`
`
`
`
`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