`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`FUJIFILM CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SONY CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01389, Patent 6,896,959 B2
`Case IPR2017-01390, Patent 7,115,331 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: September 20, 2018
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before JON B. TORNQUIST, JEFFREY W. ABRAHAM, and
`ELIZABETH M. ROESEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01389, Patent 6,896,959 B2
`Case IPR2017-01390, Patent 7,115,331 B2
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`PAUL A. RAGUSA, ESQUIRE
`JESSICA LIN, ESQUIRE
`Baker Botts L.L.P.
`30 Rockefeller Plaza
`New York, New York 10112-4498
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`JOHN McKEE, ESQUIRE
`ERIC HUANG, ESQUIRE
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
`51 Madison Avenue
`22nd Floor
`New York New York 10010
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday,
`
`September 20, 2018, commencing at 1:00 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01389, Patent 6,896,959 B2
`Case IPR2017-01390, Patent 7,115,331 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE ABRAHAM: Good afternoon. We're here for hearings in
`IPR2017-01389 regarding U.S. Patent Number 6,896,959 and
`IPR2017-01390 regarding U.S. Patent Number 7,115,331.
`Let's begin by taking appearances starting with Petitioner.
`MR. RAGUSA: Sure. Paul Ragusa and Jessica Lin of Baker Botts
`for Petitioner.
`JUDGE ABRAHAM: Welcome. Patent Owner?
`MR. McKEE: John McKee and Eric Huang of Quinn Emanuel for
`Patent Owner Sony Corporation.
`JUDGE ABRAHAM: Great. Welcome.
`Okay. Pursuant to our trial hearing order, each side will have 60
`minutes of total argument time for the joint hearing today on these two IPRs.
`Petitioner, you will begin. You can reserve up to half your time for rebuttal.
`Before you begin, just let me know how much time you'd like to reserve.
`After that, Petitioner, you'll have your opportunity -- I'm sorry, Patent
`Owner. And then, Petitioner, you can get up again.
`We didn't see any objections to any of the demonstratives, so we're
`just going to go ahead and start with your argument.
`MR. RAGUSA: Very good, Your Honor. And I'm pleased that
`the parties were able to work together to iron out any disputes.
`JUDGE ABRAHAM: Would you like to reserve time for rebuttal?
`MR. RAGUSA: Your Honor, we would. We'd ask to reserve 10
`minutes.
`JUDGE ABRAHAM: Okay.
`
`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 IPR2017-01389, Patent 6,896,959 B2
`Case IPR2017-01390, Patent 7,115,331 B2
`
`
`MR. RAGUSA: Oh, Your Honors, would you like a paper copy of
`the demonstrative exhibits?
`JUDGE ROESEL: Not for me. Thanks.
`JUDGE ABRAHAM: I don't need one. Did you provide one for
`the court reporter?
`MR. RAGUSA: We have, Your Honor.
`JUDGE ABRAHAM: Okay. Whenever you're ready.
`MR. RAGUSA: Okay. So jumping right in, on slide 2 we have a
`summary of the grounds instituted in the 1390 proceedings for the '331
`patent. Petitioner has dropped Grounds 7 and 8. And rather than go through
`all the grounds in detail, we'll turn to them as we hit the prior art references.
`Slide 3 we have a summary of the grounds instituted for the '959
`patent and, likewise, we confirmed we were able to drop Grounds 9 and 10.
`As a roadmap, Your Honors, we'll start with an overview of the challenged
`patents, including terminology used in those patents. One of the important
`terms is volume concentration, so we'll spend a little time on that. There's
`obviously a dispute as to what it means and to its application to the prior art.
`And then we thought it would be efficient to follow your lead to walk
`through the prior art with respect to the grounds as opposed to the other way
`around, so we'll start with Mori as the lead reference, talk about those
`grounds and then continue from there.
`Moving on to slide 5. By way of overview, the two patents today
`are directed to a dual-layer magnetic recording medium, including a
`non-magnetic substrate, a lower support layer that may or may not be a part
`of the claim and a magnetic upper layer. And according to the patents'
`various characteristics of the tape media itself, including the materials used
`
`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 IPR2017-01389, Patent 6,896,959 B2
`Case IPR2017-01390, Patent 7,115,331 B2
`
`to make the tape media, can impact performance and, importantly, the patent
`describes a performance characteristic PW50, which is tied to the system,
`and we'll talk specifically how it's tied to the system in a moment.
`Briefly going over the claims at issue, to highlight the issues what
`we've shown here is the '331 Claim 1 with claim elements separated for
`readability as opposed to being in a block, and we've highlighted the features
`that are in dispute. Claim 1 recites that the magnetic upper recording layer
`comprise a volume concentration of at least about 35 percent of a primary
`magnetic metallic particulate pigment, and we'll talk in a moment about the
`pigment, a key area of dispute.
`That pigment has a coercivity of at least 2300 oersteds, and, again,
`that's another area of dispute with respect to the prior art. The claim then
`recites that the magnetic pigment particles have a certain length, which is not
`in dispute as far as I know, and it continues to recite the
`remanence-thickness product of a certain value less than 5.0 for this
`particular claim, and the orientation ratio, again, greater than 2.0 or about 2.0
`in this particular claim and, finally, the pulse width number that we talked
`about earlier on. And here we, again, have a dispute with respect to the prior
`art.
`
`The second patent, the '959, has parallel limitations. It's, you
`know, virtually identical with respect to the language used. The numbers are
`different. They're a little bit broader. And, you know, one issue that I do
`want to highlight before going further into the terminology is the word
`"about," which is prevalent in these claims. It is not defined in the patent
`and it has an impact or could have an impact as to whether or not prior art
`disclosing certain ranges anticipates claim language, again, depending upon
`
`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 IPR2017-01389, Patent 6,896,959 B2
`Case IPR2017-01390, Patent 7,115,331 B2
`
`how broad the term "about" should be construed. We've asked for this Court
`to construe it and give a dictionary definition, but unfortunately the patent
`does not offer guidance.
`So let's talk about the main issue with respect to claim construction
`and that's volume concentration. And what we've listed in slide 8 is our
`proposed construction, and Patent Owner did not really provide a
`construction other than saying that it should be its ordinary meaning, but has
`taken the position that the term should be construed to be something called
`packing fraction. We've given the definition of those two terms there.
`The patent specification unfortunately doesn't define the meaning
`of this term. It's got a whole definition section which defines a lot of other
`terms. It does not define this term. And we contend that the broadest
`reasonable interpretation should include what we've called the so-called
`recipe or volume concentration, pigment volume concentration formula.
`Patent Owner disagrees and argues that it should be called something that
`the art calls packing fraction, and let's talk further about what those terms
`are.
`
`JUDGE ROESEL: So before you move on there, on Petitioner's
`construction you have the word all materials. Does that include both the
`volatile and non-volatile components?
`MR. RAGUSA: It is not the non-volatile -- it is not the volatile
`components, Your Honor, yes, that is correct.
`JUDGE ROESEL: You're talking about the -- Petitioner's
`construction is based on the ingredients used to make the layer as opposed to
`the finished layer; is that right?
`
`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
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01389, Patent 6,896,959 B2
`Case IPR2017-01390, Patent 7,115,331 B2
`
`
`MR. RAGUSA: That's correct, Your Honor, and that's shown in
`the equations on slide 9. And on slide 9 we have two definitions from a text.
`The top right-hand gives a definition for pigment volume concentration and
`the bottom right gives the definition for packing factor, which is also called
`packing fraction, depending upon what text you look at.
`And the key differences between these two formulations are that
`for pigment volume concentration you're measuring it before you deposit the
`layer, so it's the slurry or the recipe of ingredients, the same way you would
`make a cake, you put all your ingredients in, what's in there. Whereas,
`packing fraction is a measurement after the layer is formed using magnetic
`instrumentation.
`And the two can be different because the packing factor equation
`has an extra term in it, that Va at the bottom right of the equation, and that Va
`is something that takes into account air pockets or voids. So air pockets or
`voids are not considered in pigment volume concentration. They are
`considered in packing fraction.
`And the art of record and the opinions of record show that the two
`numbers are essentially the same up to about the volume concentration of 30
`percent and then slowly diverge after that. So when you get above 30
`percent, the two numbers are different because of that air pocket number,
`that air pocket/void number.
`Why do we think that pigment volume concentration should be the
`correct construction? Well, let's look at the intrinsic record to start and then
`we'll look at expert testimony. The claims themselves use the words volume
`concentration. They use the word pigment. They do not use the words
`packing fraction. The specification consistent with the claims refers 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
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01389, Patent 6,896,959 B2
`Case IPR2017-01390, Patent 7,115,331 B2
`
`pigment in connection with volume concentration. Nothing in the
`specification ever mentions packing fraction.
`The specification and prosecution history also support the fact that
`what's in the patents is a recipe-based formulation. And as a matter of fact,
`the Examiner who allowed the '959 patent recognized that the patent
`disclosed a formulation in rejecting the patent claims over the Noguchi prior
`art reference.
`JUDGE ROESEL: Counsel, could we go back to slide 9? I'm just
`not convinced or not entirely sure that that pigment volume concentration is
`really based on the ingredients rather than the finished product. I mean,
`what tells you -- it talks about a skeleton and it talks about solids. So how
`do we know that's the ingredients that are used to make it as opposed to the
`finished product?
`MR. RAGUSA: I'm sorry, there's additional text in both the
`references and the expert opinions that further describes that this is, indeed,
`the recipe ingredients that he's talking about at the front end. I don't think
`either party disputes that. With the pigment volume concentration, we're
`talking about the ingredients that are in the slurry that are used to form the
`layer. Does that answer your question, Your Honor?
`JUDGE ROESEL: Yes.
`MR. RAGUSA: So on claim construction, the other piece of
`evidence we'd like to point to is expert testimony and why can't Patent
`Owner be correct? Well, aside from the intrinsic evidence that we looked at
`that there's a practical reason and it's also a support reason. So according to
`Patent Owner's expert, in order to measure volume concentration of a prior
`art reference, like Mori that we'll talk about shortly, that the person of
`
`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 IPR2017-01389, Patent 6,896,959 B2
`Case IPR2017-01390, Patent 7,115,331 B2
`
`ordinary skill in the art would actually need to fabricate that particular layer
`and then proceed to take measurements on a fabricated layer.
`And to complicate this issue, they would need to take five different
`measurements on that particular layer after they fabricated it. And he goes
`on to explain what those five different measurements are and there's a bunch
`of them that we've asked questions about in this proceeding.
`The problem is, if we go to slide 12, that the patents, the '331 and
`'959 patents, don't give any disclosure instructing a person of ordinary skill
`in the art to construct a item to take measurements of volume concentration.
`And worse than that, the patents themselves don't even provide necessary
`information to determine volume concentration of the very examples set
`forth in the patent, and the Patent Owner's expert, Dr. Bain, admitted during
`his deposition, for example, that the patents don't disclose the volume of the
`complete layer, that the patents don't disclose the magnetic moment of the
`particles used in that layer and that's the same information that he says you
`need to have in order to determine packing fraction. If the patent doesn't tell
`you how to determine packing fraction, certainly that can't be the appropriate
`construction for the term.
`JUDGE ABRAHAM: Does the patent tell you how to calculate it
`using the pigment volume concentration?
`MR. RAGUSA: It doesn't do that either, Your Honor. It simply --
`but it does provide a recipe. It provides a recipe and that's the best guidance
`that we have.
`So moving on to other terms used in the claims, squareness and
`orientation ratio, two related claims, in the top left --
`
`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
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01389, Patent 6,896,959 B2
`Case IPR2017-01390, Patent 7,115,331 B2
`
`
`JUDGE ABRAHAM: Counsel, before you move off of the claim
`construction issue.
`MR. RAGUSA: Certainly, Your Honor.
`JUDGE ABRAHAM: Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like
`the experts agree that volume concentration could have -- could mean either
`one of these, packing fraction or pigment volume concentration; is that
`right?
`
`MR. RAGUSA: That's correct, Your Honor.
`JUDGE ABRAHAM: So under the broadest reasonable
`interpretation, would -- sorry, your construction, is it just pigment
`concentration or volume concentration or is it both?
`MR. RAGUSA: So our construction is that it has to be at least
`pigment. We are -- we agree that it can include both, yes, but there's no
`reason to exclude pigment.
`JUDGE ABRAHAM: Okay. Thank you.
`MR. RAGUSA: So turning to squareness and orientation ratio, the
`claim has a orientation ratio parameter which, in turn, rests on things called
`magnetic saturation and remanence. Let's talk about those briefly.
`Saturation we've shown at the top left-hand side. And what that is,
`is the maximum magnetization of the media so that if you apply a strong
`magnetic field, all the small pulls of every piece of metal -- every metal
`particle in the tape end up aligned with that field, and that's shown by the
`arrows that we have at the top left-hand side.
`When you turn that strong field off, the magnetic -- the magnetism
`left over in those particles is called the remanent magnetization. So, you
`know, saturation for full maximum remanent turn the external field off
`
`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 IPR2017-01389, Patent 6,896,959 B2
`Case IPR2017-01390, Patent 7,115,331 B2
`
`whatever is left. And what's left is almost always some -- something less
`than saturation because the magnetism of the particles ends up aligning with
`the particle shape and we've shown that.
`And, Your Honors, may I use a pointer? If you find that helpful to
`the Board.
`JUDGE ABRAHAM: It's okay.
`MR. RAGUSA: And we've shown that in the diagram by having
`the various -- well, the pointer doesn't work.
`JUDGE ABRAHAM: It might not work on the screen.
`MR. RAGUSA: Yeah, it's not working on the screen.
`So if the different magnetic moments are aligned at slight angles to
`being parallel, the total magnetization in that direction is going to down and
`enhance the -- the remanent magnetization is always slightly less than the
`saturation magnetization. And squareness is a way to measure this. The
`equation at the top right-hand side we show the squareness in any particular
`direction. It is directional. It is defined as the ratio of the remnant
`magnetization in that direction over that saturation or maximum
`magnetization.
`And so, for example, if all particles were perfectly aligned from
`left to right on the page as opposed to the way we show it where they're all
`at different angles, if every particle is perfectly aligned, then the remanent
`magnetization after you turn off the field would be nearly equal to saturation
`magnetization and that equation for squareness in that direction, that X
`direction even looks to one. That would be the ideal situation. Every
`particle is perfectly aligned left to right and the squareness would be at a
`maximum value.
`
`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 IPR2017-01389, Patent 6,896,959 B2
`Case IPR2017-01390, Patent 7,115,331 B2
`
`
`In reality, some of these particles are always at different angles and
`so you're going to have some value that's less than one in that direction, and
`you can measure squareness in a different direction. You can measure
`squareness in the same plane as the tape but going perpendicular. So, in
`other words, from the top of the page to the bottom of the page. And if you
`measure in that direction, the transverse direction in the plane of the tape,
`you get a different orientation ratio number and that -- or different
`squareness number, pardon me, and that's how you determine squareness.
`The squareness is defined as being the ratio of those two different
`values for squareness by taking squareness in the longitudinal or tape
`running direction and dividing it by squareness in the transverse direction in
`the plane of the tape. The two parameters, that squareness and orientation
`ratio are, thus, intimately related and, you know, the relationship between
`the two has been known. It's something that we'll talk about in more detail
`in connection with the Mori patent.
`Importantly, both correspond to the physical orientation of the
`magnetic particles. So the more that they're oriented left to right or in the
`direction that the tape is moving, the higher the squareness value. And the
`higher the squareness value in that tape direction, the higher the orientation
`ratio.
`
`Next slide. So moving on with other language used in the claims,
`pulse width, coercivity and remanence-thickness product, those are three
`additional claim terms that are independently recited but are related as well.
`And, you know, as we've talked about briefly earlier, PW50 or pulse width is
`a known system performance characteristic and it relates to transitions
`
`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
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01389, Patent 6,896,959 B2
`Case IPR2017-01390, Patent 7,115,331 B2
`
`between neighboring pieces of data or information that can be stored on
`media.
`
`If the neighboring pieces of data have sharp transitions, there's a
`narrow pulse width and PW50 goes down. The PW50 goes down, the
`recording density goes up. PW50 can be measured using a tool as described
`in the patent, for example, or it can be analytically determined based on
`other parameters. And as shown in the equations at the right-hand side from
`the Mee textbook, which is one of the exhibits in evidence, they include
`things like the read head gap g, which is shown in the top equation, the read
`head to tape distance d, which is also in that equation, and something called
`the transition parameter ax and that transition parameter, again, is measuring
`how these transitions occur. Itself relies on other information, particularly
`on the remanence-thickness product, MR delta -- in the patent it's written as
`Mr*t, but it's the same thing -- and coercivity Hc in that equation.
`And you can see from the math shown in that equation that if Mr*t
`goes down, because it's a numerator of ax, ax directly -- is directly
`proportional and it's going to go down and PW50 is going to go down.
`Conversely, if Hc, which is a denominator goes up, ax is going to go down
`and PW50 is going to go down. And that will be important when we talk
`about PW50 in a moment.
`So the claims at issue, you know, most of the claims have very
`similar language. The dependent claims for the most part add in narrower
`ranges and some of those ranges will be important, coercivity being one of
`them. There are some dependent claims on slide 16 that recite additional
`features about the lower layer, the binder and the back coat, but these were
`also well-known and likewise described in the prior art references. And for
`
`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 IPR2017-01389, Patent 6,896,959 B2
`Case IPR2017-01390, Patent 7,115,331 B2
`
`purposes of today, we'll focus on really the central issues starting with
`coercivity.
`So let's talk about the -- let's just start going to the prior art, Mori,
`Aonuma, Sasaki. Before diving into the details, we just want to note three
`preliminary issues. One is that we rely on inherency, as this Court knows,
`for several features. We'll address those issues in turn. Two is that we've
`taken guidance from this Court in the Institution Decisions where it appears
`to us that you're not inclined to combine different examples for anticipation,
`and so for purposes of today we're going to focus on actual examples in the
`different pieces of art.
`And then, finally, ranges and here it is important to note that the
`patent has a lot of ranges. It does not describe criticality of those ranges and
`so whether a prior art reference discloses an overlapping range with the
`range disclosed in the patent, it's an issue for consideration.
`JUDGE ABRAHAM: Counsel, I made a note, but as you're
`continuing through your presentation, can you just refer to the slide numbers
`so that when we can go back and review the transcript we can go back to the
`slide?
`
`MR. RAGUSA: Yes, Your Honor, will do.
`JUDGE ABRAHAM: Thank you.
`MR. RAGUSA: So if we could turn to slide 19, we'll talk about
`the Mori patent and here's Mori's Table 2. We'll focus on examples 1 and 2.
`And Mori's Table 2 is important to recognize that the highlighted row that
`we've shown towards the bottom has something called magnetic material
`volume fill rate as a percentage, and that's the number that we argue is the
`same thing as packing fraction. We'll get to that in a minute.
`
`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 IPR2017-01389, Patent 6,896,959 B2
`Case IPR2017-01390, Patent 7,115,331 B2
`
`
`The table also explicitly has coercivity, and that's the top
`highlighted line Hc and it's got coercivity in units of kiloampere per meters.
`191 translates to 2400 oersteds or more and that's something that's important
`for most of the claims as far as anticipation.
`The chart for these examples also has information sufficient to
`determine Mr*t and information sufficient to determine PW50, and the top
`line of the chart has something called a thickness of the magnetic layer. And
`just above coercivity that we looked at a moment ago, it has something
`called Sigma s or saturation magnetization of the material. And Sigma s and
`thickness can be used and were used by our expert to determine the
`maximum value of Mr*t, which can also be referred to as MST.
`If you look at the saturation magnetization instead of the remanent
`magnetization that we talked about a couple of minutes ago, that's the
`maximum that that MR can be and so this is a proxy to act as a cap on what
`Mr*t is, and that was done in this case specifically for each example to
`determine what the maximum value of Mr*t is by looking at S as opposed to
`R.
`
`With respect to PW50, as I suggested earlier, PW50 can be
`estimated using Mr*t and coercivity. Again, we can determine the
`maximum Mr*t out of this table and the table explicitly gives coercivity. So
`those two numbers are there and that inherently will give you PW50, and
`we'll go through that in more detail in a moment.
`So volume concentration. As I noted, our position is that the
`language in the table is an explicit recitation of volume concentration of
`greater than 35 percent in terms of packing fraction. But even if Patent
`Owner is right and that the filling rate of volume disclosed in the table of
`
`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 IPR2017-01389, Patent 6,896,959 B2
`Case IPR2017-01390, Patent 7,115,331 B2
`
`Mori is not packing fraction, but it's pigment volume concentration, our
`position is it's still inherently disclosed as a volume concentration of being
`more than 35 percent, and we'll show you a figure on that in a moment.
`And then, finally, Mori also provides a recipe and you can use the
`rigorous recipe method to actually determine the volume concentration, and
`our expert has done that as an alternative method. But to be clear, in Mori
`we don't think you even need to look at the recipe. You can just look at the
`exact language in the table and the language in the table explicitly tells you
`what the volume concentration is in at least these claims.
`Turning to slide 21 is the graph that I spoke about relating the two
`different interpretations of volume concentration, pigment volume
`concentration on the vertical axis. The two axes -- and I said vertical. I
`meant horizontal, my apologies. The packing fraction on the horizontal --
`on the vertical axis. The two are the same as shown in this curve up to about
`30 percent and then begin to diverge.
`And Patent Owner was asked about this and admitted that a
`pigment volume concentration of 39.5 percent, which is explicit in Mori,
`corresponds to about 37 percent packing fraction, which of course is greater
`than 35 percent, and that's shown right in the figure. The answer that he
`provided is that, well, you know, this table that's in Mori doesn't apply to all
`magnetic particles. It only applies to the magnetic particles that Mori
`showed.
`Well, the reality is, however, that no other evidence, no other table,
`no other graph shows any other correspondence, so this is what we have in
`the record. It's a textbook that has this correspondence. It's a textbook that
`Patent Owner's expert brought out and in our view it's further evidence that
`
`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 IPR2017-01389, Patent 6,896,959 B2
`Case IPR2017-01390, Patent 7,115,331 B2
`
`even if you read Mori's disclosure, explicit disclosure of volume
`concentration to be packing fraction or pigment volume concentration, either
`way the claim term is met.
`JUDGE ABRAHAM: What's the basis for your position that
`volume fill rate is the packing fraction, refers to packing fraction?
`MR. RAGUSA: So there's a couple, Your Honor, but, you know,
`one is that there's -- obviously there's a recipe from which you can make a
`determination.
`JUDGE ABRAHAM: No, not volume concentration. You said --
`at least I thought you said that the volume fill rate that's shown in Mori is
`equivalent to the packing fraction, right?
`MR. RAGUSA: Correct, Your Honor.
`JUDGE ABRAHAM: And so you're saying that you can -- your
`basis for saying that is the packing fraction is the recipe that Mori uses?
`MR. RAGUSA: No, Your Honor, I'm sorry. So Mori discloses
`separately obviously a recipe.
`JUDGE ABRAHAM: Right.
`MR. RAGUSA: Here the explicit recipe -- explicit recitation of
`the volume concentration, volume fill rate, if you will, in our view goes back
`to the language in the patent where the patent says that this is the volume
`concentration in the magnetic layer and that's text out of Mori. So Mori says
`that "filling rate by volume of the strong magnetic alloy powder in the
`magnetic layer," which provides the inference that we're talking about,
`something that's already been put in the magnetic layer. And that's in
`contrast to the claims at issue of the '959 and '331 which say comprising the
`volume concentration. They don't say in the magnetic layer.
`
`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 IPR2017-01389, Patent 6,896,959 B2
`Case IPR2017-01390, Patent 7,115,331 B2
`
`
`JUDGE ROESEL: But Petitioner made a calculation based on its
`proposed construction as well, right, based on Mori?
`MR. RAGUSA: So we made a calculation, Your Honor, based
`upon -- we did two things. We took Mori at face value which says 39.5
`percent and that we separately did a calculation based upon the recipe.
`JUDGE ROESEL: So does Petitioner's calculation and the value
`that's disclosed expressly in Mori, do they correlate using that relationship
`shown on slide 21?
`MR. RAGUSA: So, Your Honor, what actually is shown in the
`calculation comes out to be higher than that. It comes out to be higher than
`that.
`
`JUDGE ROESEL: So they don't correlate.
`MR. RAGUSA: They do not. It's a higher number, and that is
`shown on our slide 23. But, you know, again our position on Mori is that
`you don't need to do this calculation, that the language of the patent is clear
`as far as being an explicit disclosure.
`Turning to slide 24, let's talk about coercivity. So what Mori also
`discloses a coercivity greater that 2500 oersteds and the examples that we've
`talked about here, the examples 1 and 2 include a metal powder which
`explicitly in the table have a coercivity of 2400 oersteds or above and, you
`know, we -- you know, again, this comes back to the question of about. So
`for the claims of the '959 patent that recite 2,000 oersteds, there's no issue.
`For the claims of the '331 patent that recite 2300 oersteds, there's no issue.
`There are higher coercivity claims in the '331 patent that recite 2500 oersteds
`and 2640 oersteds. And, you know, depending upon the meaning of the
`
`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
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01389, Patent 6,896,959 B2
`Case IPR2017-01390, Patent 7,115,331 B2
`
`term about 2400 may be about 2500 in our view. It's probably not 2640.
`We concede that.
`But we submit that the combined disclosure of Mori, particularly
`in view of the Mee text, would render those claims obvious. It would be a
`simple substitution of higher coercivity of particle with one that's already
`been provided, particularly in view of Mori's explicit instruction that you
`could have coercivity as high as 3500 oersteds.
`If we could turn to slide 26, we'll talk about Mr*t. And Mr*t was
`not disputed by Patent Owner's expert, but Patent Owner now contends that
`Mori's disclosure is not tied to its embodiments and we agree that Mori does
`have a general disclosure not tied to embodiments of Mr*t. But as I
`mentioned earlier, it all has specific information about saturation
`magnetization from which a maximum Mr*t can be calculated. Our expert
`did that and that calculation, for examples 1 and 2 comes out to be well
`below the claimed values. So Mori does show Mr*t values that meet the
`claims.
`
`Slide 27, orientation ratio. And here our view is that Mori
`discloses a range that's greater than 2.0 and let's talk about how. So Mori
`has two disclosures of squareness. It does not specifically disclose
`orientation ratio, but squareness is a proxy to orientation ratio.
`And this slide describes the first of those two ways. So, first, the
`slide shows that squareness in the two directions that are perpendicular t
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
