,719,834 to Futagawa et al. (filed June 27, 1996)
`(issued February 17, 1998) (“Futagawa”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,272,079 to Kanto et al. (filed December 1, 1998)
`(issued August 7, 2001) (“Kanto”)
`
`Ex.
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`Declaration of Masud Mansuripur, Ph.D.
`
`1012
`
`Deposition Transcript of David B. Bogy
`
`v
`
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,785,065
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The arguments made by Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea
`
`Corporation (“TSST-K” or “Patent Owner”) in its Patent Owner’s Response (POR)
`
`are based entirely upon an overly narrow construction of the term “on.” TSST-K
`
`argues -- improperly applying Philips rather than BRI -- that “on each of opposite
`
`side surfaces” recited in independent claim 1 should be construed to require the
`
`coils each to be “over and in contact with” the opposite side surfaces. POR (Paper
`
`No. 21) at pp. 1-10. To support its construction, TSST-K primarily cites to a hand-
`
`selected dictionary definition for “on” when the use of a dictionary is clearly
`
`unnecessary. A simple read of the ’065 patent (Ex. 1001) reveals that “on” is used
`
`the same as “at” and that the focus is proximity ,not contact. Petitioner’s
`
`construction of “on” as not requiring contact is fully supported by the specification,
`
`which teaches that the coils are positioned at two opposite sides to open up space at
`
`the other sides of the bobbin for the supporting wires. Ex. 1001 at 2:57-3:17, 8:21-
`
`30. Indeed, the Board already agreed with Petitioner and rejected a similar
`
`argument made by TSST-K in its Preliminary Response. Institution Decision
`
`(Paper No. 8) at pp. 13-15. TSST-K offers no new evidence or arguments meriting
`
`reversal of the Board’s construction. Because all of TSST-K’s arguments rely on
`
`its faulty construction of the word “on,” they should likewise be rejected.
`
`1
`
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,785,065
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`TSST-K’s only other argument relates to dependent claim 3 and whether
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,905,255 to Wakabayashi et al. (“Wakabayashi”) (Ex. 1007)
`
`discloses simultaneously tilting and focusing. See, e.g., POR at pp. 31-37. This
`
`argument should be rejected for two reasons. First, claim 3 does not explicitly
`
`require that tilting and focusing be simultaneous; and, second, even if it did, TSST-
`
`K’s own expert admitted during his deposition that the control circuit of
`
`Wakabayashi can control movement in both the tilt and focus directions at the
`
`same time. See Ex. 1012 at 169:4-12, 172:12-18, 182:21-183:8, 184:5-185:17.
`
`For example, TSST-K’s expert agreed that optical disk drives do not typically
`
`perform focus and tilt error correction at different times (Ex. 1012 at 169:4-12),
`
`and that the bobbin of Wakabayashi would “focus and tilt at the same time.” Id. at
`
`184:5-185:17 (emphasis added).
`
`Thus, for the reasons set forth herein and in its Petition, Petitioners submit
`
`that claims 1-9 are unpatentable and should be cancelled.
`
`1.
`
`TSST-K’s construction of “on each of opposite side surfaces” (claim 1)
`is overly narrow and does not comply with BRI.
`
`In its POR, TSST-K repackages the argument presented in its Preliminary
`
`Response, which the Board squarely rejected in the Institution Decision.
`
`Institution Decision at pp. 14-15. TSST-K’s POR does not include any new
`
`evidence or argument worth overturning this Board’s previous conclusions that the
`
`2
`
`
`

`
`claims do not explicitly require the coils to be in a particular configuration (e.g.,
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,785,065
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`side-by-side) on a surface of the bobbin. See POR at pp. 3-10.
`
`TSST-K does not point to any explicit recitation that requires the focusing
`
`and tilt coils and the tracking coils to be “in contact with” the opposite side
`
`surfaces of the bobbin. The specification of the ’065 patent also does not teach
`
`that the focusing and tilt coils FC1-FC4 and the tracking coils TC1-TC2 must be
`
`“in contact with” the opposite side surfaces 15a of the bobbin 15. Rather than
`
`point to any explicit teaching in the ’065 patent, TSST-K argues that the use of
`
`term “non-contact” in the ’065 patent “indicates that the then-applicant and
`
`inventors knew how to avoid indicating a contacting relationship” and that the
`
`inventors and then-applicant thus knew exactly how to distinguish between
`
`positional relationships that are and are not “over and in contact with.” POR at pp.
`
`6-7. But the inventors and then-applicant did not include “contact” in the claims,
`
`and the claims should not be interpreted as requiring a contacting relationship.
`
`TSST-K argues that “[t]he ’065 patent consistently uses the word ‘on’ to
`
`describe relationships ‘indicat[ing] position over and in contact with’ – and
`
`consistently avoids using the word ‘on’ to refer to non-contacting positional
`
`relationships.” POR at p. 5 (citing Ex. 2003, Declaration of David B. Bogy (“Bogy
`
`Decl.”) at ¶ 32). However, to reach this conclusion, TSST-K ignored usage of the
`
`term “on” in the claims of the ’065 patent. POR at p. 4 (“Apart from the claims
`
`3
`
`
`

`
`…”); Bogy Decl. at ¶ 30 (“Ignoring the appearance of the word ‘on’ in the claims
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,785,065
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`…”). In claim 1 of the ’065 patent, the “bobbin [is] movably arranged on a base
`
`of the actuator.” Ex. 1001 at 8:53 (emphasis added). It is indisputable that the
`
`bobbin is suspended over the base. Ex. 1001 at 5:33-34; Ex. 1012 at 50:20-51:6
`
`(TSST-K’s expert agreeing that the bobbin is “[s]uspended” by the support
`
`members 30). The bobbin cannot be in contact with the base because, if it were,
`
`the bobbin could not be driven downward in the focus direction F. Ex. 1001 at
`
`6:45-54, 7:52-53; see also id. at 53:15-19, 65:15-66:6, 109:7-17, 110:2-10. TSST-
`
`K’s expert confirmed this: “you couldn’t move [the bobbin] up and down relative
`
`to the base if it were already on the base….[i]t has to have some space between the
`
`bobbin and the base 10 in order for it to be able to move in the focus direction both
`
`ways.” Ex. 1012 at 109:18-110:1, 11-22.
`
`TSST-K also attempts to distinguish between the use of “on” and “at” in the
`
`’065 patent, with “on” referring to a contacting positional relationship and “at”
`
`referring to a “non-specific positional relationship.” POR at p. 5. TSST-K
`
`additionally asserted that the claims maintain this distinction by using “on” for the
`
`coils and opposite side surfaces of the bobbin and using “provided to” for the
`
`support members and other side surfaces of the bobbin. Id. at pp. 5-6. See also id.
`
`at pp. 7-8. However, the ’065 patent does not distinguish between “on” as
`
`meaning one thing and “at” or “provided to” as meaning another. Instead, the ’065
`
`4
`
`
`

`
`patent uses these terms interchangeably and specifically describes the coils as
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,785,065
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`being each of “provided at,” “provided on,” and “arranged at” the opposite sides
`
`surfaces:
`
`The magnetic driving portion includes at least one focus and tilt
`coil and at least one track coil provided at each of opposite side
`surfaces 15a of the bobbin 15, and a magnet 22 installed to face each
`combination of the focus and tilt coil and the track coil provided on
`each of the opposite side surfaces. For example, the focus and tilt
`coils may include first, second, third, and fourth focus and tilt coils
`FC1, FC2, FC3, and FC4 and the track coils may include first and
`second track coils TC1 and TC2 each of which is provided at the
`corresponding opposite side surfaces of the bobbin 15, as shown in
`FIG. 4. Here, the first through fourth focus and tilt coils FC1, FC2,
`FC3, and FC4 and the first and second track coils TC1 and TC2 are all
`arranged at the opposite side surfaces 15a of the bobbin 15. A
`support member 30 is arranged at each of the other opposite side
`surfaces 15 b of the bobbin (where the focus and tilt coils FC1-FC4
`and the tracks coils TC1-TC2 are not arranged).
`
`Ex. 1001 at col. 5, ll. 16-32 (emphasis added).1
`
`
`1 See also Ex. 1001 at Abstract (installing coils “at opposite side surfaces of the
`
`bobbin”); 1:16-24 (coils “are provided at both sides of a bobbin”); 3:9-17 (coils
`
`“are arranged at both side surfaces of a bobbin”); 5:57-63 (coils “provided at the
`
`one side surface” and coils “provided at the other side surface”); col. 6, ll. 38-41
`
`(coils “arranged at both side surfaces 15a of the bobbin 15”); 8:21-25 (“coils are
`
`provided at opposite side surfaces of a bobbin to secure a free space at the other
`
`opposite side surfaces of the bobbin”).
`
`5
`
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,785,065
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in art would have understood “arranged
`
`on,” “arranged at,” “provided on,” “provided at,” and “provided to,” as used in the
`
`’065 patent, as all describing the same non-specific, positional relationship (i.e.,
`
`proximity) that could include but does not require direct contact.2
`
`It is unsurprising that TSST-K never argues why the coils must be “in
`
`contact with” the opposite side surfaces. That is because there is no reason. The
`
`’065 patent focuses on the location of the coils, i.e., on which side surface they are
`
`located, rather than whether the coils are each in physical contact with the opposite
`
`side surfaces. See Ex. 1001 at 2:57-3:17, 8:21-30. The coils “arranged on”
`
`opposite side surfaces claim feature relates to the coils being located at each of two
`
`opposite side surfaces of the bobbin and not at the other side surfaces to which the
`
`support members are attached, to address purported shortcomings of arranging
`
`coils at all four side surfaces of the conventional bobbin. Id. at 2:57-3:7. For
`
`
`2 This point is further supported by (i) the recitation of “arranged on” in claim 1 to
`
`describe the non-contacting positional relationship of the bobbin and base, as
`
`explained above, and (ii) by the use “on” in Akanuma. See, e.g., Ex. 1002 at 7:12-
`
`15 (describing a yoke 25 and a drive magnet 26 of Figs. 5A and 5B as “provided
`
`on each side of the side walls 20” despite not being in contact with the sides of the
`
`side walls 20).
`
`6
`
`
`

`
`instance, due to the very small size of the optical pickup actuator, there may be
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,785,065
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`insufficient space to install the wires, and “wiring of the coils is complicated.” Id.
`
`at 2:57-61, 2:65-66. Also, because a magnet is provided at the coils on all four
`
`sides of bobbin, the number of parts constituting the optical pickup actuator
`
`increases, and productivity decreases. Id. at 2:67-3:3. Additionally, the magnets
`
`can interfere with the operation of the spindle motor. Id. at 3:3-7. See also Exhibit
`
`1011, Declaration of Professor Masud Mansuripur, Ph.D. (“Mansuripur Decl.”) at
`
`¶ 45. The ’065 patent purportedly solves the problems with the prior art by
`
`exclusively providing coils at opposite side surfaces 15a of a bobbin 15, thereby
`
`securing a free space at the other opposite sides 15b of bobbin 15 (where the coils
`
`are not arranged) for easy installation of the support members 30. Ex. 1001 at
`
`Figs. 3-4; 3:9-17; 8:21-30. See also Mansuripur Decl. (Ex. 1011) at ¶ 46. The
`
`coils being “arranged on” opposite side surfaces of the bobbin thus defines a
`
`positional relationship with respect to sides of the bobbin that has nothing to do
`
`with whether the coils are “in contact with” the opposite side surfaces.
`
`For example, TSST-K’s expert admitted that the bobbin of the ’065 patent
`
`would still work if the coils were not in contact with the bobbin and instead
`
`mounted to a backing plate glued to the bobbin. Ex. 1012 at 86:21-87:4. TSST-
`
`K’s expert also agreed that the ’065 patent discloses the importance of the coils
`
`being located at two sides of the bobbin as opposed to being located at four sides
`
`7
`
`
`

`
`as in the prior art. Id. at 95:3-13. Moreover, when asked why it was important for
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,785,065
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`the coils to be in direct contact with the side surfaces, TSST-K’s expert gave the
`
`puzzling answer: “the inventors thought it was important that [the coils] be in
`
`contact [with the bobbin] for some reason [which] is not revealed.” Ex. 1012 at
`
`96:9-97:6 (emphasis added)).
`
`TSST-K cited Senmed, Inc. v. Richard-Allan Medical Industries, Inc., 888
`
`F.2d 815 (Fed. Cir. 1989) to attempt to support its position with respect to the
`
`construction of “on each of opposite side surfaces.” POR at pp. 6 & 8. Senmed is
`
`inapplicable here because (1) in Senmed, the Federal Circuit did not apply the
`
`broadest reasonable construction standard applied in IPR proceedings, (2) the
`
`specification of the ’065 patent does not use “on” interchangeably with “upon” (as
`
`did the patent specification at issue in Senmed) and instead uses “on” and “at”
`
`interchangeably, and (3) unlike the claims in Senmed, the claims of the ’065 patent
`
`were not amended during prosecution to distinguish the claims from a reference
`
`that disclosed coils at but not in physical contact with side surfaces of a bobbin.3
`
`See Senmed, 888 F.2d at 819-820.
`
`
`3 The ’065 patent and its parent, U.S. Patent No. 6,721,110 (“the ’110 patent”),
`
`issued after receiving First-Action Notices of Allowance.
`
`8
`
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,785,065
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`TSST-K also argues that an interpretation of coils arranged “on each of
`
`opposite side surfaces” that does not require the coils to be in “actual ‘contact’
`
`would render superfluous the word ‘surfaces.’” POR at p. 9. This argument makes
`
`no sense. Obviously, you may be “on the surface of the Earth” without being in
`
`direct contact with the ground.
`
`TSST-K’s reliance on the dictionary definition should be ignored. Besides
`
`the definition being hand-picked to attempt to distinguish the ’065 patent from
`
`Akanuma,4 TSST-K’s claim construction must be rejected because it is not based
`
`on the BRI standard but rather on one expressly disavowed by the U.S. Supreme
`
`Court. See In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies v. Lee, 2016 U.S. Lexis 3927 (U.S.
`
`June, 20, 2016).
`
`Thus, TSST-K’s proposed construction of “on each of opposite side
`
`surfaces” is improperly narrow and inconsistent with the usage of “on” in the ’065
`
`patent and, therefore, inconsistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation.
`
`
`4 TSST-K’s exert testified that he first took the disclosure of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,343,053 to Akanuma et al. (“Akanuma”) (Ex. 1002) into consideration and,
`
`specifically, that he was “trying to figure out how Akanuma is different that the
`
`’065 patent” when he formed his opinion that “on” in claim 1 means “over and in
`
`contact with.” Ex. 1012 at 82:17-83:18.
`
`9
`
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,785,065
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`Claim 3 does not require simultaneous focusing and tilting.
`
`2.
`
`TSST-K argued that the recitation in claim 3 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 set and a second input signal is applied to a second set … ” should be
`
`interpreted to require, inter alia, that the actuator is driven in both the focus
`
`direction and the tilt direction simultaneously when the recited first and second coil
`
`sets, respectively. POR at pp. 11, 24-26. TSST-K is attempting to read a
`
`limitation into a claim that is not found in the claim itself. That is, claim 3 recites
`
`“driv[ing] the actuator in the focus and tilt directions” and does not specify that the
`
`actuator be driven in the focus and tilt directions simultaneously. Therefore, the
`
`language of claim 3, when given its broadest reasonable construction, does not
`
`require simultaneous driving in the focus and tilt directions. Thus, TSST-K’s
`
`arguments that Wakabayashi fails to show the features of claim 3, which are based
`
`on this construction, should be rejected.
`
`3.
`
`The cited references render the claims obvious.
`
`a. Under the proper construction, the coils of Akanuma are “on
`each of opposite side surfaces of the bobbin.”
`
`As set forth above, the claims merely require the coils to be located at each
`
`of opposite side surfaces of the bobbin, which is indisputably taught by Akanuma.
`
`See Mansuripur Decl. (Ex. 1011) at ¶¶ 109-113. In particular, the focusing coils 27
`
`10
`
`
`

`
`and tracking coils 28 of Akanuma are arranged on each of the opposite sides
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,785,065
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`surfaces 20 of the bobbin 14 of Akanuma simply because the coils 27 and 28 are
`
`located at each of the opposite sides surfaces. Ex. 1002 at Figs. 5A-6. Moreover,
`
`the focusing coils 27 and tracking coils 28 of Akanuma are arranged on each of the
`
`opposite sides surfaces 20 of the bobbin 14 of Akanuma because the coils 27 and
`
`28 are part of the drive coil assemblies 21, which are “mounted” to the opposite
`
`sides surfaces 20 of the bobbin 14 of Akanuma. Ex. 1002 at Figs. 5A-5B; col. 6, ll.
`
`63-64; col. 7, ll. 24-25. Therefore, everything that is part of the drive coil
`
`assemblies 21 mounted on the opposite sides surfaces 20 of Akanuma is “arranged
`
`on each of opposite side surfaces of the bobbin,” as required by the claims.
`
`b. Even under TSST-K’s erroneous construction, the coils of
`Akanuma are over and in contact with opposite side surfaces of
`the bobbin.
`
`In addition, even under TSST-K’s proposed construction, Akanuma
`
`discloses focusing coils 27 and tracking coils 28 arranged “over and in contact with
`
`each of opposite side surfaces” of the bobbin. TSST-K argued that, due to their
`
`stacked nature, at least one of the focusing coils 27 and the tracking coils 28 in the
`
`drive coil assemblies 21 of Akanuma is not in contact with the side surfaces 20 of
`
`the bobbin 14 (e.g., because tracking coils 28 are between the side surfaces 20 and
`
`the focusing coils 27). POR at pp. 13-18.
`
`11
`
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,785,065
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`As shown in Figs. 5A-6 of Akanuma, by virtue of the stacked nature of the
`
`focusing coils 27 and tracking coils 28 in the drive coil assemblies 21, both the
`
`focusing coils 27 and the tracking coils 28 are (directly or indirectly) in contact
`
`with opposite side surfaces of the objective lens supporting member 14. See Ex.
`
`1002 at Figs. 5A-6. Specifically, the tracking coils 28 in the drive coil assemblies
`
`21 mounted to opposite side surfaces of the objective lens supporting member 14
`
`of Akanuma are in direct contact with the surfaces of the side walls 20, and the
`
`focusing coils 27 in the drive coil assemblies 21 are indirect contact with the
`
`opposite surfaces of the side walls 20. Thus, even under TSST-K’s proposed
`
`construction, the coils 27 and 28 of Akanuma contact (directly or indirectly) the
`
`opposite side surfaces of the objective lens supporting member 14, and the claims
`
`are invalid over the combinations.
`
`c. Even under TSST-K’s erroneous construction, Akanuma
`renders coils over and in contact with opposite side surfaces of
`the bobbin obvious.
`
`In its POR, TSST-K argues that “[i]t could not have been obvious for those
`
`skilled in the art to arrange both the focusing coils and the tracking coils [of
`
`Akanuma] to meet the language of claim 1, absent any teaching or suggestion of
`
`either arranging different magnets with various polarizations or arranging coils
`
`without being restricted to the boundary line “a” and “b”, [sic] as doing so
`
`certainly would have changed Akanuma’s principle operation.” POR at 22-23
`
`12
`
`
`

`
`citing to Ex. 2003 ¶ 63. However, Akanuma teaches and suggests the very thing
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,785,065
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`that TSST-K says is absent.
`
` In Akanuma’s seventh embodiment, drive coil assemblies 70 comprising 3
`
`coils (coil 61 and two tracking coils 62) are each mounted to opposite side surfaces
`
`of the objective lens supporting member 14. Ex. 1002 at Figs. 19A-20, 13:46-47.
`
`“[T]he tracking coils 62 and 63 are not overlapped with the focusing coil 61.” Id.
`
`at 14:57-58. Moreover, Akanuma discloses that, “since the tracking coils 62 and
`
`63 are not overlapped with the focusing coil 61, the thickness of the drive coil
`
`assembly 70 is small and an area adjacent to the drive magnet 60 in which area a
`
`magnetic flux density is large can be effectively used.” Id. at 14:57-61.
`
`13
`
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,785,065
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`Contrary to the assertions of TSST-K, one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have found it obvious to modify the focusing coils 27 and tracking coils 28 of
`
`Akanuma such that both are in direct contact with the opposite side surfaces of the
`
`objective lens supporting member 14 (or to replace the focusing coils 27 and
`
`tracking coils 28 of the drive coil assemblies 21 and the magnet 26 of the first
`
`embodiment of Akanuma with the focusing coils 61 and tracking coils 62 and 63
`
`14
`
`
`

`
`of the drive coil assemblies 70 and the magnet 60, respectively, of the seventh
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,785,065
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`embodiment of Akanuma). The motivation would have been, for example, for the
`
`drive coil assemblies 21 to have a small thickness and to effectively use an area
`
`adjacent to the drive magnet 26 in which the magnetic flux density is large. See
`
`Ex. 1002 at 14:57-61.
`
`This was confirmed by TSST-K’s expert at his deposition. When presented
`
`with Figs. 19A-20 and asked whether Akanuma includes a teaching or suggestion
`
`of either arranging different magnets with various polarizations or arranging coils
`
`without being restricted to the boundary line “a” and “b,” TSST-K’s expert agreed
`
`that Akanuma “shows a configuration that deals with both of [the] issues.” Ex.
`
`1012 at 128:6-15. See also id. at 120:20-121:7. Thus, TSST-K’s own expert
`
`acknowledges its arguments about Akanuma are incorrect.
`
`4.
`
`Even if claim 3 were interpreted as driving an actuator in focus and tilt
`directions simultaneously, both Akanuma and Wakabayashi disclose
`driving an actuator in focus and tilt directions simultaneously.
`
`TSST-K argues that the cited references do not disclose and would not have
`
`suggested 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,” as recited in claim 3. POR at pp. 23-38. TSST-K’s arguments are based on
`
`their improper construction of claim 3 as requiring driving of the actuator in the
`
`focus and tilt directions simultaneously. See, e.g., id. at pp. 23-26. It is
`
`15
`
`
`

`
`indisputable that Akanuma and Wakabayashi control focus and tilt. However,
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,785,065
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`even if claim 3 were interpreted as driving an actuator in focus and tilt directions
`
`simultaneously, Akanuma and Wakabayashi also disclose driving an actuator in
`
`focus and tilt directions simultaneously. Ex. 1002 at 7:42-52; Ex. 1007 at Abstract,
`
`Fig. 2, 6:26-30, 6:38-7:33, 8:52-54; Ex. 1011 at ¶¶ 94-97, 127-132.
`
`Akanuma discloses driving the objective lens supporting member 14 in the
`
`focus and tilt directions simultaneously by separately providing currents to each of
`
`the focusing coils 27. Ex. 1002 at 7:42-52 (disclosing “providing a current to the
`
`focusing coils 27” to generate a drive force and move “the objective lens
`
`supporting member 14 … in the focusing direction” and “[a]dditionally” separately
`
`providing currents to each of the focusing coils 27 to tilt the objective lens 13
`
`(emphasis added)). See also Mansuripur Decl. (Ex. 1011) at ¶¶ 94-97, 127.
`
`Wakabayashi discloses applying (i) the sum of a focus error signal and a tilt
`
`error signal to a first set of focusing coils (i.e., focusing coils 7a and 7c) and (ii) the
`
`difference between the focus and tilt error signals to a second set of focusing coils
`
`(i.e., focusing coils 7b and 7d). Ex. 1007 at Abstract (“stable focusing control,
`
`tracking control and tilt correction control are realized in an objective lens driver
`
`capable of correcting a tilt), Fig. 2, 6:26-30, 6:38-7:33, 8:52-54 (“applying
`
`superposed focus error signal and tilt error signal to the focusing coils). See also
`
`Ex. 1011 at ¶¶ 128-129.
`
`16
`
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,785,065
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`With respect to Wakabayashi, TSST-K asserted that “Wakabayashi merely
`
`teaches that tangential tilt5 can be controlled using a first input signal and a second
`
`input signal” and that “Wakabayashi is not configured to control movement in both
`
`the focus direction and the tilt direction, simultaneously, when applying a first
`
`
`5 Wakabayashi discloses “[t]ilt drive, i.e., rotation drive around the tangent
`
`direction K.” Ex. 1007 at 7:21-22. TSST-K (and TSST-K’s expert) refer
`
`mistakenly to this “rotation … around the tangent direction K” as being “tangential
`
`tilt” when it is actually radial tilt. As shown in Fig. 1 of Wakabayashi, the tangent
`
`direction K is “the tangent direction perpendicular to the focusing direction F and
`
`the tracking direction T.” Ex. 1007 at 5:29-34. Although the tangent direction K
`
`is not shown in Fig. 3 of the ’065 patent, Fig. 3 of the ’065 shows the radial tilt
`
`direction Tir as rotation around the direction perpendicular to the focusing
`
`direction F and the tracking direction T. See Ex. 1012 at 44:4-17 (TSST-K’s
`
`expert acknowledging that radial tilt is “rotating about an axis that’s perpendicular
`
`to the directions shown by F and T”), 61:5-7. Thus, the radial tilt direction Tir of
`
`the ’065 patent, like the tilt of the Wakabayashi, is rotation around the tangent
`
`direction. In contrast, in the ’065 patent, as shown in Fig. 3, the tangential tilt
`
`direction Tit is rotation around the tracking direction T.
`
`17
`
`
`

`
`input and a second input signal to respective coils sets.” POR at p. 26. TSST-K in
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,785,065
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`incorrect.
`
`First, TSST-K asserted that Wakabayashi does not control movement in
`
`focusing direction F and instead only controls movement in the tilt and tracking
`
`directions. POR at p. 26. Here, TSST-K (and TSST-K’s expert) have
`
`misunderstood completely the disclosure of Wakabayashi. TSST-K’s assertion
`
`that Wakabayashi does not control movement in the focusing direction is in direct
`
`conflict with numerous statements in the disclosure in Wakabayashi, which
`
`include, for example:
`
`(i)
`
`“stable focusing control, tracking control and tilt correction control
`
`are realized in an objective lens driver capable of correcting a tilt,”
`
`Ex. 1007 at Abstract (emphasis added);
`
`(ii)
`
`“[i]n order to correct focusing error due to vertical motion of a disk-
`
`type recording medium … , an objective lens driver drives the
`
`objective lens in … the direction perpendicular to the disk (hereinafter
`
`referred to as ‘focusing direction’),” id. at 1:10-17;
`
`(iii) “a plurality of driving coils for moving the objective lens in the
`
`focusing direction and tilting the objective lens to the focusing
`
`direction by driving the holder in response to voltages applied
`
`thereto,” id. at 1:64-2:1;
`
`18
`
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,785,065
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`(iv) “focusing coils 7a to 7d,” id. at 5:45;
`
`(v)
`
`“the moveable member 20 is supported moveably in the focusing
`
`direction F and the tracking direction T and rotatably in the rotative
`
`direction around the tangent direction K,” id. at 6:26-30;
`
`(vi) “a focus error signal (focus driving signal),” id. at 6:46;
`
`(vii) “driving the objective lens in the fo

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket