Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper No. 31
` Entered: December 4, 2018
`
`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
`____________
`
`Before JON B. TORNQUIST, JEFFREY W. ABRAHAM, and
`ELIZABETH M. ROESEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ABRAHAM, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper No. 31
` Entered: December 4, 2018
`
`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
`____________
`
`Before JON B. TORNQUIST, JEFFREY W. ABRAHAM, and
`ELIZABETH M. ROESEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ABRAHAM, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01389
`Patent 6,896,959 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Fujifilm Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition seeking inter
`
`partes review of claims 1–18 (“challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,896,959 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’959 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Sony
`
`Corporation (“Patent Owner”) filed a Patent Owner Preliminary Response to
`
`the Petition. Paper 8 (“Prelim. Resp.”). On December 8, 2017, we instituted
`
`an inter partes review of all challenged claims, but not all grounds raised in
`
`the Petition. Paper 9 (“Inst. Dec.”).
`
`After institution, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response (Paper
`
`14, “PO Resp.”). On April 27, 2018, we issued an order modifying our
`
`Institution Decision to include all grounds raised in the Petition. Paper 15.
`
`After receiving authorization from the Board, Patent Owner filed a
`
`Supplemental Patent Owner Response (Paper 18, “Suppl. PO Resp.”)1
`
`addressing the previously non-instituted grounds, and Petitioner filed a
`
`Reply (Paper 24).
`
`An oral hearing was held on September 20, 2018, and a transcript of
`
`the hearing has been entered into the record of the proceeding. Paper 30
`
`(“Tr.”).
`
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This Final Written
`
`Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
`
`For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a
`
`
`1 In the Supplemental Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner indicated
`Petitioner “agreed to drop” two grounds raised in the Petition. Suppl. PO
`Resp. 4 (referring to Grounds 9 and 10 in the Petition). Petitioner agrees.
`Tr. 4:12–13 (agreeing that Petitioner dropped Grounds 9 and 10 from the
`Petition). Because Petitioner has withdrawn Grounds 9 and 10 from the
`Petition, we do not address them in this Final Written Decision.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01389
`Patent 6,896,959 B2
`
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–18 of the ’959 patent are
`
`unpatentable.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`
`The parties indicate that the ’959 patent is involved in Certain
`
`Magnetic Tape Cartridges and Components Thereof (ITC Investigation No.
`
`337-TA-1036). Pet. 1; Paper 4, 1. Patent Owner further identifies the
`
`following litigation as related: Sony Corporation v. Fujifilm Holdings
`
`Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-25210 (S.D. Fla.). Paper 4, 1.
`
`B. The ’959 Patent
`
`The ’959 patent, titled “Magnetic Recording Medium Having Narrow
`
`Pulse Width Characteristics,” issued on May 24, 2005. Ex. 1001, at [54],
`
`[45]. The ’959 patent discloses a dual-layer magnetic recording media
`
`having a magnetic layer that “includes a volume concentration of at least
`
`about 35% of a primary magnetic metallic particulate pigment material
`
`having a coercivity of at least about 2000 Oe, and an average particle size of
`
`less than about 100 nm, and a binder system therefor.” Id. at 2:59–63. As a
`
`result, the magnetic recording media “exhibit narrower pulsewidth
`
`characteristics and lowered remanence-thickness product.” Id. at 1:11–13.
`
`The ’959 patent explains that pulsewidth, “often abbreviated as
`
`PW50,” is one measure of magnetic media performance (id. at 2:29–30), and
`
`is tested by recording a signal on a magnetic recording medium
`at a sufficiently low density that the transitions are isolated
`from one another; i.e., they do not interact or interfere with one
`another. The amplified, unequalized and unfiltered signal from
`the read head is displayed on an oscilloscope and the width
`along the time axis of the resulting positive and/or negative
`pulses halfway from the baseline to their peaks is measured.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01389
`Patent 6,896,959 B2
`
`
`This time interval is multiplied by the tape transport speed to
`obtain the pulsewidth, as a distance.
`
`Id. at 3:32–42. According to the ’959 patent, remanence-thickness product
`
`“is abbreviated Mr*t, and means the product of the remanent magnetization
`
`after saturation in a strong magnetic field (10 kOe) multiplied by the
`
`thickness of the magnetic coating. This value is measured in memu/cm2.”
`
`Id. at 3:43–47.
`
`The ’959 patent discloses that the recording medium preferably has a
`
`PW50 of less than about 500 nm and a Mr*t of less than about 5.0
`
`memu/cm2. Id. at 2:63–66. The ’959 patent describes the preparation of
`
`several examples, and Table 1 provides physical attributes and PW50 results
`
`for those examples. Id. at 9:55–10:50.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–18 of the ’959 patent. Claim 1 is the
`
`only independent claim and is reproduced below:
`
`1. A dual-layer magnetic recording medium comprising a
`non-magnetic substrate having a front side and a back
`side, a lower support layer formed over the front side
`and a magnetic upper recording layer formed over said
`lower layer, comprising a volume concentration of at
`least about 35% of a primary magnetic metallic
`particulate pigment having a coercivity of at least about
`2000 Oe, said magnetic pigment particles having an
`average particle length of no more than about 100 nm,
`and a binder for the pigment, wherein said medium has a
`remanence-thickness product, Mr*t, of less than about
`5.0 memu/cm2, an orientation ratio greater than about
`2.0, and a PW50 of less than about 500 nm.
`
`Ex. 1001, 10:52–64.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01389
`Patent 6,896,959 B2
`
`
`D. References
`
`Aonuma, JP 2001-319315A, published Nov. 16, 2001 (“Aonuma,”
`Ex. 1002 (certified translation); Ex. 1018 (original)).
`
`Mori et al., JP 2002-74641A, published Mar. 15, 2002 (“Mori,”
`Ex. 1003 (certified translation); Ex. 1022 (original)).
`
`Sasaki et al., JP 2000-40217A, published Feb. 8, 2000 (“Sasaki,”
`Ex. 1004 (certified translation); Ex. 1019 (original)).
`
`E. Reviewed Grounds of Patentability
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Statutory Basis
`
`Claim(s) Challenged
`
`Mori
`
`Sasaki
`
`Aonuma
`
`Aonuma and Mori
`
`Aonuma and Sasaki
`
`Mori and Aonuma
`
`Mori and Sasaki
`
`Sasaki and Aonuma
`
`Aonuma
`
`
`
`§ 102
`
`§ 102
`
`§ 102
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`1–9 and 11–16
`
`1–9 and 11–18
`
`1, 2, and 4–18
`
`1–18
`
`1 and 6
`
`10, 17, and 18
`
`17 and 18
`
`10
`
`1, 2, and 4–18
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
`
`interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)
`
`(2016); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016)
`
`(upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard).
`
`Absent a special definition for a claim term being set forth in the
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01389
`Patent 6,896,959 B2
`
`specification, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning as
`
`would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. In re Translogic
`
`Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Furthermore, “only those
`
`terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent
`
`necessary to resolve the controversy.” Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. &
`
`Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`Petitioner proposes a specific construction for the following terms:
`
`“volume concentration,” “magnetic metallic particulate pigment,”
`
`“orientation ratio,” “remanence-thickness product,” PW50,” “hard resin
`
`component,” “soft resin component,” and “a coercivity of at least about 2000
`
`Oe.” Pet. 12–16. For several terms, Petitioner simply repeats explicit
`
`definitions recited in the ’959 patent. E.g., id. at 14–15 (offering proposed
`
`constructions for “orientation ratio,” “remanence-thickness product,” and
`
`“PW50”). Patent Owner responds that “[f]or all terms . . . the plain and
`
`ordinary meaning of the claim language as used in the context of the patent
`
`specification is applicable.” PO Resp. 8.
`
`In our Institution Decision, we determined that no express
`
`construction for the noted terms or phrases was needed. Inst. Dec. 6. After
`
`reviewing the arguments in the Patent Owner Response and Supplemental
`
`Response, and Petitioner’s Reply, we determine it is necessary at this stage
`
`to construe the term “volume concentration.”
`
`i. The Parties’ Arguments on “Volume Concentration”
`
`Independent claim 1, the only independent claim of the ’959 patent,
`
`recites “[a] dual layer magnetic recording medium comprising . . . a
`
`magnetic upper recording layer formed over [a] lower layer, comprising a
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01389
`Patent 6,896,959 B2
`
`volume concentration of at least about 35% of a primary magnetic
`
`particulate pigment.” Ex. 1001, 10:52–57 (emphasis added).
`
`Petitioner states that the Specification “mentions [volume
`
`concentration] briefly,” but acknowledges that it does not expressly define
`
`the term. Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:9–11, 2:57–60). Petitioner asserts
`
`“[e]xtrinsic evidence supports using the recipe of materials used to form the
`
`magnetic layer in order to measure volume concentration,” citing
`
`paragraph 84 of the Wang Declaration (Ex. 1017). Id. at 12–13. In
`
`paragraph 84 of his Declaration, Dr. Wang cites to page 212 of Exhibit
`
`1014,2 which defines “Pigment Volume Concentration” as “the ratio of the
`
`volume (skeleton) of pigment to the volume of total solids.” Ex. 1014, 212;
`
`Ex. 1017 ¶ 84. Dr. Wang relies on this definition to support his opinion that
`
`“one commonly used meaning of [volume concentration] focuses on the
`
`recipe used to form the magnetic layer.” Ex. 1017 ¶84 (citing Ex. 1014,
`
`212). Dr. Wang also states that the ’959 Patent sets forth a recipe-based
`
`formulation for the composition of the magnetic layer. Id. Petitioner and
`
`Dr. Wang, therefore, contend that the broadest reasonable interpretation of
`
`volume concentration includes “the volume of the primary magnetic metallic
`
`particulate pigment divided by the volume of all materials that form the
`
`magnetic layer.” Pet. 12–13 (citing Ex. 1017 ¶ 84).
`
`Patent Owner argues that there is a difference between the volume
`
`fraction of magnetic particles in the formed magnetic layer itself (referred to
`
`as the “packing fraction”), and the volume fraction of the materials that
`
`make up the slurry used to form the magnetic layer (referred to as the
`
`
`2 H.F. Huisman & H.J.M Pigmans, Dispersion of Magnetic Pigments III, A
`Kneader Investigation, J. DISPERSION SCI. AND TECH., 7(2), 187–213 (1986).
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01389
`Patent 6,896,959 B2
`
`“pigment volume concentration”). PO Resp. 28–29 (citing Ex. 20093).
`
`According to Patent Owner, “[t]he pigment-volume concentration is the
`
`volume occupied by the particles as related to the nonvolatile components of
`
`a dispersion, while the packing fraction relates to the ratio of the magnetic
`
`volume to the overall volume of the coating.” Id. at 29 (citing Ex. 2009,
`
`3.46–3.47). Thus, whereas the pigment volume concentration can be
`
`determined from the materials that make up the slurry, packing fraction is
`
`determined after the magnetic layer is formed by dividing the volume of the
`
`primary magnetic particles in the magnetic layer by the total volume of the
`
`finished magnetic layer. See Ex. 2001 (Declaration of Dr. Bain, Patent
`
`Owner’s Declarant) ¶¶ 124, 125 (explaining the difference between pigment
`
`volume concentration and packing fraction).
`
`According to Patent Owner, “[c]ritically, there is not a one-to-one
`
`correspondence between pigment volume concentration and packing
`
`fraction, and in some cases, attempting to increase packing fraction by
`
`increasing pigment volume concentration in the coating material can result
`
`in detrimental effects.” PO Resp. 30. Dr. Bain, Patent Owner’s Declarant,
`
`testifies that “when the packing fraction and the pigment-volume
`
`concentration disagree, it is because air filled voids exist within the tape
`
`layer,” and that “it is appropriate to consider these air-filled voids as
`
`additional non-magnetic material within the tape layer.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 125.
`
`Patent Owner asserts that “[s]ince the ’959 patent refers to a
`
`‘magnetic upper recording layer . . . comprising a volume concentration of at
`
`least about 35% of a primary magnetic metallic particulate pigment,’ in this
`
`
`3 Magnetic Recording Technology (C. Denis Mee & Eric. D. Daniel eds., 2nd
`ed. 1996), Chapter 3.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01389
`Patent 6,896,959 B2
`
`case we are concerned with the volume fraction that actually occurs in the
`
`tape.” PO Resp. 30. Patent Owner thus argues that the volume fraction of
`
`the materials that make up the slurry, or pigment volume fraction, is not
`
`relevant to the claims of the ’959 patent. Id.
`
`In its Reply, Petitioner argues that the term “volume concentration”
`
`can refer to pigment volume concentration and packing fraction. Reply 2–4.
`
`Petitioner explains that (1) pigment volume concentration is a measurement
`
`taken before a magnetic layer is formed, uses the recipe of materials of the
`
`slurry used to prepare the magnetic layer, and does not consider voids in the
`
`magnetic layer, and (2) packing fraction is determined after a magnetic layer
`
`is formed by dividing the volume of the primary magnetic particles by the
`
`volume of the magnetic layer, and is inclusive of any voids in the magnetic
`
`layer. Id. Petitioner also acknowledges that the two measurements agree up
`
`to about 30% and then begin to diverge. Id. at 3 (citing Ex. 2009, Figure
`
`3.28).
`
`Petitioner, however, argues that Patent Owner improperly attempts to
`
`exclude pigment volume concentration from the meaning of “volume
`
`concentration,” as used in claim 1. Id. at 4. Rather than Patent Owner’s
`
`narrow construction, Petitioner maintains its position that the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of volume concentration should at least include
`
`pigment volume concentration. Id. at 4–7.
`
`Specifically, Petitioner contends the plain meaning of the phrase
`
`“volume concentration” should control, noting that “pigment volume
`
`concentration” “shares vocabulary” with claim 1, which recites “volume
`
`concentration.” Id. at 4. Petitioner also argues that Patent Owner’s narrow
`
`construction, which includes only packing fraction, is incorrect because it
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01389
`Patent 6,896,959 B2
`
`ignores the fact that the term “packing fraction” does not appear in the ’959
`
`patent. Id. at 5. Additionally, Petitioner notes that the ’959 patent does not
`
`set forth instructions for making and testing a physical example necessary to
`
`determine packing fraction, but does provide a recipe for the slurry used to
`
`form the magnetic layer, which a person of ordinary skill in the art could use
`
`to determine pigment volume concentration. Id. at 5–6. This, according to
`
`Petitioner, is further evidence that the proper construction of volume
`
`concentration at least includes pigment volume concentration. Id.; Pet 12–
`
`13; see also Ex. 1017 ¶ 84 (Dr. Wang stating that the ’959 patent sets forth a
`
`recipe-based formulation for the composition of the magnetic layer, which
`
`supports his interpretation).
`
`ii. Analysis
`
`The parties appear to agree that the phrase “volume concentration,” on
`
`its own, can refer to the concentration of a particle in the magnetic layer
`
`itself (i.e., packing fraction, a final product-based value), or the
`
`concentration of a particle in the slurry used to make the magnetic layer (i.e,
`
`pigment volume concentration, a recipe-based value). Reply 2–3; PO Resp.
`
`37 (arguing that “[t]he volume concentration of the slurry is not the type of
`
`‘volume concentration’ recited in claim 1”); Ex. 2001 ¶ 123 (Dr. Bain
`
`stating that “Dr. Wang calculates the volume concentration of Mori based on
`
`a recipe describing the nonvolatile constituents in the coating slurry” and
`
`that “[w]hile this is a type of volume concentration, it is not the type of
`
`volume concentration claimed in the ’959 patent, which relates to the
`
`volume concentration that actually occurs in the magnetic layer of the
`
`tape.”); see also Ex. 1014, 212 (providing definitions for “Pigment Volume
`
`Concentration” and “Packing Factor”); Ex. 2009, 3.47 (discussing pigment
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01389
`Patent 6,896,959 B2
`
`volume concentration and packing fraction). There is also no dispute that
`
`the volume concentration of a particle in the magnetic layer (packing
`
`fraction) may be different from the volume concentration of a particle in the
`
`slurry used to create the magnetic layer (pigment volume concentration).
`
`Reply 3; PO Resp. 29–30. Dr. Bain explains that differences between the
`
`packing fraction and pigment volume concentration occur due to air-filled
`
`voids present within the tape layer. Ex. 2001 ¶ 125. Petitioner does not
`
`challenge this testimony, and acknowledges that pigment volume
`
`concentration does not consider voids in the magnetic layer, whereas
`
`packing fraction does. Reply 3 (citing Ex. 1014, 27).
`
`Although the extrinsic evidence suggests that “volume concentration”
`
`can have either the recipe-based definition relied upon by Petitioner or the
`
`final product-based definition relied upon by Patent Owner, the intrinsic
`
`evidence shows that only one of these definitions is appropriate in the
`
`context of the ’959 patent.
`
`We begin by looking at the language of claim 1. Translogic, 504 F.3d
`
`at 1257–1258; In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
`
`(“[T]he name of the game is the claim.”). Claim 1 recites a magnetic
`
`recording medium having “a magnetic upper recording layer formed over [a]
`
`lower layer, comprising a volume concentration of at least about 35% of a
`
`primary magnetic metallic particulate pigment.” Ex. 1001, 10:54–57. The
`
`language of the claim thus requires a finished product, a magnetic recording
`
`medium, having a formed magnetic layer with specific properties, namely a
`
`specific volume concentration of the metallic pigment in the magnetic layer.
`
`Id.; see also Tr. 36:12–14 (Patent Owner: “[T]he claims are about a tape. . . .
`
`It’s about what the tape looks like when it is finished.”).
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01389
`Patent 6,896,959 B2
`
`
`The Specification likewise discusses the volume concentration of the
`
`metallic pigment in the context of the formed magnetic layer of a magnetic
`
`recording medium. For example, Petitioner states that the Specification
`
`mentions volume concentration “briefly,” citing two specific instances. Pet.
`
`12. In the first instance, which appears at column 1, lines 7–10, the ’959
`
`patent states that “[t]he present invention relates to magnetic recording
`
`media, such as magnetic tapes, and more specifically to the magnetic layer
`
`of the media which contains particulate metallic pigments that have . . . a
`
`high volume concentration.” Ex. 1001, 1:7–10. In the second instance,
`
`which appears at column 2, lines 57–59, the ’959 patent describes a
`
`magnetic recording medium wherein the “magnetic upper layer is disposed
`
`over the lower support layer on the front side of the substrate and includes a
`
`volume concentration of at least about 35% of a primary magnetic metallic
`
`particulate pigment material.” Id. at 2:57–59.
`
`Other references to “volume concentration” in the Specification of the
`
`’959 patent are similarly found in the context of the formed magnetic layer
`
`of a finished magnetic recording medium. Ex. 1001, 3:1–7 (“Another aspect
`
`of the invention provides a dual-layer magnetic recording medium
`
`comprising . . . [an] upper magnetic layer including a volume concentration
`
`of at least about 40% of a primary magnetic metallic particulate pigment
`
`material . . . .”); id. at 4:24–26 (“The pigment is present in the upper
`
`magnetic layer in a volume concentration of at least about 35% . . . .”).
`
`Therefore, the words of the claim coupled with the Specification help
`
`define the term “volume concentration.” In the context of the ’959 patent,
`
`“volume concentration” refers to the volume concentration of the magnetic
`
`particles in the formed magnetic layer.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01389
`Patent 6,896,959 B2
`
`
`Petitioner argues that “volume concentration” in claim 1 should
`
`include “pigment volume concentration” because both phrases contain the
`
`words “volume” and “concentration.” Reply 4. We disagree. Petitioner’s
`
`isolation of the phrase “volume concentration” ignores the other language in
`
`claim 1 and the Specification that refer to volume concentration in the
`
`context of the formed magnetic layer of a magnetic recording medium.
`
`We are also unpersuaded by Petitioner’s argument that its
`
`interpretation is “guided by the intrinsic record, as the words ‘pigment’ and
`
`‘volume concentration’ recited in the claims of the ’959 Patent find support
`
`in the specification.” Reply 5. Petitioner’s own evidence shows that the
`
`term that has the interpretation advocated by Petitioner is the complete
`
`phrase “pigment volume concentration,” which has a specific meaning in the
`
`art, and not the isolated terms, “pigment” and “volume concentration.”
`
`Ex. 1014, 212. This undermines Petitioner’s attempt to support its proposed
`
`construction based on the use of the words “pigment” and “volume
`
`concentration” separately in claim 1 and the Specification. It also
`
`undermines Petitioner’s argument that “packing fraction” is not the broadest
`
`reasonable construction because the phrase “packing fraction” does not
`
`appear in the Specification. Reply 5. As neither “packing fraction” nor
`
`“pigment volume concentration” appears in the ’959 patent, we construe
`
`“volume concentration” according to the plain meaning of the words of the
`
`claim when read in view of the Specification.
`
`The Specification discusses “volume concentration” in the context of
`
`the formed magnetic layer of a finished magnetic recording medium. E.g.,
`
`Ex. 1001, 1:9–10, 2:57–59, 3:1–7, 4:24–26. Claim 1 likewise requires the
`
`magnetic layer of a finished magnetic recording medium to comprise a
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01389
`Patent 6,896,959 B2
`
`specific volume concentration of metallic particles. Id. at 10:54–57. By
`
`way of contrast, Petitioner would have us interpret claim 1 to include a
`
`magnetic layer formed from a composition comprising a volume
`
`concentration of at least about 35% of a primary magnetic metallic
`
`particulate pigment. But that language is different from what actually
`
`appears in claim 1 and the Specification.
`
`Petitioner also argues that Patent Owner’s construction is incorrect
`
`because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have to construct a
`
`physical example and then subject it to magnetic testing to determine
`
`packing fraction, and, according to Petitioner, instructions for such
`
`construction and testing are not disclosed in the ’959 patent. Reply 5–6. In
`
`support of its proposed construction, Petitioner argues that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art could determine pigment volume concentration
`
`simply by considering a recipe disclosed in a document. Id.
`
`The ’959 patent, however, discloses information regarding the
`
`preparation of the magnetic layer of the magnetic recording media. See, e.g.,
`
`Ex. 1001, 4:12–6:40, 9:55–10:37. Additionally, evidence of record suggests
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known how to determine the
`
`packing fraction of metallic particles in the magnetic layer of a magnetic
`
`recording medium based on porosity measurements. See Ex. 1008, 41
`
`(showing a table that includes a porosity value); Tr. 36:4–21 (discussing the
`
`porosity measurement in Ex. 1008). Further, Petitioner’s argument is
`
`inconsistent with the ’959 patent, which describes the ingredients of the
`
`magnetic layer and discloses ranges of amounts by weight (Ex. 1001, 3:14–
`
`15, 4:27–44, 4:61–6:40, 9:65–10:11), but does not disclose any specific
`
`recipes or formulations from which pigment volume concentration could be
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01389
`Patent 6,896,959 B2
`
`calculated. Moreover, although Dr. Wang testifies that the ’959 patent sets
`
`forth a “recipe based formulation,” he does not cite to any specific recipe or
`
`otherwise explain how a person of ordinary skill in the art could have
`
`determined pigment volume concentration based on the information
`
`presented in the’959 patent. And Petitioner acknowledges that the ’959
`
`patent does not contain any additional information regarding calculating
`
`pigment volume concentration. Tr. 9:19–23.
`
`iii. Conclusion
`
`In view of the foregoing, we assign the plain and ordinary meaning to
`
`the phrase “volume concentration” in the context of the ’959 patent. In the
`
`context of the claims and Specification, the plain and ordinary meaning of
`
`“volume concentration” refers to the volume concentration of metallic
`
`particulate pigment in the magnetic layer itself, i.e., a final product-based
`
`value as opposed to a recipe-based value.
`
`B. Person Of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`Petitioner defines a person of ordinary skill in the art as having at least
`
`one of the following qualifications:
`
`(1) a bachelor’s degree in materials science, physics, electrical
`engineering, mechanical engineering, chemistry, or a closely
`related field, and at least five years of experience in the field of
`magnetic recording, or (2) a Master’s degree or higher in
`materials science, physics, electrical engineering, mechanical
`engineering, chemistry, or a closely related field, with an
`emphasis in magnetic recording, and at least three years of
`experience in the field of magnetic recording.
`
`Pet. 12; Ex. 1017 ¶ 60. Although Patent Owner does not expressly define
`
`the appropriate level of skill in the art in the Patent Owner Response or its
`
`Supplemental Response, Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Bain, presents a
`
`definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art in his declaration that is
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01389
`Patent 6,896,959 B2
`
`nearly identical to Petitioner’s definition. Ex. 2001 ¶ 45. In view of this, for
`
`purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art.
`
`C. Prior Art References
`
`i. Mori (Ex. 1003)
`
`Mori is directed to providing “a particulate magnetic recording
`
`medium exhibiting a high [carrier to noise (C/N)] ratio in high-density
`
`magnetic recording (particularly when employing an MR head for
`
`reproduction) as well as good durability.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 3. Mori discloses a
`
`dual-layer magnetic recording medium having a lower layer containing a
`
`non-magnetic powder and a magnetic layer containing a strongly magnetic
`
`powder. Id. ¶ 4. Mori further discloses embodiments of its invention,
`
`setting forth the “detailed contents” of the lower layer and magnetic layer in
`
`each. Id. ¶¶ 45–46.
`
`Mori teaches that limiting the thickness of the magnetic upper layer
`
`and using a magnetic powder with a mean long axis length less than or equal
`
`to 0.1 µm and a saturation magnetization equal to or less than 120 A*m2/kg
`
`can increase the C/N ratio. Id. ¶¶ 5–6. Mori further teaches using a
`
`coercivity equal to or greater than 167 kA/m (2,100 Oe) to maintain stable
`
`recording magnetization. Id. ¶ 8. Mori teaches that the “level of residual
`
`magnetization” of the magnetic layer preferably ranges from 5–50 mT*µm
`
`(id. ¶ 10) and the magnetic recording medium has a squareness in the tape
`
`running direction equal to or higher than 0.70 (id. ¶ 42).
`
`ii.
`
`Sasaki (Ex. 1004)
`
`Sasaki is directed to a “magnetic recording medium suitable for high-
`
`density recording.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 1. To achieve this, Sasaki teaches
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01389
`Patent 6,896,959 B2
`
`
`providing a magnetic recording medium furnished with a lower
`layer on a support and an upper magnetic layer thereupon
`formed by dispersing ferromagnetic powder and nonmagnetic
`powder in binder, which magnetic recording medium uses an
`aforesaid upper magnetic layer wherein the thickness is no
`greater than 0.2 µm, the product of remanent flux density of
`said upper magnetic layer and the thickness of said upper
`magnetic layer is 0.005~0.045 Tµm, the coercivity of said
`upper magnetic layer is 170~280 kA/m, the average particle
`size of the aforesaid magnetic powder is 0.01~0.12 µm, and the
`average particle size of the aforesaid nonmagnetic powder is no
`less than 1/10 the thickness of the aforesaid upper magnetic
`layer but no greater than 0.1 µm.
`
`Id. ¶ 7. Sasaki discloses several examples, and lists the ingredients and
`
`procedures used to form each “embodiment” and “comparative” example.
`
`Id. ¶¶ 26–40, Table 1. Sasaki also provides information regarding physical
`
`properties of the upper magnetic layer of each example, signal-to-noise ratio
`
`(S/N) values for the magnetic tape formed using each example, and storage
`
`properties for each example. Id. ¶¶ 39–40, Tables 1 and 2.
`
`iii. Aonuma (Ex. 1002)
`
`Aonuma relates to a magnetic recording medium for recording
`
`computer data, and particularly a medium that can be used in a playback
`
`system that uses a magnetoresistive (MR) playback head. Ex. 1002 ¶ 1.
`
`Aonuma aims to provide a magnetic recording medium that has good
`
`electromagnetic conversion characteristics, durability, and storage stability,
`
`yields a high S/N ratio, achieves high-density recording, and is capable of
`
`rapid data transfer. Id. ¶¶ 9–10. Aonuma teaches that it is possible to
`
`manufacture the desired magnetic recording medium by “setting the
`
`thickness of the magnetic layer to a specific range relative to the prior art
`
`and specifying the remanent flux and [orientation ratio] of the magnetic
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01389
`Patent 6,896,959 B2
`
`layer of the magnetic recording medium.” Id. ¶ 10. In particular, Aonuma
`
`discloses
`
`the average thickness of the magnetic layer is within the range
`of 0.15~0.25 μm, the remanent flux of the magnetic layer is
`within the range of 50~60mT*μm, the reduction in remanent
`flux of the magnetic layer after one week of storage at 60ºC,
`90% RH is less than 1%, and the OR (squareness ratio in the
`tape length direction/squareness ratio in the tape width
`direction) of the magnetic layer is 2.0 or greater.
`
`Id. ¶ 11.
`
`Aonuma discloses several examples, and lists the ingredients and
`
`procedures used to form each “embodiment” and “comparative” example.
`
`Id. ¶¶ 105–122, Tables 1 and 2. Aonuma also provides information
`
`regarding physical properties of the upper magnetic layer and overall
`
`magnetic tape for each example. Id. ¶¶ 118–122, Tables 1 and 2.
`
`D. Claims 1–9 and 11–16: Anticipation by Mori
`
`Petitioner contends that Mori anticipates claims 1–9 and 11–16. Pet.
`
`17–35. Petitioner relies on the Wang Declaration in support of its
`
`contentions. Id.
`
`Claim 1 requires, inter alia, “a magnetic upper recording layer . . .
`
`comprising a volume concentration of at least about 35% of a primary
`
`magnetic metallic particulate pigment.” Ex. 1001, 10:54–57.
`
`Petitioner first argues that Mori discloses the volume concentration
`
`requirement of claim 1 because Mori teaches “[t]he filling rate by volume of
`
`the strongly magnetic alloy powder in the magnetic layer can be equal to or
`
`higher than 30%, preferably equal to or higher than 35 percent, and still
`
`more preferably equal to or higher than 38 percent.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 11; Pet. 18–
`
`19. Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01389
`Patent 6,896,959 B2
`
`understand that “filling rate by volume of magnetic particles” corresponds to
`
`the “volume concentration” in claim 1. Pet. 18–19; Ex. 1017 ¶ 114;
`
`Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 11, 49 (Table 1). Petitioner emphasizes Mori’s use of the
`
`phrase “in the magnetic layer” in this statement as evidence that volume
`
`filling rate refers to the volume concentration of magnetic particles in the
`
`magnetic layer itself, i.e., the packing fraction. Reply 9. Petitioner also
`
`
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
