`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SONY CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FUJIFILM CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00618
`Patent 7,355,805 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: September 25, 2018
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before JO-ANNE M. KOKOSKI, JEFFREY W. ABRAHAM, and
`MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00618
`Patent 7,355,805 B2
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`RICHARD F. GIUNTA, ESQUIRE
`Wolf, Greenfield & Sachs, PC
`600 Atlantic Avenue
`Boston, MA 02210
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`NEIL P. SIROTA, ESQUIRE
`Baker Botts LLP
`30 Rockefeller Plaza
`New York, NY 10112
`
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday, September
`25, 2018, commencing at 1 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
`600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00618
`Patent 7,355,805 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE KOKOSKI: You can be seated. Good afternoon. Today we
`will hear arguments in IPR2017-00618 Sony Corporation v. Fujifilm
`Corporation concerning U.S. Patent No. 7,355,805. I'm Judge Kokoski.
`Judge Abraham is here with me and Judge Ankenbrand is joining us
`remotely. At this time we'd like counsel to introduce yourselves, also let us
`know who you have with you, beginning with Petitioner.
`MR. GIUNTA: Good afternoon, Your Honors. Rich Giunta from
`Wolf, Greenfield for the Petitioner Sony. I'm joined by my colleague, Marc
`Johannes.
`MR. SIROTA: Good afternoon. Neil Sirota of Baker Botts for Patent
`Owner Fujifilm, and with me is Albert Boardman from Baker Botts.
`JUDGE KOKOSKI: Thank you. Before we begin, I'd like to remind
`the parties that whatever's projected on the screen will not be viewable by
`Judge Ankenbrand. When you refer to an exhibit on the screen please state
`the slide or page number to which you are referring for the record. This also
`is important for clarity in the transcript.
`Consistent with our Hearing Order, each party has 60 minutes to
`present their arguments. Petitioner will proceed first, and may reserve time
`for rebuttal. How much time would you like to reserve, if any?
`MR. GIUNTA: We'd like to reserve 15 minutes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE KOKOSKI: Fifteen?
`MR. GIUNTA: Fifteen, yes. And we're going to split the argument
`so could we set the timer for 35 minutes so I don't eat into Mr. Johannes's
`time.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00618
`Patent 7,355,805 B2
`
`
`JUDGE KOKOSKI: Sure.
`MR. GIUNTA: Thank you.
`JUDGE KOKOSKI: Okay. You can begin when you're ready.
`MR. GIUNTA: Thank you, Your Honor. The Petition identified four
`grounds. In grounds two and three each had two bases. Your Honors
`originally instituted only grounds one to three and for grounds two and three
`you instituted only on basis one. Those three originally instituted grounds
`are what we plan to focus on today. Your post-SAS order also instituted
`ground four and for grounds two and three, basis two. We will rest on the
`papers on those grounds.
`Slide 3. Fujifilm's Patent Owner Response makes three arguments
`that apply to all the originally instituted grounds. They allege that the art
`fails to meet a unique servo stripe identifier as recited in claim 1, shifting a
`pair of non-parallel stripes as recited in claim 2 and encoding as recited in
`claims 3 and 10. I will address those three arguments.
`Patent Owner Response also makes three additional ground specific
`arguments alleging that a POSA would not have been motivated to combine
`Hennecken with Albrecht II, that Hennecken teaches away from the
`combinations and that Hennecken alone allegedly does not meet the
`converting encoded data steps in claims 3 and 10. Mr. Johannes will address
`those arguments.
`Slide 4. So I want to start with the issue of whether Hennecken's
`servo stripe number uniquely identifies a servo stripe. This is the sole
`missing limitation argument Patent Owner Response makes for claim 1.
`Turn to slide 5. Before diving into the issue I want to provide a bit of
`technology background. So first, there's no dispute that the terms servo
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00618
`Patent 7,355,805 B2
`
`stripe, servo track and servo band all mean the same thing. These terms are
`used interchangeably in the art and in the trial papers and we will use them
`interchangeably today.
`Slide 6. The technology issue relates to coarse transverse positioning
`for magnetic tapes. Tapes typically have a number of data bands. On slide 6
`we have the prior art Fasen reference that has data bands 101 to 104. Data is
`written to the tape by a write head and read from the tape by a read head.
`The tape has servo bands that provide identifying information that the read
`head uses to find the data it wants to read. Coarse transverse positioning,
`which is also sometimes called gross transverse positioning, refers to
`aligning the head over the desired data band to read data from it. Each data
`band typically has a plurality of data tracks. Fine transverse positioning
`refers to aligning the read head over a particular track within the data band.
`So conventionally, fine positioning was performed using pairs of non-
`parallel stripes. The spacing between the pairs varies across the width of the
`tape and it's used to determine which data track the read head is positioned
`over. Now the most straightforward way to identify different servo tracks
`for coarse transverse positioning is to just give each a unique identifier, just
`like a house has a unique house number, but that requires a complicated
`servo write head capable of writing separate data to each servo track. Given
`that, alternative techniques like Fasen's were developed that use non-unique
`servo patterns. Now while these techniques use a simpler servo write head
`they require a more complicated read process in which data from multiple
`servo tracks must be compared because the servo data in any track does not
`uniquely identify the track.
`Slide 7. The purported invention in the ’805 patent is embedding
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00618
`Patent 7,355,805 B2
`
`unique data in each servo band so that a servo band can be identified without
`needing to compare servo signals from multiple bands . The technique the
`unified patent describes to embed the serve data is to shift a pair of non-
`parallel stripes that are used for fine positioning. As the Petition established,
`shifting a pair of non-parallel stripes was a known data encoding technique.
`It was developed by Dr. Albrecht, Sony's expert in this matter, and his
`colleagues at IBM. The shifting pairs technique is described in Albrecht II
`and in Hennecken.
`Slide 8. So the grounds are based on the disclosure in Hennecken's
`background and Dr. Albrecht's testimony explaining how it would have been
`understood by a POSA.
`Slide 9. Hennecken's background describes a servo stripe number
`that is encoded in the servo track for coarse transverse location and that is
`information that varies between the tracks.
`Slide 10. Dr. Albrecht explained that a servo stripe number is just
`what its name indicates, a number that identifies the respective servo track.
`As we will discuss, Fujifilm cites no evidence to refute this. There's not a
`single piece of evidence in the record that describes a non-unique servo
`information as a servo stripe number. Dr. Albrecht noted Hennecken's
`description that the servo stripe number varies between the servo tracks and
`testified that the servo stripe number allows coarse transverse positioning by
`identifying the, singular, servo track that is being read and supported this
`assertion in paragraph 107 of his declaration, Dr. Albrecht cited not only
`Hennecken's background but also Hennecken's detailed description, column
`5, lines 31 to 35.
`JUDGE KOKOSKI: Excuse me, counsel.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00618
`Patent 7,355,805 B2
`
`
`MR. GIUNTA: Yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE KOKOSKI: How can we rely on something in the detailed
`description of Hennecken if you're only relying on the background section as
`the basis of your argument?
`MR. GIUNTA: Yes, Your Honor. So our position, and it's supported
`by an admission by their expert, is that the term servo track number in the
`detailed description means the same thing as a servo stripe number in the
`background. So that when Hennecken uses the term the way Hennecken
`explains what it means in the detailed description is relevant to what the
`equivalent term means in the background.
`JUDGE KOKOSKI: So then servo track and servo stripe number are
`the same, right, that's what you're saying and then they describe servo track
`number in the description? Okay.
`MR. GIUNTA: Yes, Your Honor. So there are -- we'll walk through
`it -- so their expert admits that servo track and servo stripe are
`interchangeable. In fact, Hennecken in its background uses those terms
`interchangeably and at deposition he was more specifically asked whether
`the servo track number is the same thing as a servo stripe number and he
`said yes, they are the same thing.
`JUDGE ABRAHAM: So do we need to construe the term servo stripe
`number to mean what's here in paragraph 107 of the Albrecht declaration, a
`number that identifies the respective servo track? Is that what you're arguing
`for?
`
`MR. GIUNTA: Well there's two things, Your Honor. One is you
`could if there was nothing more than servo track number or servo stripe
`number. It would raise a question and you would have to construe that term
`
`7
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00618
`Patent 7,355,805 B2
`
`alone, but there's other disclosure in Hennecken that their expert admits
`expressly says that the servo track number in Hennecken varies for each
`servo track. So it's not just the label servo stripe number or servo track
`number that we're pointing to but the other disclosure in Hennecken that
`expressly says that it's a unique number that varies by servo track.
`JUDGE ABRAHAM: I guess then the question is, is the term servo
`track number -- even though the term is used in those locations of
`Hennecken, is it used the same way in both locations?
`MR. GIUNTA: Yes, Your Honor. So Dr. Albrecht testified that
`Hennecken, the proper way a POSA would read Hennecken is that
`Hennecken is describing two alternative techniques for embedding types of
`servo information, including a servo track number, and so that when he
`describes what the servo track number is in the detailed description, he's
`describing the same type of servo information as in the background, he just
`has a different technique for how it's embedded into the servo track.
`In the Patent Owner Response, they never refuted this. There's
`nothing in the Patent Owner Response that says these two phrases mean
`something different. We'll get to it. Their slides suggest that they're going
`to argue that the description in the detailed description of servo track number
`is not relevant to what servo stripe number means. That argument's not
`made in the Patent Owner Response and as I'll get to, their expert expressly
`said at deposition that they're the same thing.
`Okay. So if we turn to slide 5. That column 5 portion of Hennecken's
`detailed description that Dr. Albrecht cited, it was also cited in the Petition at
`page 24 to support argument that Hennecken's servo stripe number uniquely
`identifies the servo track being read.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00618
`Patent 7,355,805 B2
`
`
`Looking at slide 26. That column 5 portion where the detailed
`description is reproduced bottom right. It describes extracting gross, i.e.,
`coarse, transverse positioning information and using it to indicate which
`servo track 30 singular is being accessed by the server read head and the
`Petition and Dr. Albrecht cited this disclosure in the detailed description
`because, as we'll discuss, it's relevant to what Hennecken means by servo
`stripe number in the background and it supports Dr. Albrecht's position that
`servo stripe number is a unique identifier for a servo track.
`Slide 12. So Hennecken's background varies the spacing for low
`frequency transitions to encode the servo stripe number. That's the
`technique developed by Dr. Albrecht and his IBM colleagues. We will
`discuss this technique in more detail when we get to the detailed description.
`Slide 13. So in the detailed description Hennecken adds a high
`frequency field 66 which is a dedicated data storing field capable of storing
`more data than can be encoded in the low frequency transitions. This
`requires a separate high frequency servo writer that's more complicated and
`expensive. Hennecken encodes the servo stripe number in the high
`frequency field 66 rather than in the low frequency transitions.
`Slide 14. So the Petition explained that Hennecken's background and
`detailed description describe alternative techniques for encoding the same
`servo stripe number into the servo tracks and at page 2, the Petition cited
`paragraph 86 of Dr. Albrecht's declaration in support of this argument. In
`paragraph 86, Dr. Albrecht explains that Hennecken describes two different
`techniques for encoding the servo track number, one in the background and
`one in the detailed description. As I mentioned, the Patent Owner Response
`and Fujifilm's expert never refuted this. They did not challenge that servo
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00618
`Patent 7,355,805 B2
`
`track number in Hennecken's detailed description and servo stripe number in
`Hennecken's background mean the same thing. Thus, Hennecken's
`disclosure in the detailed description about the servo track number is highly
`relevant to what the equivalent term means in Hennecken's background.
`In the column 9 portion of the detailed description on slide 14,
`Hennecken states that if the servo track number is encoded in the high
`frequency field each write gap must have a separate driver because the servo
`signal will be different for each gap. Slide 15.
`JUDGE KOKOSKI: Excuse me. Is that something that was known in
`the prior art as of the time of Hennecken or is that something that
`Hennecken invented?
`MR. GIUNTA: I'm sorry, Your Honor. Which aspect of it?
`JUDGE KOKOSKI: The part from the detailed description that you
`just read.
`MR. GIUNTA: Yes. So Hennecken is the one who kind of invented,
`as far as I know, this idea of embedding servo information in a high
`frequency field but the part about the servo stripe number being unique, the
`only evidence in the record is Hennecken describing it but he certainly
`doesn't characterize that as his invention. In fact he describes it in the
`background. But there's no evidence in the record of anybody else having
`done this before. Hennecken described it in this document.
`JUDGE KOKOSKI: Can you just again remind me what you're
`relying on that section of Hennecken for, that column 9 that you just read?
`MR. GIUNTA: Yes, Your Honor. So that column 9 portion, at slide
`15 their expert conceded that in this portion of column 9 Hennecken is
`saying that if the servo data includes a servo track number, there's going to
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00618
`Patent 7,355,805 B2
`
`be different servo information written to each track. Okay, so there should
`be no dispute that in the detailed description servo track number is different
`for every single track. That's what Dr. Messner admitted Hennecken says
`here in his testimony on slide 15.
`JUDGE ABRAHAM: But is that testimony limited to the situation
`where there's a high frequency field or is it any servo track, any time there's
`a servo track number?
`MR. GIUNTA: He didn't qualify his testimony. What he did is he
`said I disagree and what he meant by disagree is he said Hennecken says
`this, it says there's a unique number for each track but it's not necessary to do
`that and he walked through his sort of inherency stuff and we'll talk about it.
`There's prior art where you can do servo tracking without putting a unique
`identifier on each track, but he was unequivocal that Hennecken says the
`servo track number described in Hennecken is unique for each track.
`JUDGE ABRAHAM: Well, okay. So my question is when
`Hennecken's talking about in the background section a servo track number,
`was there a high frequency field there?
`MR. GIUNTA: No, Your Honor.
`JUDGE ABRAHAM: Okay. But here in this portion of column 9, it
`is talking about the servo track number where there is a high frequency field,
`correct?
`MR. GIUNTA: Yes, Your Honor. What Dr. Albrecht explains, and
`again this is unrebutted, Hennecken describes a different technique for
`embedding servo data. His technique in the detailed description is put your
`servo data in a high frequency field rather than in the low frequency
`transition. He doesn't say I'm using this technique to embed different types
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00618
`Patent 7,355,805 B2
`
`of servo data. He's not describing a servo track number as something
`different than a servo stripe number that's described in the background. He's
`saying I'm going to use a different technique for putting it in a servo track.
`Okay. If we can take a look at Fujifilm slide 43. So this is the first
`time they now allege that Dr. Messner's admission is not relevant to
`Hennecken's background section. Again, that argument was not in the
`Patent Owner Response but it's refuted by Dr. Messner's deposition
`testimony, Exhibit 1017, page 145, line 1 to 146, line 8, where he states
`unequivocally that the servo track number described in the detailed
`description of Hennecken is "the same" as a servo stripe number described
`in Hennecken's background.
`Can we take a look at Fujifilm slide 41? So they allege that the
`Petition did not argue that Hennecken's detailed description was relevant to
`the grounds and that their reply relied on this column 9 section that Sony
`allegedly did not rely in the Petition. But Fujifilm was mistaken.
`If we return to Sony slide 14. The Petition at page 13 cited this very
`same portion of Hennecken's detailed description at column 9 and it also
`cited Hennecken's detailed description at column 7, lines 8 to 27, in support
`of Petitioner's argument that Hennecken teaches two techniques for
`encoding the same information, the servo track number. As we saw on slide
`8, the -- I'm sorry?
`JUDGE ANKENBRAND: Excuse me, I've got a question.
`MR. GIUNTA: Yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE ANKENBRAND: I mean that's just a number of cites. The
`argument I hear you making today seems to be a little bit more fleshed out
`than the argument I'm seeing in the Petition here at page 13. I mean it's one
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00618
`Patent 7,355,805 B2
`
`sentence in the Petition and now you're going into a discussion of what the
`detailed description is actually telling us. So I guess the question is, why is
`that discussion missing from the Petition?
`MR. GIUNTA: I would respectfully suggest, Your Honor, that it's not
`missing from the Petition. I would suggest that it's not all in one place in the
`Petition, right? So the Petition cites the background of Hennecken at page
`13, also at page 24. So it cites the column 5 section at page 24. It cites the
`column 7 and column 9 portions at page 17 and at page 2 it also cites
`paragraph 86 of Dr. Albrecht's declaration where it cites these same
`portions, or at least some of them, for his position that Hennecken is
`describing two alternative techniques for embedding the servo track number.
`So I would respectfully suggest that there are numerous places in the
`Petition where it was citing the detailed description of Hennecken in making
`the arguments about what servo stripe number means, so I respectfully
`suggest that it's not a new argument that we're making today.
`JUDGE ANKENBRAND: And did Dr. Albrecht provide testimony
`about what exactly for example at column 9, lines 11 through 28, mean in
`supporting the Petition? You know, is there testimony regarding why we
`should consider this the same information that's being provided in the
`background of the invention when, for example, in this column and these
`line numbers there's a discussion about high frequency fields?
`MR. GIUNTA: Yes, Your Honor. So Dr. Albrecht, the places he
`cited -- so he cited all the same places that I've given to you that the Petition
`cited the detailed description. That's column 9, column 7 and column 5, he
`cited them in paragraphs 86, 103 and 107 of his declaration and it was all
`part of his analysis about servo stripe number being unique. It was clear --
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00618
`Patent 7,355,805 B2
`
`
`JUDGE ANKENBRAND: Is there discussion that tells us why
`whatever's in column 9, lines 11 through 28, which seems to be referring to a
`high frequency field is actually the same as what's disclosed in the
`background of the invention?
`MR. GIUNTA: Yes, Your Honor. In paragraph 86, which is cited in
`the Petition at page 2, the argument is Hennecken is describing two
`techniques for encoding the same information. The focus on the high
`frequency field, it's a technique for storing data in the track. There's no
`particular information that it connotes. You can store any data you want
`using the high frequency field the same way you can store any data you want
`by shifting transitions in the low frequency field.
`So what his purported invention was, was creating this new place to
`store data where you can store more data. He doesn't say that I'm storing
`different types of data here. In fact he uses the same or equivalent term that
`he uses in the detailed description and as I just mentioned, Dr. Messner
`admits that it's the same thing. When we asked him what is servo track
`number in the detailed description mean he said that's the servo stripe
`number described in the background.
`So we respectfully suggest that it should be uncontested that what's in
`the detailed description is the same thing in terms of what kind of servo
`information you're talking about rather than the technique he used to embed
`it in the servo track.
`Okay. So our position is simple and supported by two critical
`admissions from Dr. Messner. So first, Hennecken's disclosure relating to
`the servo track number in the detailed description is highly relevant to what
`servo stripe number in the background means because these phrases mean
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00618
`Patent 7,355,805 B2
`
`the same thing. Again, Dr. Messner conceded this, Exhibit 1017 at pages
`145 to 146, that he was unequivocal.
`Second, Hennecken's detailed description explicitly says the servo
`track number is different for each track. Dr. Messner admitted this at
`Exhibit 1017 on page 190. So together these two admissions confirm that
`the servo stripe number in Hennecken's background is precisely what the
`Petition alleges it is, servo data that is unique for each servo track.
`So Fujifilm offers a handful of arguments to suggest that the servo
`stripe number is not a unique identifier. Let's take a look at slide 17. First,
`this is the only argument they made in the Patent Owner Response for why
`it's not unique. They argued that it's not unique because Hennecken uses the
`indefinite article "a" in referring to a servo stripe number which they said
`means it can't be unique.
`So slide 18. This argument is refuted by Hennecken itself.
`Hennecken also uses the indefinite article in the same place to refer to a
`longitudinal value encoded in the servo data. Fujifilm's expert concedes that
`longitudinal value is a unique identifier that uniquely identifies the position
`of wanting the length of the tape.
`Slide 19. This indefinite article argument is also refuted by the ’805
`patent which uses the indefinite article "a" to refer to three different unique
`identifiers. This is also undisputed. Fujifilm's expert agrees, these
`identifiers are all unique. So Fujifilm's assertion that a POSA would have
`understood the use of the indefinite article "a" to signify an identifier that is
`not unique is refuted by Hennecken and in the ’805 patent.
`JUDGE KOKOSKI: But in that slide you've got the call out at the
`bottom that says such as a manufacturer ID, a serial number of the tape and a
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00618
`Patent 7,355,805 B2
`
`servo writer ID. Wouldn't it be the case that there would only be one
`manufacturer ID and only one serial number of the tape and only one servo
`writer ID? So it's not like there were numerous different manufacturer IDs,
`so in this case we probably wouldn't need "the" versus "a" because there's
`only one manufacturer ID; is that the case?
`MR. GIUNTA: It probably is the case, Your Honor, but I would
`suggest that actually cuts the other way. So the fact that the indefinite article
`is actually used to reply to what you just described as a specific noun in the
`case that they cite, that only one could exist certainly suggests that if you
`don't need the definite article "the" to refer to something that is only one,
`you certainly can't -- have to use the definite article "the" when you're
`referring to a unique identifier like a servo track number.
`So on slide 20 they cite this non-precedential Board decision allegedly
`establishing that the definite article "the" must be used for something
`unique, but the case establishes no such thing. So why involve specific
`nouns of which only one exists which might be the type of thing, Judge
`Kokoski, you were just describing. The examples in that case are "the"
`horizon or "the" entirety.
`Slide 21. Hennecken's servo stripe number is not a specific noun, as
`Judge Kokoski's question suggests. There's not only one servo stripe
`number that exists. Indeed, Hennecken is explicit that it varies between the
`servo tracks. So Fujifilm's indefinite article argument has no support in the
`Meyer case and it's refuted by all the references of record which use the
`indefinite article "a" to refer to things that are unique identifiers.
`If we look at Fujifilm's slide 30. So they make a candid admission
`here. They say that if Hennecken had used the definite article "the" in
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00618
`Patent 7,355,805 B2
`
`referring to the servo stripe number it "would have been a clear reference to
`a unique number". So if you reject Fujifilm's indefinite article argument and
`by their own admission Hennecken's servo stripe number is a clear reference
`to a unique number.
`Indeed, with respect to disclosure in Hennecken this indefinite article
`argument is the only argument the Patent Owner Response makes about
`what servo stripe number means at all. Dr. Messner didn't offer any
`testimony suggesting that it means something different than what Dr.
`Albrecht said.
`If we take a look at Fujifilm's slide 29. Here in the middle bullet point
`they assert that there are non-unique servo stripe numbers. That assertion is
`not supported by any evidence. There's not a single reference of record that
`calls a non-unique servo information a servo stripe number.
`If we go to slide 25. Fujifilm suggests that Hennecken's description of
`two servo read heads also means --
`JUDGE KOKOSKI: Excuse me. This is your slide 25 or their slide
`
`25?
`
`MR. GIUNTA: Sorry, yes. I'm sorry, Your Honor, Sony slide 25.
`They suggest that because Hennecken describes two read heads they must be
`comparing servo signals for coarse positioning, but Fuji is incorrect. The
`’805 patent itself which has unique servo identifiers also uses two read heads
`and Fujifilm's own expert explained in the testimony shown bottom right on
`slide 25 that that's because two read heads are used for fine positioning. So
`Hennecken's reference to two read heads does not mean that the servo
`signals are compared for coarse positioning.
`Slide 26. Fujifilm's assertion that Hennecken requires two read heads
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00618
`Patent 7,355,805 B2
`
`is also refuted by Hennecken itself. Hennecken explicitly says there is at
`least one servo read element and that the system determines which servo
`track 30 singular the servo read element is accessing.
`Fujifilm's other arguments are entirely unrelated to disclosure of
`Hennecken and with all due respect are red herring distractions. So at slide
`22 they focus on other prior art systems like Trabert and Fasen that do not
`use unique identifiers to perform coarse positioning. Fujifilm alleges that
`these references illustrate the prevailing state of the art and somehow
`demonstrate that Hennecken does not mean what it says and does not use
`unique servo data for each track. Now it's true that other techniques were
`known for coarse positioning but those systems are irrelevant to the grounds
`which are based on what Hennecken discloses. Fujifilm also --
`JUDGE KOKOSKI: Excuse me.
`MR. GIUNTA: Yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE KOKOSKI: But we're talking about the background section
`of Hennecken, so we're talking about prior art and then I also understand that
`you're making an argument that certain things are not necessarily expressly
`disclosed in Hennecken but a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`understand that they were disclosed. Can't we look to other pieces of prior
`art that you're not relying on to inform what this knowledge of a person of
`ordinary skill in the art is?
`MR. GIUNTA: You could if the other pieces of prior art describe
`something similar to what Hennecken's describing. But if they don't, and I
`understand it's sort of begging the question, right? They want you to believe
`that the background section is describing what Trabert describes, right, and
`so they're suggesting -- and I take Your Honor's question and suggest it is a
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00618
`Patent 7,355,805 B2
`
`fair point for us to be able to look at what else was in the art to interpret
`what's in Hennecken and I would agree that that is fair game if it's at all
`consistent with what Hennecken says, right? But again I hate to keep
`coming back to it but their own expert concedes that Hennecken says a servo
`track number is unique and varies for each track. That's not Trabert, right?
`So if we accept the testimony of their own expert about what servo track
`number means it's clearly not Hennecken, and then the only question left is
`whether Hennecken is describing the same type of servo information in the
`background as he did in the detailed description.
`JUDGE KOKOSKI: So then you said that's not Trabert. Trabert then
`doesn't talk about servo numbers at all, is that what you're meaning in terms
`of, you know, it's not consistent with Hennecken?
`MR. GIUNTA: What Trabert does is it writes all the servo data at the
`same time. It uses two different patterns and it arranges them on the write
`head so that by comparing two tracks using sort of the same lead lag thing
`that Fasen does, like if they're between pattern A and B or BB or BA you
`can by using two techniques figure out where you are. So that's what
`Trabert does. He doesn't have unique servo informa
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
