`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`HAMAMATSU PHOTONICS K.K.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SEMICAPS PTE LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Cases IPR2017-02110 and IPR2017-02112
`Patent 7,623,982 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: December 3, 2018
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before KEN B. BARRETT, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, and
`MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02110 and IPR2017-02112
`Patent 7,623,982 B2
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`JOHN G. SMITH, ESQUIRE
`WILLIAM S. FOSTER, ESQUIRE
`CHRISTOPHER BRUENJES, ESQUIRE
`BRIANNA LYNN SILVERSTEIN, ESQUIRE
`Drinker Biddle & Reath
`1500 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20005-1209
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`HECTOR RIBERA, ESQUIRE
`DAVID D. SCHUMANN, ESQUIRE
`RYAN MARTON, ESQUIRE
`Marton Ribera Schumann & Chang, LLP
`548 Market St. Suite 36117
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`david@martonribera.com
`ryan@martonribera.com
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Monday, December
`
`3, 2018, commencing at 1:09 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
`600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02110 and IPR2017-02112
`Patent 7,623,982 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE BARRETT: You may be seated. Good afternoon, everyone.
`We are on the record today in Final Hearings in IPR 2017-02110 and 2112,
`Hamamatsu v. Semicaps.
`I'm Judge Barrett, and next to me on the bench is Judge Ullagaddi,
`and appearing by video is Judge Boudreau.
`Let's get the parties' appearances. Who do we have for Petitioner?
`MR. SMITH: Yes. My name is John Smith. I'm Lead Counsel. And
`I'm accompanied by my colleague, Brianna Silverstein. Do you want me to
`say if anyone is in the audience, or just leave it at that?
`JUDGE BARRETT: You can introduce the people in the audience.
`MR. SMITH: Sure. We have Mr. Hitoshi Hisanaga of Hamamatsu
`Photonics who is the Petitioner.
`JUDGE BARRETT: Okay.
`MR. RIBERA: Good afternoon. My name is Hector Ribera, from
`Marton Ribera Schumann & Chang. And I'm here for Semicaps. And with
`me I have Mr. David Tan and Julian Pan of Semicaps.
`JUDGE BARRETT: Welcome, everyone. We set forth the procedure
`for today's hearing in our order. But just to recap. Each party will have 90
`minutes total to present for both cases. We will have one continuous
`transcript for both cases. My working assumption is, the parties will be
`addressing both the cases together, but if you are addressing anything
`specific to one of the two cases please state that, that will make for a cleaner
`transcript.
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02110 and IPR2017-02112
`Patent 7,623,982 B2
`
`
`Also for clarity in the transcript, and primarily to assist Judge
`Boudreau, any time you're referring to an exhibit or a demonstrative on the
`screen, please identify the slide number and that will allow him to follow
`along much more easily.
`Petitioner bears the burden, will go first, and you may reserve time for
`rebuttal. Patent Owner will go second. And then Petitioner, any rebuttal
`time you have remaining. I'm not using the clock, the timer clock, but I will
`watch the time, and I will give you warnings.
`Just as a reminder, I'm sure you know this. We will only be looking at
`the evidence and arguments that are already in the record. So, please, no
`new arguments, no new evidence. In reaching the final decision we won't be
`considering anything new that comes up today. Any questions, concerns,
`Petitioner?
`MR. SMITH: I have a question. In the first period, am I able to
`address the motion to amend, or do I have to wait until the second period?
`JUDGE BARRETT: You can use your time however you please.
`MR. SMITH: All right. Thank you.
`MR. RIBERA: No questions from the Patent Owner, Your Honor.
`JUDGE BARRETT: Okay. Thank you. With that, Petitioner, you
`may begin.
`MR. SMITH: Thank you, Judge Barrett, Judge Ullagaddi, Judge
`Boudreau. Today, as mentioned, we are talking about -- and I'm at slide 1
`right now, the cover slide -- we are talking about two IPRs, and concerning
`the same patent, which is U.S. Patent 7,623,982. The IPRs challenge
`different claims of the same patent.
`
`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
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02110 and IPR2017-02112
`Patent 7,623,982 B2
`
`
`In an attempt to provide convenience, unless indicated otherwise, all
`references to the IPR papers will be to the 02110 proceeding. And unless
`indicated otherwise, all references to any non-English document will be to
`the English translation. And for ease of reference, when I use the term
`"slide" I'll be referring to our demonstratives. I hope that's okay. If not,
`please let me know.
`JUDGE BARRETT: That's fine. And would you like to reserve some
`
`time?
`
`MR. SMITH: Oh, yes, I would. I'd like to reserve 45 minutes for
`rebuttal, please.
`JUDGE BARRETT: Half your time?
`MR. SMITH: If I finish early, I'm able to reserve more than that?
`JUDGE BARRETT: Let's go no more than half, but I understand, you
`have a -- there's a Motion to Amend in place, so.
`MR. SMITH: Okay.
`JUDGE BARRETT: Okay.
`MR. SMITH: All right. Thank you very much. Slide 2, please? So,
`the first IPR, 02110, challenges independent claims 1 and 21, and dependent
`claims 4 through 7, and 21 through 25.
`Slide 3, please? IPR 02112 challenges dependent claims 2, 3 and 8
`through 20. So, the first IPR handles all of the independent claims, and the
`second IPR is only dependent claims.
`Please note that none of the claims in the second IPR requires a pulsed
`laser beam, which is a feature that I'm sure will be discussed today. And as
`mentioned, there are two independent claims, 1 and 21.
`
`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
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02110 and IPR2017-02112
`Patent 7,623,982 B2
`
`
`Slide 4, please? As you can see, independent claim 1 is directed to a
`method.
`And slide 5, please? Independent claim 21 is directed to an apparatus
`which is roughly the similar features, but in apparatus form.
`There are two prior art references that are separately applied to each
`of claims 1 and 21 in separate grounds. The first of these is Hamada, which
`is Exhibit 1003, and the translation is in 1004, and the second reference
`against the independent claim is Quah, which is Exhibit 1005. The only two
`independent claim limitations that Patent Owner asserts are not in Hamada
`are the limitations circled in red on slides 4 and 5. Those relate to
`determining a plurality of samples, and accumulating the plurality the
`samples. In terms of Quah, it is undisputed that all of the features of claims
`1 and 21 are taught by Quah.
`JUDGE BARRETT: I have a question about the independent claims.
`MR. SMITH: Sure.
`JUDGE BARRETT: If I'm not mistaken, in Petitioner's opposition to
`the motion to amend.
`MR. SMITH: Yes.
`JUDGE BARRETT: Petitioner takes the position that the dwell or
`location limitation is present in the independent claims.
`MR. SMITH: Yes.
`JUDGE BARRETT: Is that correct? And if so, where is that?
`MR. SMITH: That was our position. Yes. Could you please go to
`slide 4? So in -- I'm sorry, slide 5, which is the apparatus claim. As you can
`see it says, "A control system operable to direct the laser beam source to
`dwell on the location on the electronic circuit."
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02110 and IPR2017-02112
`Patent 7,623,982 B2
`
`
`JUDGE BARRETT: I see the words.
`MR. SMITH: Yes.
`JUDGE BARRETT: Is there a limitation to require dwelling at the
`location, which I believe Patent Owner pointed out: that was the subject of
`the preliminary claim construction?
`MR. SMITH: Yes. And my recollection of the preliminary claim
`construction had to do with the term "response signal" and I thought that
`most of the comments in that, decision on institution and relating to that
`issue, I would say in this case a control system must be capable of directing
`the laser beam to dwell on the circuit location.
`There's also in the laser beam source, a laser beam source irradiates a
`laser beam onto the electronic circuit. So, there's irradiation in -- actual
`irradiation occurring in the first laser beam limitation; and in the control
`system there is -- they must be operable to direct the laser beam to dwell.
`JUDGE BARRETT: What about in independent claim 1, the method
`claim?
`MR. SMITH: Sure. Slide 4, please? Yeah. I mean, as you note the
`word "dwell" is not mentioned in that claim, and also I believe we said that
`the dwelling was implicit, and I think that would have come from irradiating
`the laser beam onto the electronic circuit. So you're correct, that word is not
`in claim 1.
`JUDGE BARRETT: Okay. So, then, if I understand correctly,
`Petitioner's position is: anytime there's irradiating laser it must be dwelling
`within the meaning of the claims?
`MR. SMITH: I don't know that we argue that in our papers, but that
`seems like a reasonable position.
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02110 and IPR2017-02112
`Patent 7,623,982 B2
`
`
`JUDGE BARRETT: Okay. Thank you.
`MR. SMITH: Yes. All right! So let's got to slide 6, please? So, I did
`want to point out -- and we'll get to them shortly -- but there are dependent
`claims 2 through 20, and 22 through 25. We will address those later, we've
`addressed those in our paper, but Petitioner's view is that those are primarily
`directed to trivial and conventional features, there's a pulsed laser, there's
`frequencies that were known in the art, and other features that we'll discuss
`in more detail later.
`But for now, I'd like to talk about claims 1 and 21 in view of Quah,
`which is slide 6. It is undisputed that Quah teaches all the limitations recited
`in claims 1 and 21. In slide 6 you'll see on the left the structure shown in
`Figure 3 of the 982 Patent, and on the right the structure is shown in Figure 1
`of Quah, very similar, if not identical.
`Slide 7, please? The petition presented a detailed anticipation analysis
`applying Quah to the 982 claims. The Board agreed with that analysis for
`purposes of the initial decision, and Patent Owner has not disputed that Quah
`teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 21.
`Slide 8, please? Patent Owner's only argument against Quah is that
`it's not a printed publication. The petition provided facts and case law,
`including declarations, evidencing that Quah was publicly distributed to
`those skilled in the art at an IEEE Conference in July 2006. We presented a
`declaration from a Mr. Brunier of IEEE, and also a declaration of Mr. Tan
`from -- he was an attendee at the conference and he received this paper on a
`CD.
`
`Slide 9, please? Patent Owner filed a preliminary response presenting
`arguments in case law, particularly the GoPro decision, and in attempt 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
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02110 and IPR2017-02112
`Patent 7,623,982 B2
`
`show that Quah was not a printed publication. But after that, for purposes of
`institution, the Board did not agree with Patent Owner's arguments, and
`instead found that Quah was a printed publication constituting prior art
`under 102B for purposes of the institution.
`Thus for purposes of the institution, it was shown that Quah was the
`102B publication, published by four out of the five 982 inventors in July
`2006. Since the decision on institution, Patent Owner has not provided any
`new facts or evidence in support of the non-publication argument. Patent
`Owner had the opportunity to depose Declarant Tan who received the disc,
`elected not to do so, and Patent Owner could have submitted more testimony
`from Inventor Quah since it's known from his declarations in Exhibits, 2011
`and 2016, that he was available for this purpose, but those were not
`submitted.
`Slide 10, please? So the case law since the decision on institution has
`actually become more favorable to Petitioner, in the GoPro case the Federal
`Circuit looked at that case and actually, for lack of a better word, lowered
`the threshold for approving publication in a case where document was
`distributed at a conference.
`So, to summarize, nothing has changed factually since the Board's
`decision. The case law is even more favorable to Petitioner, and there's
`nothing in the record that should change the Board's determination, initial
`determination. Accordingly, Petitioner submits that the Board's initial
`conclusion and the cause of the printed publication anticipating claims 1 and
`21 should stand.
`Next, unless there are questions, I'd like to go to slide 11, please?
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02110 and IPR2017-02112
`Patent 7,623,982 B2
`
`
`JUDGE BARRETT: Forgive me for not knowing this off the top of
`my head. Did Petitioner address the purported dwelling location limitation
`in its principal brief?
`MR. SMITH: In the petition or the --
`JUDGE BARRETT: Right, in the petition itself.
`MR. SMITH: Yes --
`JUDGE BARRETT: The limitation we were just discussing.
`MR. SMITH: Yes. Sure. Yeah, we would have been -- yeah, I think
`in multiple references, including Hamada and Quah.
`Slide 10 has to do claim construction. There are only three terms that
`are still at issue that have any bearing on the Board's determination on these
`proceedings. The first of these is accumulating the -- it is Petitioner's view
`that that should be construed to mean collecting a number of individual
`samples. The specification illustrates that the accumulation of the values
`using an equation, showing summation or adding of the values corresponds
`to accumulation. That's Exhibit 1, the 982 Patent at column 8, and also in
`the Patent Owner response, page 21.
`Also from page 21 of the Patent Owner's response the ordinary
`meaning of accumulate is to gather together, or increase or add; and as the
`Board found in the decision on institution, the accumulating would
`encompass adding, and thus Petitioner's construction is consistent with the
`Board's initial decision.
`Patent Owner proposes a longer definition, but it has some overlap.
`Petitioner proposes collecting a number of individual samples, to be
`mathematically processed, for example, to generate a single value from the
`multiple samples, and it is -- accumulating by itself, could be done without
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02110 and IPR2017-02112
`Patent 7,623,982 B2
`
`those subsequent processes. So, Petitioner believes that this were shorter
`construction is appropriate.
`The second term is "pulsed laser beam," Petitioner had proposed a
`construction, the Board had ruled on that issue in the decision on institution.
`We looked at the references we were relying on for pulsed laser, and they all
`use the word pulse or pulsed laser beam, so we felt it would be most
`appropriate to just use the plain and ordinary meaning, since the references
`talked about pulsing anyway.
`And response signal was another limitation that was done --
`JUDGE BARRETT: Before you move on.
`MR. SMITH: Sure.
`JUDGE BARRETT: Then what is the plain and ordinary meaning of
`pulsed laser beam? Is that anywhere in the record?
`MR. SMITH: I do not believe it is. We have references that say
`pulsed laser beams, so we thought that would be -- it wouldn't be an issue.
`JUDGE BARRETT: Okay. So, for example, like the Quah reference,
`I believe you initially asserted in the petition that there was a pulsed laser --
`in the decision on institution we made a preliminary finding that it wasn’t.
`MR. SMITH: Yes.
`JUDGE BARRETT: But now you're focusing mainly on the
`secondary references that use the word "pulsed laser"?
`MR. SMITH: That's correct.
`JUDGE BARRETT: Okay.
`MR. SMITH: Yeah. A response signal, the Board in the initial
`decision, said that it meant a signal output by the electronic circuit under
`test. Patent Owner's position was that it had to be, I believe, in response 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
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02110 and IPR2017-02112
`Patent 7,623,982 B2
`
`irradiation pulse of the laser beam, rather than some other stimulus, but the
`claim language doesn’t say that, and the prosecution and specification do not
`require that. So it is Petitioner's position on response signal, that the Board
`was correct in the initial decision on institution.
`Go back to slide 4, please? So, I'd like to talk about Hamada as
`applied to independent claims 1 and 21. We proposed an anticipation
`position, and also an obviousness position, if I'd spent most of my time
`today talking about anticipation.
`Petitioner has provided a detailed analysis as to why Hamada
`anticipates, or would have at least rendered obvious these claims in the
`petition. Patent Owner argues that Hamada does not teach or suggest the
`determining and accumulating recitations in claims 1 and 21, and again,
`those are the ones that are circled.
`The determining limitations in claims 1 and 21, in claim 1 it's a step,
`in claim 21 it is a function performed at a measuring circuit. If one looks at
`the specification, for example, column 3 lines 60 to 64, it can be understood
`that the measuring circuit may be a circuit that measures and electrical
`current. And therefore the measuring circuit, a measuring circuit disclosed
`in the 982 Patent is a current meter.
`As for accumulating, claim 1 has the accumulating or plurality of
`samples to generate a value, and 21 recites that in the context of a signal
`processor that accumulates the plurality of samples to generate a value. In
`the 982 specification, column 4, lines 2 through 4: the signal processor 109
`may be implemented on a digital signal processor, or programmable
`processor, so in one configuration the signal processor of the 982 Patent, is a
`digital processor.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02110 and IPR2017-02112
`Patent 7,623,982 B2
`
`
`Slide 12, please? This is Figure 1 of Hamada on slide 12. Figure 1 of
`Hamada shows an inspection device 10 for inspecting a device under test or
`DUT 1. And just like one of the disclosed configurations of the 982 Patent
`Hamada uses the current meter 6 as its measuring circuit for determining a
`plurality of samples. And like the 982 Patent, Hamada used a signal
`processor in the form of signal processing in display unit 9, for performing
`the accumulation.
`Slide 13, please? Slide 13, if you're not familiar with by now you will
`be by the end of today. This is probably one of the primary points of dispute
`between Patent Owner and the Petitioner. Figure 2 is a time -- this is from
`Hamada, there's a timing chart showing a method of inspecting the DUT 1
`using the inspection device shown in Figure 1.
`You'll note in Figure 2, there are three parts. Figure 2A relates to
`what's called an LSI test signal. Figure 2B relates to a laser beam
`irradiation, and Figure 2C relates to current measurement, which is also
`known as sampling or determining. And please note in Figure 2, there, each
`of site 1, site 2 and site 3 is shown, just above 2B, and these represent
`different scanning or irradiation locations on the electronic circuit.
`A disputed issue, that again, you heard and you will hear again, it is
`what relates to the current measurement aspect relating to Figure 2C, it is
`Patent Owner's position that only a single current measurement is made. In
`other words, only a single current sample is taken within each time, T10,
`shown in Figure 2C. Patent Owner's position is that if only a single current
`measurement is made within each time, T10, when the claimed determining
`a plurality of samples limitation of claims 1 and 21 is not met, because it's
`only a single sample.
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02110 and IPR2017-02112
`Patent 7,623,982 B2
`
`
`However, this is not how the model works. The Petitioner has
`provided multiple reasons evidencing that there are multiple current
`measurements that are taken with each time T10, shown in Figure 2C, and in
`view of this point, and as I'll now explain, Hamada actually does take
`multiple current measurements per site, and therefore does meet all the
`limitations of claims 1 and 21.
`JUDGE BOUDREAU: Mr. Smith, if I could just interrupt you for a
`minute. Is there any indication in Hamada that Figures 2, A, B and C are all
`drawn to the same scale as each other? If we look at Figure 3 of Hamada,
`there were vertical lines that are -- and I know we don't have that on the
`screen right now --
`MR. SMITH: Yes. Yes.
`JUDGE BOUDREAU: -- but there were vertical lines that are lining
`up the three portions of the figure, and that's notably absent from Figure 2.
`MR. SMITH: Mm-hmm.
`JUDGE BOUDREAU: So, can you comment on whether there's any
`indication as to what the scale is here?
`MR. SMITH: Sure. That's a good question. I'm not, off the top of
`my head, familiar with the scale, but I am familiar with there is a disclosure
`that I can look up during the break, or whenever you'd like, that talks about
`multiple LSI test signals, I believe per time T10, or at least time T1. So, we
`do know that the LSI test signal from that quote of Hamada shows multiple
`LSI test signals, meaning they have to be smaller than those depicted time
`windows, or at least one of those windows. I don't have that off the top of
`my head, but I'm happy to provide it after the rebuttal, if you'd like, or
`anytime you'd like.
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02110 and IPR2017-02112
`Patent 7,623,982 B2
`
`
`JUDGE BOUDREAU: And so with the frequency of the LSI test
`signal be essentially a real number of multiple of -- an interpreting multiple
`of the irradiation and on the current measurements on frequencies?
`MR. SMITH: My recollection is that Dr. Mercer might have testified
`to that point, and it might even have been in the petition, but as I stand here,
`I don't know if that's exactly the case. I do know that in some of the
`embodiments we reference -- it's a little strange, every time I look at you my
`picture shows me looking the other way, sorry about that -- but I do know
`that in B and C there are disclosures in paragraphs 23 and 24 that link the
`sampling that goes to the laser pulse in 2B and the current measurement in
`2C to the LSI signal in 2A.
`So, in those situations, yes, they would be timed off of that LSI
`testing. If I had to say one way or the other, I would say it's probably is an
`(inaudible) relationship.
`JUDGE BOUDREAU: Thank you.
`MR. SMITH: Yes. Yeah, there is actually a disclosure that says the -
`- well, that within T10 the sampling can be linked up to the -- synchronized
`with the LSI test signal. There is disclosure that says in Figure 2B, it could
`be linked up with it, or it doesn’t have to be, it could be the entire time, T1.
`JUDGE BOUDREAU: All right.
`MR. SMITH: So, slide 14, please? So as mentioned we provided
`multiple reasons in the petition showing that Hamada does make multiple
`current measurements at each scanning site, but for today, because it's most
`easily explained, I'd like to focus on one of these reasons in particular, that
`by itself shows this is the case. And that is that Hamada's signal processing
`
`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
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02110 and IPR2017-02112
`Patent 7,623,982 B2
`
`and display in it performs digital averaging, and therefore, Hamada teaches
`determining a plurality of samples as recited in claims 1 and 21.
`Please let me explain. So, first of all paragraphs 21, 23 and 24 of
`Hamada, all disclose that the signal processing display device 9, calculates
`the average current at each of the sites, 1, 2 and 3. For example, paragraph
`24 expressly says, "The signal processing in display device 9 calculates the
`average current at each of the sites."
`Secondly, Petitioner has provided expert testimony showing that the
`averages -- that such averaging is performed digitally. In other words, the
`averaging performed by signal processing in the display unit 9 constitutes
`digital averaging.
`For example, at page 10 of the reply, Petitioner points out in reliance
`on testimony from its expert, Dr. Nikawa, that the Japanese language term
`that Hamada uses in this section for the word "calculate" is most commonly
`used in the Japanese language for this technology to describe digital rather
`that analog processing.
`This is supported by paragraphs 33 and 34 of Dr. Nikawa's
`declaration, in which he testified that it's his opinion a person of one of
`ordinary skill in the art would have -- having Japanese language capability at
`the time of the invention, would have understood that a processor or other
`circuit component said to be carrying out or performing the function
`corresponding to the Japanese character -- in the Japanese language, was
`performing digital-based calculation.
`So, as stated at page 10 of the Petitioner's reply the processing
`implemented by Hamada's signal processing in display device 9 is digital
`
`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
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02110 and IPR2017-02112
`Patent 7,623,982 B2
`
`based, and as stated at page 22 of the reply, signal processing and display
`device 9 performs the digital accumulation of samples.
`These conclusions are also supported by Petitioner's expert, Dr.
`Mercer, in his second declaration at paragraphs 23, 24 and 28, where he
`testifies: that the averaging calculations carried out by device 9 of Hamada,
`are digital based, and moreover since digital averaging, by definition,
`involves the accumulation, it is Dr. Mercer's opinion that the signal
`processing in display device 9 performs digital accumulation in its
`calculation of the average. That's paragraph 28 of the Mercer declaration.
`Third, Patent Owner's first technical expert, Dr. Bruce, testified that in
`a digital system, which digitally computes an average from a number of
`measurements, because it is digital, the system must add N samples together
`and then divide by N, that's the Bruce declaration at paragraphs 26 to 27, and
`that was cited in the decision by the Board at page 8.
`So we have Dr. Nikawa testifying that signal processing in display
`device 9 is digital, it performs digital averaging, or digital calculations. Dr.
`Mercer testifying that signal-processing display device 9 performs digital
`accumulation. And we have Dr. Bruce testifying that digital averaging
`necessarily requires multiple samples.
`So if you connect those dots, these points by themselves prove that the
`signal processing in display device unit 9 of Hamada meets the determining
`limitations of independent claims 121, i.e. determining the plurality of
`samples.
`Slide 16, please? And the accumulating goes along with that since the
`testimony was that there was digital accumulation, and therefore the
`accumulating features of 1 and 21 are met as well.
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02110 and IPR2017-02112
`Patent 7,623,982 B2
`
`
`Slide 17, please? I guess recognizing that if Hamada performs digital
`averaging in its device 9 that means claims 1 and 21 are anticipated by
`Hamada. Patent Owner submitted a number of arguments claiming that
`Hamada does not perform digital averaging, and therefore does not
`anticipated claims 1 and 21.
`The first set of these arguments were to question the qualifications of
`Dr. Mercer who was the first expert that Petitioner used. The second line of
`challenge was an argument that Hamada operates like other analogue
`systems of the time. And a third argument was that Petitioner -- Patent
`Owner didn’t say this, but Petitioner characterized it as saying: Hamada
`doesn’t mean what it says.
`With regard to Dr. Mercer, we prefer to address that on rebuttal, but
`for now we would say that he is a person of skill in the art according to the
`definition that Patent Owner agreed to in its preliminary response, and the
`Board agreed to for purposes of the decision on institution.
`But for now I'd like to focus on the second and third arguments. Slide
`18, please? So this is a quote from the Patent Owner response, "Basically
`the second argument that Patent Owner makes is that Hamada operates like
`other systems of the time, which made a single analogue average current
`measurement per location which was then subjected to the A/D conversion,
`downstream from the current measuring."
`I'll quote from the reply at page 9, "Key to Patent Owner's argument is
`the assertion that Hamada's output of the current measuring component must
`be an analog signal, like the other systems of the time, and that Hamada,
`therefore, requires the downstream A/D converter, as opposed to the current
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02110 and IPR2017-02112
`Patent 7,623,982 B2
`
`measuring component providing an output in digital form, and not requiring
`an A/D converter."
`But if you'll note and as we've argued, Hamada does not have any
`A/D converter located downstream from the current meter 6, and prior to the
`signal processing display unit 9. And therefore we have testimony from Dr.
`Mercer that the output of the current meter is in digital form, therefore
`supporting the conclusion that the current meter performs digital sampling,
`and in addition to the other reasons presented.
`So, the fact that Hamada does not include an A/D converter, which
`Patent Owner essentially describes as being necessary to systems of the
`time, constitutes strong evidence that Hamada does not, in fact, operate like
`those other systems at the time.
`Slide 20, please? Patent Owner's third argument in Petitioner's view
`boils down with asserting that Hamada doesn’t really mean what it says.
`You will see the quote on slide 20. Patent Owner argues that when Hamada
`states that its signal processing display device 9 calculates an average
`current on each of the sites, what Hamada really means is that Device 9
`performs calculations based on the average current for each site. That's from
`the reply at page 15, citing the Patent Owner response at page 38.
`So, if you look at our agreement, sort of circular unsupported
`reasoning basically saying: Hamada doesn’t mean what it says. We note that
`there is no deposition of Petitioner's translator. Patent Owner could have
`provided its own translation, could have deposed Petitioner's translator, but
`didn’t do so. It's not required. But in the absence of that, it seems that
`Hamada should be interpreted as meaning what it says, and what it says is
`
`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
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02110 and IPR2017-02112
`Patent 7,623,982 B2
`
`the display device 9 calculates the average current not -- it doesn’t calculate
`a value based on an average that had already occurred.
`JUDGE BARRETT: To clarify my understanding, the potential
`dispute over the Japanese character which you say means digital processing
`accumulating.
`MR. SMITH: Yes. Yes.
`JUDGE BARRETT: Did that testimony come from the translator?
`MR. SMITH: That came from Dr. Nikawa, who is our technical
`expert. Yeah. Also, Dr. Mercer testified that component 9 is digital
`averaging as well, but not based on that for the same reason.
`JUDGE BARRETT: Okay.
`MR. SMITH: Yeah. Okay. Let's go to slide 21, please? There are
`quite a few dependent claims, which is why two IPRs were filed in this case,
`because we needed the amount of time to actually address those. Claims 4
`and 2
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
