`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`
`
`GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`WISCONSIN ARCHERY PRODUCTS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`___________
`
`Case IPR2018-01137
`Patent 8,316,551 B2
`___________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: September 6, 2019
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before BARBARA A. PARVIS, STACEY G. WHITE, and
`MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01137
`Patent 8,316,551 B2
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`JENNIFER C. BAILEY, ESQUIRE
`Erise IP, P.A.
`7015 College Blvd.
`
`Suite 700
`
`Overland Park, KS 66211
`
`
`
`
`
` ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MICHAEL T. GRIGGS, ESQUIRE
`Boyle Frederickson
`840 North Plankinton Avenue
`Milwaukee, WI 53203
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Friday, September
`6, 2019, commencing at 12:59 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark
`Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia, before Donna Jenkins,
`Notary Public.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01137
`Patent 8,316,551 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE PARVIS: Please be seated. Welcome to the
`
`
`Board. This is an oral argument in IPR2018-01137. The
`challenged patent is U.S. patent No. 8,316,551 B2. Petitioner is
`Garmin International, Incorporated. Patent Owner is Wisconsin
`Archery Products. I'm Administrative Judge Parvis. Judge
`White is appearing remotely from the Dallas office and Judge
`Ullagaddi is here with me. At this time we'd like counsel to
`introduce yourselves, your partners and your guests starting with
`Petitioner. Please use the microphone.
`
`
`MS. BAILEY: Thank you, Your Honor. Jennifer
`Bailey from Erise IP for Petitioner, Garmin International. With
`me is in-house IP counsel at Garmin, David Ayres and Sam
`Korte.
`JUDGE PARVIS: And Patent Owner.
`
`
`MR. GRIGGS: Good afternoon. My name is Michael
`
`
`Griggs. I'm from the Boyle Frederickson firm in Milwaukee.
`With me is my partner, Tim Newholm, and we represent the
`Patent Owner Wisconsin Archery Products.
`
`
`JUDGE PARVIS: Thank you. Before we begin we
`want to remind the parties that guidance for this hearing was
`provided in our Oral Hearing Order of August 21, 2019 which
`was paper No. 28. As you know from our Oral Hearing Order,
`each side has been given 60 minutes total time for oral argument.
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01137
`Patent 8,316,551 B2
`
`Petitioner will proceed first and present its case as to the
`challenged claims of the challenged patent. Absent special
`circumstances, Petitioner may reserve no more than half of its
`time for rebuttal. Thereafter Patent Owner will argue its
`opposition to Petitioner's case. Patent Owner may reserve time
`for a brief surrebuttal to respond to Petitioner's rebuttal. After
`that Petitioner will make use of the rest of its time for its
`rebuttal. Finally, the Patent Owner may present its surrebuttal.
`
`
`We have a few other reminders. This hearing is open
`to the public and a full transcript of it will become part of the
`record. Also please remember to speak into the microphone at
`the podium so that all judges, including the remote judge, can
`hear you. Additionally, please speak into the microphone
`information to identify any demonstratives and any document
`projected on the screen as what is projected on the screen will
`not be viewable by anyone reading the transcript or the judge
`appearing remotely. So any time counsel for Petitioner, you may
`proceed.
`MS. BAILEY: Thank you, Your Honor. I would like
`
`
`to reserve 20 minutes for rebuttal. May it please the Board. The
`proposed ground of obviousness for the independent claims of
`the 551 patent is Hargrove in view of Williams. Hargrove is
`strikingly similar to the 551 patent. Hargrove teaches a bow
`sight that properly positions a sighting element based 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
`
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01137
`Patent 8,316,551 B2
`
`environmental conditions such as the distance to the target and
`the angle of inclination of the bow.
`
`
`In view of these overwhelming similarities between
`the 551 patent and Hargrove, Patent Owner WAP has developed
`what it calls two critical distinctions between the 551 patent and
`Hargrove. Importantly, neither one of these alleged critical
`distinctions is recited in the claims.
`
`
`The first critical distinction that WAP addresses is
`that Hargrove purportedly discloses a continuous scan mode
`while the 551 patent is purportedly directed to a snapshot mode,
`and I refer to the Patent Owner response paper 21 at pages 13
`through 14 where this is laid out. We're going to discuss this
`continuous scan mode more today but the continuous scan mode
`that is purported in Hargrove is a non- starter. There is no
`discussion in Hargrove of a continuous scan mode and such a
`mode would be impractical, undesirable and nonsensical for an
`archer using an electronic bow sight.
`
`
`WAP's second critical distinction is that Hargrove
`does not disclose aligning the laser range finder with a target to
`establish a default sighted in position, and I refer to paper 21 at
`page 17. We disagree with this contention and there's plenty of
`evidence in the record to the contrary that we'll discuss today.
`But more importantly, this is another purported critical
`distinction that is not recited in any of the challenged claims.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 5
`
`
`
`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
`
`Case IPR2018-01137
`Patent 8,316,551 B2
`
`Because of these many similarities between the 551
`
`
`patent and Hargrove, WAP has taken these two alleged critical
`distinctions and spun them into claim constructions that import
`limitations into the claims and arguments for nonobviousness
`that rely on this fabricated continuous scan theory in Hargrove.
`
`
`I first refer to DX2 of Petitioner's demonstratives, and
`we have here claim 1 of the 551 patent and then on the right hand
`side is figure 6 of the 551 patent, and then figure 17 of Hargrove
`and just visually you can begin to see the similarities between
`the two bow sights. Claim 1 of the 551 recites a range finder, an
`inclinometer, a processor, multiple aim indicators and an input
`device.
`I want to comment on just one item of nomenclature
`
`
`that we laid out in the petition at page 10. Claim 1 of the 551
`patent recites a range finder and this is the range finder that
`emits the laser that determines the distance to the target. In
`Hargrove, Hargrove refers to the range finder as the overall
`entirety of the device, so looking at fig. 17 of Hargrove on DX2,
`Hargrove refers to the whole entirety of that bow sight 179 as the
`range finder. We discussed this item of nomenclature in the
`petition again at page 10, but I just wanted to identify it in case
`it becomes confusing today.
`
`
`So referring to DX3, we have the 551 patent
`juxtaposed against fig. 17 of Hargrove and also you can start to
`begin to see the hardware limitations and how similar they are.
`
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01137
`Patent 8,316,551 B2
`
`So Hargrove discloses a point to point measuring device 214 that
`maps to the claimed range finder in claim 1 of the 551 patent.
`Hargrove discloses an angle sensitive transducer 210 that maps
`to the claimed inclinometer. Hargrove discloses a processor 202
`that maps to the claim processor and Hargrove teaches multiple
`aim indicators in the form of selected horizontal and vertical
`lines that are displayed as a cross-hair on the LCD180 in fig. 17
`of Hargrove that you see here at the top left of DX3, and
`Hargrove discloses and makes clear that it doesn't actually
`display all of those horizontal lines and all of those vertical lines
`at the same time, that it selects a pair of a horizontal and vertical
`line dependent on the determined environmental conditions,
`namely the range to target and the angle of inclination of the
`bow.
`So let's discuss at DX5 WAP's disputes regarding
`
`
`claim 1 of the 551 patent. WAP raises two arguments and they
`fall in the last limitation of claim 1, the wherein clause
`beginning wherein the manually actuated input device. So I have
`an excerpt of claim 1 and then I've underlined in purple the two
`items that WAP is arguing.
`
`
`WAP first argues that Hargrove does not disclose an
`input device that is "arranged upon the bow" and we're going to
`talk about this limitation a little bit further, but WAP argues this
`based on a claim construction that arranged upon the bow
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01137
`Patent 8,316,551 B2
`
`actually means separately and independently mounted on the
`bow.
`The second argument that WAP makes with respect to
`
`
`claim 1 is that the manually actuated input device is not arranged
`upon the bow so that the archer can actuate the device when the
`bow is in a fully drawn position and I refer to paper 21, the
`Patent Owner response, page 37 in footnote 6 which makes clear
`that these are two separate arguments for claim 1.
`
`
`JUDGE PARVIS: With respect to Patent Owner's
`construction arranged upon the bow, is that outcome
`determinative? So if we were -- are the issues then somewhat
`related very much to claim construction? So if we were to
`decide that Patent Owner's claim construction was correct with
`respect to claim 1, then would Patent Owner prevail?
`
`
`MS. BAILEY: No, Your Honor. Because we also
`map that Williams discloses a trigger mechanism or an input
`device that is arranged upon the bow.
`
`
`JUDGE PARVIS: So the Williams device, in
`Petitioner's view, satisfies Patent Owner's construction of
`separate and independent; is that correct?
`
`
`MS. BAILEY: I agree, except I will also note that
`Patent Owner has not made any discussion that Williams does
`not teach that in the record with respect to Williams.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`
`
` 8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01137
`Patent 8,316,551 B2
`
`JUDGE PARVIS: Also has Petitioner set forth an
`
`
`express construction for the phrase arranged upon the bow or is
`Petitioner relying on the plain and ordinary meaning?
`
`
`MS. BAILEY: Petitioner is relying on the plain and
`ordinary meaning and I would also add to that that the plain and
`ordinary meaning is consistent with what is disclosed in the 551
`patent with respect to arranged upon the bow and if you'd like,
`we can talk about the limitation arranged upon the bow and kind
`of move to that claim construction.
`
`
`JUDGE PARVIS: No, I just had a few questions
`about it.
`MS. BAILEY: Okay. Well I'll hopefully be hitting it
`
`
`later so we can delve into it more then. So I'm going to talk
`about the first argument with respect to claim 1 is the actuation
`at full draw. First of all, the Board does not need to find that
`Hargrove discloses actuation at full draw in order to find the
`challenged claims unpatentable. This is because the ground of
`obviousness presented in the petition is Hargrove in view of
`Williams and as we'll see, Williams expressly and clearly
`discloses actuation of an input device at full draw.
`
`
`But Hargrove does teach actuation at full draw so we
`have here fig. 4 of Hargrove and admittedly fig. 4 is a schematic
`that does not go into a lot of detail with respect to the input
`device and to how one would actuate the input device. But what
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 9
`
`
`
`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
`
`Case IPR2018-01137
`Patent 8,316,551 B2
`
`is important with respect to fig. 4 is the written text that
`discusses fig. 4 in Hargrove.
`
`
`Referring to DX7, we have here column 7, lines 23
`through 29 of Hargrove and Hargrove talks about a calibration
`process and any bow sight has to be calibrated. You have to
`know where you are with an angle measurement and a particular
`distance, so Hargrove has this example that it talks about that in
`the calibration mode the archer is going to go and determine an
`object of known distance and then go, raise the bow to a
`particular angle and set that angle for calibration purposes, and
`that's discussed also -- we discuss this in the petition at page 35
`and Exhibit 1003 at paragraphs 107 through 108.
`
`
`Importantly in this section, it talks about the archer
`goes to the object of known distance, raises the bow to measure
`the angle beta (phonetic) and then switches, then actuate it to
`complete calibration. Well we know that that switch has to be at
`a location that can be actuated at full draw because if you are
`calibrating the device in order to determine the angle that the
`bow is at that moment, then you have to be able to complete the
`calibration, switch is then actuated to complete calibration when
`the bow is raised to that angle.
`
`
`So Petitioner's expert Dr. Cross has opined that he
`understands from this it is one indication that the switch is
`actuatable at full draw. Now WAP responds to this that all of
`the calibration calculations that are discussed in referring to figs.
`
`
`
`
` 10
`
`
`
`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
`
`Case IPR2018-01137
`Patent 8,316,551 B2
`
`4 through 5 are "would be performed whether or not the bow was
`at full draw" and I'm quoting from paper 21 at page 38. So think
`about that. They're saying all these calibrations that are being
`performed in Hargrove, you're going to perform those whether or
`not the bow is at full draw. That doesn't make any sense. If the
`point of calibrating the bow is to calibrate it when the user is
`actually aiming and shooting the bow, then you're going to be at
`full draw because aiming and shooting the bow happens at full
`draw and I also note that they make that statement without any
`expert support. It's mere attorney argument.
`
`
`JUDGE ULLAGADDI: Counsel.
`
`
`MS. BAILEY: Yes.
`
`
`JUDGE ULLAGADDI: Does Dr. Cross's opinion have
`any underlying evidence supporting that the switch must be
`actuated at full draw?
`
`
`MS. BAILEY: Other than the teachings of Hargrove
`that we reference here in the demonstratives and the petition and
`the supporting declaration, those are what we rely on.
`
`
`JUDGE ULLAGADDI: Thank you.
`
`
`MS. BAILEY: There's other areas of Hargrove that
`also indicate to a skilled person that the switch is actuatable at
`full draw, I refer to Hargrove at column 2, lines 64 through 67
`which teaches calculating the horizontal distance to target when
`shooting on a sloped surface. Now the calculating that
`horizontal distance to the target in Hargrove is calculating the
`
`
`
`
` 11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01137
`Patent 8,316,551 B2
`
`distance to the target plus the angle as measured by the angle
`sensitive transducer. If that is occurring when shooting on a
`sloped surface, then that is occurring so that you can begin that
`process by actuating the switch at full draw.
`
`
`WAP's response to these teachings in Hargrove is to
`argue that Dr. Cross agreed Hargrove does not disclose actuation
`at full draw and WAP argues this at paper 21, page 29. But WAP
`is selectively quoting from Dr. Cross's deposition testimony in
`its brief. I refer the Board to Exhibit 2007 which is the
`deposition transcript of Dr. Cross at page 75 and I encourage
`Your Honors to go read the remainder of Dr. Cross's testimony
`which WAP does not include, where Dr. Cross says it would be
`implicit and it would be implied and understood that Hargrove
`teaches actuation at full draw and then he goes on to provide
`reasons for why he understands such.
`
`
`WAP's only evidence that Hargrove does not have a
`switch that actuates the full draw is the 3D model that WAP had
`presented in its briefing and I'll just quickly hit on this, that this
`model is unsupported and technically incorrect demonstrative
`evidence. There's no explanation by WAP in the record as to
`how it was made and specifically how the dimensions were
`determined off of Hargrove. The only evidence in the record is
`from my deposition of WAP's expert where I asked him how did
`you determine the dimensions.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 12
`
`
`
`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
`
`Case IPR2018-01137
`Patent 8,316,551 B2
`
`I refer the Board to Exhibit 1014, pages 106 through
`
`
`109 which is the deposition transcript of WAP's expert where I'm
`asking him about this. WAP's expert admitted that WAP's
`counsel had the 3D model contracted out, that any dimensions
`were based off the common riser dimensions because one of the
`questions I asked was how did you come up with these
`dimensions? It's a 2D model and how did you come up and
`WAP's expert said well, you need a fiducial to be able to figure
`out what the dimension are, and I said okay, well what was the
`fiducial and he said well, it was the riser dimension. But then he
`went on to say but riser dimensions vary and that there is no
`standardized riser dimension. So even the fiducial that they use
`to determine the dimensions actually has variability in it.
`
`
`JUDGE PARVIS: Did Petitioner ask to inspect the
`bow?
`MS. BAILEY: We looked at it during the deposition
`
`
`of WAP's expert.
`
`
`JUDGE PARVIS: Did you take any measurements?
`
`
`MS. BAILEY: No, Your Honor, and I would also say,
`Your Honor, that it is impossible to determine what the
`measurements are off of the Hargrove device and actually WAP's
`expert admitted that also in his deposition. He said that it is,
`
`
`"Not possible to go ahead and provide an exact replica
`because patent figures themselves are not required to be exact
`dimensions."
`
`
`
`
` 13
`
`
`
`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
`
`Case IPR2018-01137
`Patent 8,316,551 B2
`
`He also stated,
`
`
`"It's not intended to be exact because these figures
`
`
`aren't intended to be exact."
`
`
`So we have a situation where a demonstrative of a 3D
`model of a 2D piece of paper based off a fiducial that is variable
`and an admission that the patent drawings are not exact and
`therefore the replica they came up with is not to be exact.
`
`
`So putting aside whether or not Hargrove teaches
`actuation at full draw, Williams teaches such. I'm referring to
`DX8 now. I have highlighted for the Board a portion of
`Williams where it says,
`
`
`"Using one of such trigger mechanisms an archer is
`able to move the trigger handle without removing the bow
`gripping hand from the bow. In this manner, an archer may
`adjust the position of the trigger plate while maintaining the bow
`at full draw."
`
`
`So because of these very express teachings in WAP
`that there is an input device arranged on the bow for actuation at
`full draw, WAP has presented two different arguments. First,
`WAP argues well, it would be nonobvious to take the mechanical
`trigger mechanism of Williams and put it with the e lectronic bow
`sight of Hargrove. What WAP is really requiring there is bodily
`incorporation of Williams' trigger mechanism into Hargrove's
`electronic bow and In re Keller , which is oft cited states that the
`test for obviousness is not whether the features of the secondary
`
`
`
`
` 14
`
`
`
`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
`
`Case IPR2018-01137
`Patent 8,316,551 B2
`
`reference can be incorporated into the primary reference, instead
`the test for obviousness is whether the combination of the
`references and what it was fair that suggests to the skilled
`person.
`But WAP's argument doesn't even hit home to what
`
`
`the actual round of unpatentability was. The petition made very
`clear that the ground was not taking the mechanical trigger
`element of Williams, it was merely taking the concept that you
`could have an input device that triggered and located at a portion
`on the bow that actuated it at full draw.
`
`
`The other argument that WAP makes with respect to
`Williams is that there would be no benefit to incorporating the
`trigger mechanism of Williams and actuating at full draw in
`Hargrove because of the alleged continuous scan mode that
`Hargrove supposedly teaches.
`
`
`So I want to step back for a second and not lose track
`of what's going on when you're aiming a bow. Aiming a bow
`takes place at full draw. The whole point of the 551 patent and
`the whole point of Hargrove is determining a proper aiming
`position. If you're determining a proper aiming position, you're
`determining that position when you're at full draw. So this is
`why, referring to DX8, that WAP admits in its briefing that it,
`Williams, merely stands for the unremarkable proposition that
`inclination compensation should take place at full draw and we
`agree with that statement. It is unremarkable that you are to
`
`
`
`
` 15
`
`
`
`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
`
`Case IPR2018-01137
`Patent 8,316,551 B2
`
`determine a proper aiming position when at full draw and WAP
`admits that in its briefing.
`
`
`Additionally, there is ample evidence in the record of
`the obviousness of modifying Hargrove so that the input switch
`218 is at a location that is actuatable at full draw and WAP
`doesn't really rebut that evidence. Instead it relies on this
`continuous scan theory that there would be no benefit.
`
`
`So let's get into the continuous scan theory. I'm now
`referring to DX9. So what WAP is arguing here, and it actually
`took me a while to kind of figure out what they were arguing
`from their briefing, WAP's basis for why it would not be obvious
`to modify Hargrove to include a switch actuatable at full draw is
`that there would be no benefit and there would allegedly be no
`benefit to actuating the device at full draw because Hargrove
`operates in a continuous scan mode.
`
`
`Now continuous scan mode or a dynamic mode, none
`of this is disclosed in Hargrove. WAP makes up this theory
`because it has to have something as opposed to address the very
`clear statement in Williams. So WAP's theory is that the user
`will actuate the switch before the user even raises the bow and
`pulls it to full draw. As soon as the user actuates the switch, the
`laser diode starts firing, the angle sits at a transducer, starts
`measuring the angle and the cross-hair that is displayed in
`Hargrove begins display and as soon as the user raises and moves
`the bow to full draw, you get a new cross-hair. As soon as the
`
`
`
`
` 16
`
`
`
`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
`
`Case IPR2018-01137
`Patent 8,316,551 B2
`
`user moves slightly there's a new cross-hair. So as I'm at full
`draw and I'm just moving even a slight inch, a new cross- hair
`will display and a new one, and a new one, and a new one, and so
`that's why WAP says in its briefing paper 21 at 17 that,
`
`
`"The archer may literally be chasing a moving target
`on the display screen."
`
`
`So WAP's theory is that Hargrove operates to
`continuously be flashing a new cross-hair dependent on whatever
`exact environmental condition was taken at that particular time
`and that doesn't make any sense.
`
`
`JUDGE ULLAGADDI: Counsel.
`
`
`MS. BAILEY: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`
`JUDGE ULLAGADDI: Can I ask in the continuous
`scan mode, is the cross-hair flashing or could it be just moving
`across the screen?
`
`
`MS. BAILEY: Well Hargrove doesn't disclose a
`continuous scan mode so I don't have an answer for that with
`respect to Hargrove. I will say that there are handheld laser
`range finders that have what is called a continuous scan mode
`and the reason why you would maybe want that is I'm looking
`out and I see a grove of trees and then perhaps I see another
`grove of trees and it looks slightly farther away, and so I want to
`kind of take a survey of the area, if that makes sense. In that
`particular type of range finder there isn't a cross-hair at all.
`You're just surveying the area and so you may see on the display
`
`
`
`
` 17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01137
`Patent 8,316,551 B2
`
`the different ranging estimates but there's no cross-hair being
`displayed continuously or flashing or moving.
`
`
`JUDGE ULLAGADDI: Okay.
`
`
`MS. BAILEY: Okay.
`
`
`JUDGE ULLAGADDI: Thank you.
`
`
`JUDGE PARVIS: Is it Petitioner's position that it's
`beneficial for an archer to depress the switch at full draw and if
`so, how does that correlate with Petitioner's position that your
`own device does not operate that way?
`
`
`MS. BAILEY: That the Garmin Zero does not operate
`that way?
`JUDGE PARVIS: That's correct, yes.
`
`
`MS. BAILEY: So let me answer the first question,
`
`
`and then I'll answer the second question. So with respect to
`Hargrove is it beneficial? I just want to make sure I'm answering
`the correct questioning.
`
`
`JUDGE PARVIS: My understanding is that Petitioner
`is arguing that one would modify Hargrove, part of Petitioner's
`argument is that one would modify Hargrove to incorporate
`actuating that device at full draw and that's in part because
`Petitioner's position, and perhaps you can shed light on this, is
`that there's a benefit to that in archery that your expert testifies
`that way. Against that background then how is it your own
`device doesn't operate that way?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 18
`
`
`
`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
`
`Case IPR2018-01137
`Patent 8,316,551 B2
`
`MS. BAILEY: So those are good questions. Let me
`
`
`flip to DX12 to answer the first question. First of all, DX12 this
`is fig. 13 of Hargrove and it shows the programmed data
`sequence that's performed by the processor in determining the
`proper aiming position, and this is discussed at Hargrove column
`14 in detail. In Hargrove, Hargrove already teaches that the
`process to determine that proper aiming position begins, it
`commences upon actuating a switch. We see the first step in the
`flow chart receives initiation actuation signal and that signal
`comes from the switch, which is colored green in fig. 13 here,
`and I'll just quickly refer back to DX11. This is the
`corresponding disclosure in column 14 of Hargrove where it says
`first to commence the range finding operation.
`
`
`Going back to DX12 we know that upon in actuating
`the switch, the programmed data sequence, the range finding
`operation begins and then we can go through the various steps.
`For example, it initiates laser distance measurement and it
`acquires the laser distance and Hargrove teaches at column 14
`that the point-to-point measuring device determines the distance
`to the target. It then goes through the process of determining the
`proper aiming position. Once that's determined it sets the sight
`pin color to green, which is the second to last step, and then it
`ends the sequence.
`
`
`So to answer your question, Judge Parvis, yes, it is
`beneficial to be able to actuate the switch at full draw and
`
`
`
`
` 19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01137
`Patent 8,316,551 B2
`
`Hargrove teaches that. It teaches actuating the switch that starts
`the program to data sequence and you would want that to occur
`while at full draw because you don't want a situation where it's
`determining a proper aiming position when you're not at full
`draw. That just simply doesn't make any sense and there's
`opinions from Dr. Cross in the record that says doing so would
`waste battery life and it would -- the diode on the laser would be
`continually firing which is going to potentially overheat the
`diode, and then you also have a situation where you don't want
`that display 180 constantly displaying a new cross-hair. I mean
`if you've ever shot or done any firearm shooting, you want a
`consistent sight that you're looking at. If there was a cross-hair
`that's just constantly moving on a display that would be very
`distracting and the only way to keep that cross-hair from not
`moving is for the archer to be perfectly still. That doesn't
`happen when you shoot a firearm. In all of my firearm
`instructing, I've never had an instructor who has told me hold
`perfectly still. It's practically impossible to do.
`
`
`But you don't have to take my word for it. Exhibit
`1015 in the record is an archery textbook. It's a very well know,
`well established archery textbook and it talks about how if you're
`going to be aiming, you actually want to oscillate around the
`bulls eye and not hold perfectly still. So you have a situation
`where this continuous scan theory is actually completely 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
`
`
`
`
`
` 20
`
`
`
`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
`
`Case IPR2018-01137
`Patent 8,316,551 B2
`
`opposite of what would logically make sense for how you would
`use the bow or make the bow sight.
`
`
`Now let me answer your second question regarding
`Garmin's product. The Garmin Zero product is very different
`because it has a holographic display. It's pretty cool. If you
`haven't looked at some of the videos that we've put into the
`record I would suggest that you look at them. It gives you a
`good idea of how it operates. So if you've ever shot a firearm,
`you know that you have to have a rearward and a forward sight.
`So if you've shot a rifle, a pistol, a bow, you have to have a
`rearward sight and a forward sight because what that does is it
`gives you a line of sight and space and then that gives you the
`ability to aim at the target. If you don't have a rearward or
`forward, if you only have one point in space, you have nothing to
`align with. You can't create your line of sight. So it's pretty
`rudimentary that any type of firearm aiming, you have to have a
`line of sight and space and Hargrove talks about that also.
`
`
`What the Garmin Zero does is it creates that forward
`and rearward sight in the holographic design which allows it the
`ability to not have to be actuated at full draw because now you
`can have a situation where the user can just hold it up and
`instead of using their peak sight or if you have a highly skilled
`archer they may use like a kiss point or a knuckle that is your
`rearward sight, that holographic design allows for both a forward
`and rearward sights. Does that answer your question?
`
`
`
`
` 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
`
`Case IPR2018-01137
`Patent 8,316,551 B2
`
`JUDGE PARVIS: I understand Petitioner's position.
`
`
`Thank you.
`
`
`MS. BAILEY: Okay.
`
`
`JUDGE PARVIS: You mentioned that you don't want
`to hold still.
`
`
`MS. BAILEY: Uh-huh.
`
`
`JUDGE PARVIS: Patent Owner indicates in its Patent
`Owner response modern hunting bows use an arrow rest. Is that,
`this is on page 46 of the Patent Owner response, is that
`consistent and does that impact Petitioner's arguments in any
`way?
`MS. BAILEY: It is consistent. It does not impact.
`
`
`An arrow rest merely holds the arrow. So you have your quiver,
`you take your arrow, you pull it out and it's common that you'll
`actually put the -- as you're raising depending on how the archer
`likes to operate -- you'll put the arrow in the arrow rest, pull
`back full draw and that way the arrow is sitting in the rest. So
`the arrow rest actually has nothing to do with the ability of the
`archer to maintain or be perfectly still. They're completely
`separate.
`I want to make a couple of more comments on this
`
`
`continuous scan theory. WAP seems to understand that fig. 13 of
`Hargrove at DX12 is problematic to their arguments with respect
`to the continuous scan because fig. 13 and the corresponding
`written text at column 14 says actuation of switch initiates the
`
`
`
`
` 22
`
`
`
`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
`
`Case IPR2018-01137
`Patent 8,316,551 B2
`
`program data sequence, the proper posit
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
