`
`
`
`
`
`
`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