UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC. and
`LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`TOSIDBA SAMSUNG STORAGE TECHNOLOGY KOREA CORPORATION
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 6,785,065
`
`DECLARATION OF MASUD MANSURIPUR, PH.D.
`
`LG Electronics, Inc. et al.
`EXHIBIT 1011
`IPR Petition for
`U.S. Patent No. 6,785,065
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction .................................................................................................... ..5
`
`Materials Considered ..................................................................................... ..8
`
`A.
`
`Patent Claims in General ................................................................... ..11
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Claim Construction ........................................................................... ..12
`
`Prior Art ............................................................................................. . . 13
`
`A.
`
`Relevant Field .................................................................................... .. 17
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`VI.
`
`VII.
`
`VIII. 
`
`VIII.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 5 
`Qualifications, Background, and Experience .................................................. 6 
`II. 
`Qualifications, Background, and Experience ................................................ ..6
`III.  Materials Considered ....................................................................................... 8 
`IV. 
`Summary of Opinions ...................................................................................... 9 
`Summary of Opinions .................................................................................... ..9
`V. 
`Legal Principles Used in Analysis ................................................................. 10 
`Legal Principles Used in Analysis ............................................................... .. 10
`A. 
`Patent Claims in General ..................................................................... 11 
`B. 
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ..................................................... 11 
`B.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................... ..11
`C. 
`Claim Construction ............................................................................. 12 
`D. 
`Prior Art ............................................................................................... 13 
`E. 
`Patentability ......................................................................................... 14 
`E.
`Patentability ....................................................................................... ..14
`VI.  A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Relevant Art ............................................. 17 
`A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Relevant Art ........................................... .. 17
`A. 
`Relevant Field ...................................................................................... 17 
`B. 
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ..................................................... 17 
`B.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................... .. 17
`VII.  Background of the Relevant Technology ...................................................... 19 
`Background of the Relevant Technology .................................................... .. 19
`A.  Optical Reading and Recording Devices ............................................ 19 
`A.
`Optical Reading and Recording Devices .......................................... ..19
`B. 
`Basic Components ............................................................................... 21 
`B.
`Basic Components ............................................................................. ..21
`Summary of the ’065 Patent ................................................................ 22 
`Summary of the ’065 Patent .............................................................. ..22
`A.  Overview ............................................................................................. 22 
`B. 
`Prior Art Optical Pickup Actuators ..................................................... 23 
`B.
`Prior Art Optical Pickup Actuators ................................................... ..23
`C. 
`Purported Solution of the ’065 Patent ................................................. 25 
`C.
`Purported Solution of the ’065 Patent ............................................... ..25
`IX.  The Claims of the ’065 Patent ....................................................................... 26 
`X. 
`Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 28 
`A. 
`“bobbin” .............................................................................................. 28 
`Invalidity Analysis ......................................................................................... 29 
`Invalidity Analysis ....................................................................................... ..29
`A. 
`Summary of the Prior Art .................................................................... 29 
`A.
`Summary of the Prior Art .................................................................. ..29
`1. 
`Summary of Akanuma .............................................................. 29 
`1.
`Summary of Akanuma ............................................................ ..29
`2. 
`Summary of Suzuki ................................................................... 33 
`2.
`Summary of Suzuki ................................................................. ..33
`
`A.
`
`Overview ........................................................................................... ..22
`
`IX.
`
`The Claims of the ’065 Patent ..................................................................... ..26
`
`Claim Construction ...................................................................................... ..28
`
`A.
`
`“bobbin” ............................................................................................ ..28
`
`XI. 
`
`XI.
`
`2
`
`2
`
`

`
`Kim ............................................................................................ 35 
`3. 
`Ikegame ..................................................................................... 38 
`4. 
`5.  Mohri ......................................................................................... 40 
`6.  Wakabayashi ............................................................................. 41 
`The Purported Solution of the ’065 Patent was Already Well-Known
`B. 
`42 
`
`The ’065 Patent Claims would have been Obvious in Light of
`C. 
`Akanuma Alone or in Combination with Other Prior Art ............................. 46 
`1. 
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 47 
`a. 
`“An optical recording and/or reproducing apparatus for
`use with transferring information with respect to a recording
`medium, comprising:” ............................................................... 47 
`b. 
`“a spindle motor rotating the recording medium” .......... 48 
`c. 
`“an optical pickup including an objective lens and an
`actuator which actuates the objective lens so as to transfer the
`information with respect to the recording medium” ................. 50 
`d. 
`“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” ................................. 51 
`e. 
`“wherein the actuator comprises: a bobbin movably
`arranged on a base of the actuator” ........................................... 62 
`f. 
`“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” ....................................... 66 
`g. 
`“support members which move the bobbin and are
`provided to the other side surfaces of the bobbin” ................... 68 
`h. 
`“wherein the focus and tilt coils and the track coils are
`not arranged on the other side surfaces of the bobbin” ............ 69 
`i. 
`“magnets arranged to face corresponding sides of the
`opposite side surfaces of the bobbin” ....................................... 70 
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 71 
`
`2. 
`
`3
`
`

`
`3. 
`4. 
`
`5. 
`6. 
`7. 
`8. 
`
`Claim 3 ...................................................................................... 72 
`Claim 4 ...................................................................................... 76 
`a. 
`“the first set includes one of a pair of the first and third
`focus and tilt coils, and another pair of the first and second
`focus and tilt coils; and the second set coil includes one of a
`pair of the second and fourth focus and tilt coils, and a pair of
`the third and fourth focus and tilt coils” ................................... 77 
`Claim 5 ...................................................................................... 79 
`Claim 6 ...................................................................................... 80 
`Claim 7 ...................................................................................... 82 
`Claim 8 ...................................................................................... 83 
`a. 
`“a holder provided at one side of the base and which
`receives corresponding ends of the support members” ............ 83 
`b. 
`“outer yokes provided on the base and which receives a
`corresponding one of the magnets” .......................................... 86 
`c. 
`“inner yokes provided on the base and which are
`arranged respective to the outer yokes” .................................... 88 
`Claim 9 ...................................................................................... 91 
`9. 
`Secondary Considerations ................................................................... 92 
`D. 
`XII.  Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 93 
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`
`I, Dr. Masud Mansuripur, hereby declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`1.
`
`I am currently a Professor of Optical Sciences in the College of
`
`Optical Sciences and the Chair of Optical Data Storage at the University of
`
`Arizona.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained by Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C.
`
`(hereinafter, “Rothwell Figg” or “Counsel”) in this matter to provide my opinions
`
`regarding U.S. Patent No. 6,785,065 (the “’065 patent”).
`
`3.
`
`I have been advised that Rothwell Figg represents LG Electronics,
`
`Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. (collectively, “Petitioners” or “LG”) in this
`
`matter. I have no financial interest in LG.
`
`4.
`
`I have been advised by Counsel that Toshiba Samsung Storage
`
`Technology Korea Corporation (“TSST-K”) is the record owner of the ’065 patent.
`
`I have also been advised by Counsel that TSST-K has brought counterclaims
`
`against Petitioners in a related district court litigation asserting that Petitioners
`
`infringe the ’065 patent. I have also been advised by Counsel that Toshiba and
`
`Samsung may have an interest in that lawsuit and/or ’065 patent. I have no
`
`financial interest in TSST-K, Toshiba, or Samsung.
`
`5
`
`

`
`5.
`
`I am being compensated for my work in this matter. My
`
`compensation in no way depends upon the outcome of this proceeding, of the
`
`related litigation, or on any of the opinions I provide below.
`
`II. Qualifications, Background, and Experience
`
`6.
`
`I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering
`
`from Arya Mehr University (Iran) in 1977, a Master of Science degree in Electrical
`
`Engineering from Stanford University in 1978, a Master of Science degree in
`
`Mathematics from Stanford University in 1980, and a Ph.D. in Electrical
`
`Engineering from Stanford University in 1981.
`
`7.
`
`I have authored four scientific and technical books and authored or
`
`co-authored over 250 scientific and technical journal articles. I am listed as an
`
`inventor on eight U.S. patents, of which six are directed to optical data storage.
`
`8.
`
`I have over 35 years of experience with the optical data storage
`
`industry. While a graduate student at Stanford University from 1978 to 1981, I
`
`worked as a consultant for Xerox Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) and also
`
`worked at Xerox Research Centre of Canada as a member of research staff. At
`
`Xerox, I was involved with developing a rewritable optical disc for massive
`
`storage of digital information. After receiving my Ph.D. degree from Stanford, I
`
`joined the College of Engineering at Boston University, where I established a
`
`research program in Optical Data Storage. In 1988, the College of Optical
`
`6
`
`

`
`Sciences at the University of Arizona invited me to join their newly-established
`
`Optical Data Storage Center, which was funded by IBM, Kodak, Philips-Dupont,
`
`Siemens, and the State of Arizona. Since 1988, I have worked as a Professor of
`
`Optical Sciences at the University of Arizona, devoting my time to teaching and
`
`research in optics, optical data storage, optical communication, and several other
`
`areas of modern science and technology.
`
`9.
`
`I have been a technical advisory board member of Quinta Co., San
`
`Jose, California (1995-2000), DataPlay Co., Boulder, Colorado (1998-2002),
`
`Toptica Photonics, Munich, Germany (1999-present), NanoChip Co., San Jose,
`
`California (2003-07), and Polarizonics Co., Los Angeles, California (2005-06). I
`
`am also a member of the International advisory committee of the Instrument
`
`Technology Research Center (National Applied Research Laboratory), Taiwan
`
`(2008-present). These companies and organizations engage (or were engaged) in
`
`developing advanced optical data storage media and drives.
`
`10.
`
`I am the Founder and President of MM Research, Inc.
`
`(www.mmresearch.com), Tucson, Arizona (founded in 1995), which develops and
`
`markets simulation software for the optical disc industry. I was the Chief Optical
`
`Scientist at Capella Corp. from 2001-02, while on a 50% leave of absence from the
`
`University of Arizona.
`
`7
`
`

`
`11.
`
`I have been a consultant to numerous optics industry leaders during
`
`my professional career, including IBM, Kodak, Imation, Seagate, Samsung, LG
`
`Electronics, Hewlett-Packard, DataPlay, Quinta, TeraStore, NanoChip, Read/Rite,
`
`MaxOptix, Komag, DiscoVision, Ricoh, Calimetrics, General Electric, Energy
`
`Conversion Devices, Digital Equipment Corp., Data General, and Korea Institute
`
`of Science and Technology.
`
`12. During the past 35 years, in addition to conducting extensive
`
`theoretical studies and computer simulations, I have designed and built test
`
`equipment for the optical data storage industry. Some of these instruments have
`
`been commercialized by Toptica Photonics (Munich, Germany).
`
`13. A more complete recitation of my professional experience including a
`
`list of my journal publications, patents, conference proceedings, book authorship,
`
`and committee memberships may be found in my Curriculum Vitae, attached to
`
`my declaration as Appendix A.
`
`III. Materials Considered
`
`14.
`
`In forming the opinions expressed below, I considered the ’065 patent
`
`(Ex. 1001) and its file history including that of any related patents. I have also
`
`considered the following documents:
`
`(1) U.S. Patent No. 6,343,053 to Akanuma et al. (“Akanuma”) (Ex.
`
`1002);
`
`8
`
`

`
`(2) U.S. Patent No. 5,043,964 to Suzuki (“Suzuki”) (Ex. 1003);
`
`(3) U.S. Patent No. 6,043,935 to Kim et al. (“Kim”) (Ex. 1004);
`
`(4) U.S. Patent No. 5,428,481 to Ikegame et al. (“Ikegame”) (Ex.
`
`1005);
`
`(5) U.S. Patent No. 6,134,058 to Mohri et al. (“Mohri”) (Ex. 1006);
`
`(6) U.S. Patent No. 5,905,255 to Wakabayashi et al.
`
`(“Wakabayashi”) (Ex. 1007);
`
`(7) U.S. Patent No. 5,265,079 to Getreuer et al. (“Getreuer”) (Ex.
`
`1008);
`
`(8) U.S. Patent No. 5,719,834 to Futagawa et al. (“Futugawa”) (Ex.
`
`1009); and
`
`(9) U.S. Patent No. 6,272,079 to Kanto et al. (“Kanto”) (Ex. 1010).
`
`15.
`
`It is my opinion that the skilled person in the art would have
`
`understood the teachings of the foregoing documents to be compatible because
`
`they are in the same field of endeavor as ’065 patent and pertinent to the problem
`
`faced by the inventors of the ‘065 patent. I have also relied upon my education,
`
`background, and experience.
`
`IV. Summary of Opinions
`
`16. Based on my investigation and analysis and for the reasons set forth
`
`below, it is my opinion that none of claims 1-9 of the ’065 patent should ever have
`
`9
`
`

`
`been granted because the subject matter recited in those claims was known in the
`
`art prior to the earliest filing date of the ’065 patent. More particularly, at least
`
`Akanuma and Suzuki teach all of the salient features of the ’065 patent claims. It
`
`is also my opinion that, prior to the earliest filing date of the ’065 patent, the
`
`subject matter of the ’065 patent claims would have been obvious to the skilled
`
`person in view of Akanuma and/or Suzuki based on the skilled person’s general
`
`knowledge.
`
`17.
`
`It is also my opinion that (i) claims 1-2 and 5-9 of the ‘065 patent
`
`would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Akanuma
`
`alone or in combination with one or more of (a) the prior art set forth in the
`
`Background of the ‘065 patent (“Applicants’ Admitted Prior Art” or “AAPA”), (b)
`
`Kim, (c) Ikegame, and (d) Mohri; and (ii) claims 3-4 of the ‘065 patent would have
`
`been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Akanuma in combination
`
`with one or more of (a) the AAPA, (b) Kim, (c) Ikegame, (d) Mohri, and (e)
`
`Wakabayashi.
`
`V. Legal Principles Used in Analysis
`
`18.
`
`I am not a patent attorney nor have I independently researched the law
`
`on patentability. Rather, Counsel has explained legal principles to me that I have
`
`relied on in forming my opinions set forth in this declaration.
`
`10
`
`

`
`A.
`
`19.
`
`Patent Claims in General
`
`I have been informed that patent claims are the numbered sentences at
`
`the end of each patent. I have been informed that the claims are important because
`
`the words of the claims define what a patent covers. I have also been informed that
`
`the figures and text in the rest of the patent provide a description and/or examples
`
`and help explain the scope of the claims, but that the claims define the breadth of
`
`the patent’s coverage.
`
`20.
`
`I have also been informed that an “independent claim” expressly sets
`
`forth all of the elements that must be met in order for something to be covered by
`
`that claim. I have also been informed that a “dependent claim” does not itself
`
`recite all of the elements of the claim but refers to another claim for some of its
`
`elements. In this way, the claim “depends” on another claim and incorporates all
`
`of the elements of the claim(s) from which it depends. I also have been informed
`
`that dependent claims add additional elements. I have been informed that, to
`
`determine all the elements of a dependent claim, it is necessary to look at the
`
`recitations of the dependent claim and any other claim(s) on which it depends.
`
`B.
`
`21.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`I understand that the person of ordinary skill in the art is a
`
`hypothetical person who is presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of
`
`the invention. Factors that may be considered in determining the level of ordinary
`
`11
`
`

`
`skill in the art may include: (A) the type of problems encountered in the art; (B)
`
`prior art solutions to those problems; (C) rapidity with which innovations are
`
`made; (D) sophistication of the technology; and (E) educational level of active
`
`workers in the field. In a given case, every factor may not be present, and one or
`
`more factors may predominate.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person
`
`of ordinary creativity, not an automaton. I further understand that the hypothetical
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed subject matter pertains
`
`would, of necessity, have the capability of understanding the scientific and
`
`engineering principles applicable to the pertinent art.
`
`C. Claim Construction
`
`23.
`
`I understand that, in this proceeding, claim terms are given their
`
`broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification, and that, under
`
`the broadest reasonable construction standard, the words of a claim are generally
`
`given their ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention in the context of the
`
`entire disclosure. Accordingly, unless stated otherwise below, I have accorded
`
`each claim term its ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention in the
`
`context of the entire disclosure.
`
`12
`
`

`
`24.
`
`I also understand that, in determining the meaning of a disputed claim
`
`limitation, the intrinsic evidence of record is considered by examining the claim
`
`language itself, the written description, and the prosecution history. I further
`
`understand that a patentee may act as its own lexicographer and depart from the
`
`ordinary and customary meaning by defining a term with reasonable clarity,
`
`deliberateness and precision, but that there is a presumption that a claim term
`
`carries its ordinary and customary meaning.
`
`D.
`
`25.
`
`Prior Art
`
`I have been informed that the law provides categories of information
`
`(known as “prior art”) that may be used to anticipate or render obvious patent
`
`claims. I have been informed that, to be prior art with respect to a particular
`
`patent, a reference must have been made, known, used, published, or patented, or
`
`be the subject of a patent application by another, before the priority date of the
`
`patent. I also understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is presumed to
`
`have knowledge of all prior art. For purposes of this opinion, I have been asked to
`
`presume that disclosures in the AAPA, Akanuma, Suzuki, Kim, Ikegame, Mohri,
`
`Wakabayashi, Getreuer, Futagawa, and Kanto are prior art from a technical
`
`perspective – that is, all were available to a person of ordinary skill in the art on or
`
`before the priority date of the ’065 patent.
`
`13
`
`

`
`E.
`
`26.
`
`Patentability
`
`I have been informed that a determination of whether the claims of a
`
`patent are rendered obvious by prior art is a two-step analysis: (1) determining the
`
`meaning and scope of the claims, and (2) comparing the properly construed claims
`
`to the prior art. I have endeavored to undertake this process herein.
`
`27.
`
`I have been informed and understand that, even if every element of a
`
`claim is not found explicitly, implicitly, or inherently in a single prior art reference,
`
`the claim may still be unpatentable if the differences between the claimed elements
`
`and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been
`
`obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`28.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a patent is obvious when it
`
`is only a combination of old and known elements, with no change in their
`
`respective functions, and that these familiar elements are combined according to
`
`known methods to obtain predictable results. I have been informed and understand
`
`that the following four factors are considered when determining whether a patent
`
`claim is obvious: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences
`
`between the prior art and the claim; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4)
`
`additional considerations of objective evidence, sometimes referred to as
`
`“secondary considerations,” tending to prove obviousness or nonobviousness. The
`
`additional considerations include: unexpected, surprising, or unusual results;
`
`14
`
`

`
`nonanalogous art; teachings away from the invention; substantially superior
`
`results; synergistic results; long-standing need; commercial success; and copying
`
`by others. I have also been informed and understand that there must be a
`
`connection between these additional factors and the scope of the claim language.
`
`29.
`
`In determining obviousness based on a combination of prior art
`
`references, I also understand that evidence of some reason to combine the
`
`teachings is required to make the combination, and thus such evidence must be
`
`considered, along with any evidence that one or more of the references would have
`
`taught away from the claimed invention at the time of the invention.
`
`30.
`
`I have also been informed and understand that some examples of
`
`rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
`
`(A) combining prior art elements according to known methods to
`
`yield predictable results;
`
`(B) simply substituting one known element for another to obtain
`
`predictable results;
`
`(C) using known techniques to improve similar devices (methods, or
`
`products) in the same way;
`
`(D) applying a known technique to a known device (method, or
`
`product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`15
`
`

`
`(E) choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions,
`
`with a reasonable expectation of success—in other words, whether
`
`something is “obvious to try”;
`
`(F) using work in one field of endeavor to prompt variations of that
`
`work for use in either the same field or a different one based on design
`
`incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art; and
`
`(G) arriving at a claimed invention as a result of some teaching,
`
`suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of
`
`ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art
`
`reference teachings.
`
`I have also been informed that other rationales to support a conclusion of
`
`obviousness may be relied upon, for instance, that common sense (where
`
`substantiated) may be a reason to combine or modify prior art to achieve the
`
`claimed invention.
`
`31.
`
`I am also informed that a basis to combine teachings need not be
`
`stated expressly in any prior art reference. However, I understand that there must
`
`be some evidence showing an articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings to
`
`support a motivation to combine teachings and to support the legal conclusion of
`
`obviousness.
`
`16
`
`

`
`32.
`
`In addition, I am informed and understand that in order to establish
`
`that an element of a claim is “inherent” in the disclosure of a prior art reference, it
`
`must be clear to one skilled in the art that the missing element is the inevitable
`
`outcome of the process and/or thing that is explicitly described in the prior art, and
`
`that it would be recognized as necessarily present by a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art. I understand that to establish inherency, it is not enough that a certain
`
`result or characteristic may occur or be present in the prior art, nor may inherency
`
`be established by probabilities or possibilities.
`
`VI. A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Relevant Art
`
`33.
`
`I understand that my assessment and determination of the patentability
`
`of the challenged claims of the ’065 patent must be undertaken from the
`
`perspective of what would have been known or understood by someone of ordinary
`
`skill in the relevant field as of the priority date of the ’065 patent – June 19, 2001.
`
`A. Relevant Field
`
`34.
`
`In my opinion, the field relevant to claims of the ’065 patent is optical
`
`data storage and retrieval, including optical recording and/or reproducing
`
`apparatuses having optical pickup actuators.
`
`B.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`35. Based on my experience in the field, analysis of the ’065 patent, and
`
`review of the relied upon prior art references, it is my opinion that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the relevant field as of June 19, 2001, would have had familiarity
`
`17
`
`

`
`with optical data storage and retrieval devices, including optical recording and/or
`
`reproducing apparatuses having optical pickup actuators, and at least a Bachelor of
`
`Science degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, and/or physics and
`
`2-5 years of experience working in the field of optical data storage and retrieval, or
`
`a comparable amount of combined education and equivalent industry experience
`
`with respect to optical pickup systems and devices. Strength in one of these areas
`
`can compensate for a weakness in another. Unless otherwise specified, when I
`
`state that something would be known to or understood by one skilled in the art or
`
`possessing ordinary skill in the art, I am referring to someone with this level of
`
`knowledge and understanding.
`
`36. With over 35 years of experience in the optical data storage and
`
`retrieval field, I am well acquainted with the level of ordinary skill that would have
`
`been required to design, develop, and/or implement the subject matter of the ’065
`
`patent. I have direct experience with the relevant subject matter and am capable of
`
`rendering an informed opinion regarding what the level of ordinary skill in the art
`
`was for the relevant field as of June 19, 2001. I am also capable of rendering an
`
`informed opinion regarding what one of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`understood as of June 19, 2001. Unless otherwise stated, my opinions stated
`
`herein reflect what I believe one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`VII. Background of the Relevant Technology
`
`A. Optical Reading and Recording Devices
`
`37. Optical disc drives (ODDs) were first commercially available in 1978
`
`as Laserdisc players that reproduced video information stored on a Laserdisc. A
`
`Laserdisc was a read only optical recording medium having analog video
`
`information contained in the length and spacing of pits stamped into the discs.
`
`Laserdisc players, like all optical disc drives past and present, had basic
`
`components including a spindle motor to rotate the Laserdisc; an optical pickup
`
`including a light source, an objective lens to focus light emitted by the light source
`
`onto the Laserdisc, a light sensor to detect light reflected from the Laserdisc and to
`
`convert the detected light into electrical signal, and an optical pickup actuator to
`
`move the objective lens in the focusing and tracking directions; and a control unit
`
`to control the other components so as to transfer information from the Laserdisc.
`
`38.
`
`In the early 80s, the compact disc (CD) technology became
`
`commercially available. CDs were first used to store audio information (i.e.,
`
`music) but were subsequently adopted to store all types of data. Initially, a CD
`
`was a read only optical recording medium (e.g., CD-DA and CD-ROM) having
`
`digital information contained in the length and spacing of pits formed on the discs.
`
`Subsequent versions of CDs were also recordable (e.g., write once CDs, such as a
`
`CD-R, and rewritable magneto-optical and phase change CDs, such as a CD-RW).
`
`19
`
`

`
`CD players and drives, like all optical disc drives, had the same basic components
`
`described above.
`
`39.
`
`In 1995, digital versatile discs (DVDs) became commercially
`
`available. Initially, a DVD was a read only optical recording medium (e.g., DVD-
`
`ROM) having digital information contained in the length and spacing of pits
`
`stamped on the discs. Subsequent versions of DVDs were also recordable (e.g.,
`
`DVD-R) or rewritable (e.g., DVD-RW, DVD+RW, and DVD-RAM). DVD
`
`drives, like all optical disc drives, had the same basic components described above.
`
`40. Relative to CDs, DVDs have smaller pits, which allows for increased
`
`recording density. To read and/or record the smaller pits, light having a shorter
`
`wavelength and an objective lens having a higher numerical aperture is used to
`
`create a narrower light beam. However, the narrow light beam is more sensitive to
`
`wavefront aberrations (e.g., spherical aberration and coma aberration), which
`
`reduces reproduction and recording quality, in consequence of a change in the
`
`thickness of the disc substrate or an inclination (or tilt) of the optical recording
`
`medium relative to the optical axis. To reduce the wavefront aberration caused by
`
`an inclination (or tilt) of the optical recording medium relative to the optical axis,
`
`the optical pickup actuator of an optical disc drive moves the objective