Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 48
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`COOLER MASTER CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`AAVID THERMALLOY LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________
`
`Case IPR2019-00144 (Patent 7,066,240 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00337 (Patent 7,066,240 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00146 (Patent 7,100,679 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00334 (Patent 7,100,680 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00338 (Patent 7,100,680 B2)
`_____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: March 5, 2020
`_____________
`
`
`
`
`Before LINDA E. HORNER, KEN B. BARRETT and
`ROBERT A. POLLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 48
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`COOLER MASTER CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`AAVID THERMALLOY LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________
`
`Case IPR2019-00144 (Patent 7,066,240 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00337 (Patent 7,066,240 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00146 (Patent 7,100,679 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00334 (Patent 7,100,680 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00338 (Patent 7,100,680 B2)
`_____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: March 5, 2020
`_____________
`
`
`
`
`Before LINDA E. HORNER, KEN B. BARRETT and
`ROBERT A. POLLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00144 (Patent 7,066,240 B2)
`IPR2019-00337 (Patent 7,066,240 B2)
`IPR2019-00146 (Patent 7,100,679 B2)
`IPR2019-00334 (Patent 7,100,680 B2)
`IPR2019-00338 (Patent 7,100,680 B2)
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`ERIK B. MILCH, ESQ.
`Cooley
`Reston Town Center
`11951 Freedom Drive
`14th Floor
`Reston, VA 20190-5640
`
`KYLE D. CHEN, Ph.D.
`Greenberg Traurig, LLP
`1900 University Avenue
`5th Floor
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303
`
`HEATH J. BRIGGS
`Greenberg Traurig, LLP
`1144 15th Street
`Suite 3300
`Denver CO 80202
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00144 (Patent 7,066,240 B2)
`IPR2019-00337 (Patent 7,066,240 B2)
`IPR2019-00146 (Patent 7,100,679 B2)
`IPR2019-00334 (Patent 7,100,680 B2)
`IPR2019-00338 (Patent 7,100,680 B2)
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`KENNETH M. ALBRIDGE III, ESQ.
`Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
`1 South Pinckney Street
`Suite 700
`Madison, WI 53703
`
`KEVIN P. MORAN, ESQ.
`Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
`Two Riverwood Place
`N19 W24133 Riverwood Drive
`Suite 200
`Waukesha, WI 53188
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday, March 5,
`
`2020, commencing at 9:00 a.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
`600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00144 (Patent 7,066,240 B2)
`IPR2019-00337 (Patent 7,066,240 B2)
`IPR2019-00146 (Patent 7,100,679 B2)
`IPR2019-00334 (Patent 7,100,680 B2)
`IPR2019-00338 (Patent 7,100,680 B2)
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE HORNER: Please be seated. Good morning. We are here to
`
`hear argument in case numbers IPR 2019-00144, 146, 334, 337, and 338.
`Cooler Master Company v. AAVID Thermalloy.
`Counsel for the parties, could you introduce yourselves starting with
`Petitioner?
`MR. CHEN: Yes, good morning, Your Honors. This is Kyle Chen
`from Greenberg Traurig on behalf of Petitioner Cooler Master. With me
`today are my co-counsel Heath Briggs also from Greenburg Traurig and Eric
`Milch from Cooley LLP.
`JUDGE HORNER: Thank you. And for Patent Owner?
`MR. ALBRIDGE: Yes, Your Honor. Ken Albridge, I'm from
`Michael Best and Friedrich on behalf of Patent Owner, AAVID Thermalloy.
`Also with me is my co-counsel at counsel’s table, Kevin Moran also of
`Michael Best and Freidrich.
`JUDGE HORNER: Thank you. Thank you, everybody. Welcome to
`the Board. Our hearing order allotted each side 90 minutes of oral argument
`and the Petitioner bears the burden of proving any proposition of
`unpatentability so they’ll be going first. You may reserve some rebuttal
`time. How much rebuttal time would you like to reserve?
`MR. CHEN: Your Honor, I would like to reserve 15 minutes.
`JUDGE HORNER: 15 minutes. Okay. And, Mr. Albridge, how
`much time would do like to reserve for rebuttal?
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00144 (Patent 7,066,240 B2)
`IPR2019-00337 (Patent 7,066,240 B2)
`IPR2019-00146 (Patent 7,100,679 B2)
`IPR2019-00334 (Patent 7,100,680 B2)
`IPR2019-00338 (Patent 7,100,680 B2)
`
`
`MR. ALBRIDGE: 20 minutes would be great, Your Honor.
`JUDGE HORNER: Okay. All right. This hearing is open to the
`public. A full transcript will be made available as part of the record. And
`for the clarity of the transcript and to ensure that we are following along
`with the arguments, if you refer to a demonstrative can you please maybe
`note the number, slide number. We have a copy of the demonstratives on
`our screen as well so if we want a better view we can follow along on our
`copy.
`We will remind you demonstratives are not evidence but just here to
`assist us with the argument today. Patent Owner did not provide us with any
`demonstrative in advance of the hearing. You, Petitioner served us with
`some demonstratives or served the other side with demonstratives and also
`forwarded a copy to the Board by email.
`Just as a matter of housekeeping, if you could also kindly file a copy
`of that so we have a copy of the demonstratives in the record that would be
`helpful.
`MR. CHEN: Yes.
`MR. ALBRIDGE: Excuse me, Your Honor.
`JUDGE HORNER: Yes.
`MR. ALBRIDGE: We did send copies of our demonstratives to the
`email address provided. Did you not receive those?
`JUDGE HORNER: We did not.
`MR. ALBRIDGE: Oh, okay. We do have hard copies here.
`JUDGE HORNER: If you wouldn’t mind providing us with those
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00144 (Patent 7,066,240 B2)
`IPR2019-00337 (Patent 7,066,240 B2)
`IPR2019-00146 (Patent 7,100,679 B2)
`IPR2019-00334 (Patent 7,100,680 B2)
`IPR2019-00338 (Patent 7,100,680 B2)
`
`that would be helpful.
`MR. ALBRIDGE: Thank you, Your Honors.
`JUDGE HORNER: Thank you. And if you could also, if you have a
`copy for the court reporter as well?
`MR. ALBRIDGE: We have already got him.
`JUDGE HORNER: Thank you. Okay. We are aware of Patent
`Owner’s pending motion to exclude certain evidence and Patent Owner’s
`objections to portions of the Petitioner’s reply.
`At this time we are going to reserve ruling on those and we will allow
`discussion of those arguments and evidence here but ultimately we will not
`consider them in our final written decision if we determine that reliance on
`them would be improper so go ahead and address those today.
`With that I invite Mr. Chen to go ahead and begin your argument.
`And also, we will just keep track of time with the clock so I'll just make a
`note of what time we start. Go ahead, Mr. Chen.
`MR. CHEN: Thank you, Your Honors. Good morning, Your Honors.
`So today we are here to address these IPRs. Slide 2 please. As Your Honors
`know, we have a lot of material to cover today. We have five IPRs against
`three patents with several disputed issues across the IPRs.
`So Slide 2 provides the grounds for the three challenged patents and
`the grounds that have been raised and retained in all of the IPRs.
`Slide 3 please. So actually slide 4. So here we are going to quickly
`show the challenged independent claims. In the interest of time we are not
`going to, you know go through them in detail but yeah. So this is the Claim
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00144 (Patent 7,066,240 B2)
`IPR2019-00337 (Patent 7,066,240 B2)
`IPR2019-00146 (Patent 7,100,679 B2)
`IPR2019-00334 (Patent 7,100,680 B2)
`IPR2019-00338 (Patent 7,100,680 B2)
`
`9. That’s an independent claim.
`Next slide please. So Claim 11 and then Claim 12 for the '240
`patents. These are the independent claims and then also '679 Claim 1,
`independent claim and then '680 Claim 1. And Claim 2 that are the
`independent claims and then Claim 3 and Claim 5.
`So Slide 14 please. So we are going to go through the dispute of the
`issues in detail in the presentation. And so the, you know, Slide 14 shows
`the summary of the disputed claim construction issues.
`Next slide please. So Slide 15 shows the other disputed issues. We
`are just going to jump right into the merits of these issues. So in the interest
`of time, in today’s oral argument, I would be generally referring to the -
`00144 IPR because the arguments and issues presented therein are
`commonly applicable to all IPRs.
`And for instance, the Nakamura publication is Exhibit 1004 in all of
`the IPRs except for the -00338 IPR in which the exhibit number for the same
`application is 1104.
`Please interrupt me if you have any questions to allow me to address
`anything that you would want me to address today. So with that let’s start,
`get started with the merits at Slide 17 please.
`So the first issue we want to address is whether the rebuttal evidence
`is proper. Patent Owner is arguing that we raised a new argument and so on
`and so forth but actually, our argument and evidence raised in our reply brief
`were all responsive to the Patent Owner arguments and or the Board’s
`decision in its decisions.
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00144 (Patent 7,066,240 B2)
`IPR2019-00337 (Patent 7,066,240 B2)
`IPR2019-00146 (Patent 7,100,679 B2)
`IPR2019-00334 (Patent 7,100,680 B2)
`IPR2019-00338 (Patent 7,100,680 B2)
`
`
`Slide 18 please. So under the Federal Circuit law, this should be
`considered entirely proper.
`Slide 19. So this slide shows some examples of what our
`supplemental evidence is responding to. So for example, our supplemental
`declaration of Dr. Himanshu Pokharna, that is submitted to respond to Patent
`Owner’s expert declaration.
`So we also submitted another declaration from the librarian to
`authenticate documents as well as a declaration from a Japanese patent
`attorney to show that Nakamura is proper prior art and to rebut the argument
`that it isn’t.
`JUDGE BARRETT: Counselor.
`MR. CHEN: Yes.
`JUDGE BARRETT: To be precise, at least my understanding is
`Patent Owner’s position is not so much that Nakamura is not prior art but the
`Petitioner did not make a prima facie showing of that.
`So as you go through your presentation if you can just, instead of just
`saying we are rebutting that it is prior art, explain why you made your prima
`facie showing in the Petition.
`MR. CHEN: Understood.
`JUDGE POLLOCK: Mr. Chen, I also did find Mr. Miyano's
`declaration less than clear. If you could go through that step by step and
`explain where he is pointing to things in the record, that would be helpful.
`MR. CHEN: Will do. Okay. So Slide 20 please. So now we are
`going to go through the claim construction issues.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00144 (Patent 7,066,240 B2)
`IPR2019-00337 (Patent 7,066,240 B2)
`IPR2019-00146 (Patent 7,100,679 B2)
`IPR2019-00334 (Patent 7,100,680 B2)
`IPR2019-00338 (Patent 7,100,680 B2)
`
`
`21. So the first term we are going to go through is a vapor chamber.
`22. So all challenged claims recite a vapor chamber, patentee argues
`that a term vapor chamber must be construed to spread heat and also to
`include the capillary action limitation. So these are importation of
`limitations that we believe is improper. 23 please.
`JUDGE HORNER: Does the Board have to decide the capillary
`action issues? Doesn’t the prior art have capillary action? Is that an issue
`we need to resolve?
`MR. CHEN: Your Honor, that is exactly correct. Actually we believe
`that’s a non-issue because the prior art already discloses that. So I think, I
`believe the Patent Owner’s argument is more like the Takahashi prior art
`doesn’t have a wick and therefore it doesn’t have capillary action. And
`somehow, that will hinder the combination of that art with the primary
`reference.
`JUDGE HORNER: But have -- but Nakamura and Morikawa have a
`wick, right?
`MR. CHEN: Yes, both of them have wicks. Yes, that’s correct. So
`in that sense, so in that sense, yes, Your Honor, that should be considered a
`non-issue.
`And also, you know, Patent Owner’s position not that is inconsistent
`in the sense that they say that a capillary action should be in a vapor
`chambers even though they're wicks, citations in other parts of the claims.
`And they say oh, that’s okay because even if you don’t have a wick,
`you can still have capillary actions. That is actually in direct contradiction
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00144 (Patent 7,066,240 B2)
`IPR2019-00337 (Patent 7,066,240 B2)
`IPR2019-00146 (Patent 7,100,679 B2)
`IPR2019-00334 (Patent 7,100,680 B2)
`IPR2019-00338 (Patent 7,100,680 B2)
`
`to their argument with respect to Takahashi.
`So our position is that the capillary action it doesn’t really matter and
`Takahashi is certainly combinable with Nakamura and Morikawa.
`So, earlier, I mentioned that our expert submitted a supplemental
`declaration in response. I just would like to note that Patent Owner didn’t
`provide any rebuttal declaration in response to our supplemental declaration.
`And they didn’t depose our expert with respect to his supplemental
`declaration nor the other declarant, declarants about Japanese patent law or
`the authentication of documents, so all of that evidence has been submitted
`as unrebutted.
`Patent Owner also claimed that we submit something like, you know,
`1300 pages of evidence. I don’t know how they counted the pages, but all of
`the evidence was submitted in response to arguments and evidence they
`raised.
`For instance, we submitted like, you know, two NASA reports to
`rebut their contention that a POSITA would understand regarding the
`construction of the Morikawa and Nakamura prior art.
`So they're saying oh, yeah, so one sheet and we show that they're two
`sheets, you know, they're conventional and but, I mean, those reports like,
`you know, totaling 330 pages about but we will only use a few pages we
`submitted all of them because, you know, for completeness purposes.
`Also, you know, our reply brief we pin cited what we were responding
`to in their Patent Owner responses or exhibits or in terms of the institution
`decisions. And our listing responding to their listing of the improper
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00144 (Patent 7,066,240 B2)
`IPR2019-00337 (Patent 7,066,240 B2)
`IPR2019-00146 (Patent 7,100,679 B2)
`IPR2019-00334 (Patent 7,100,680 B2)
`IPR2019-00338 (Patent 7,100,680 B2)
`
`arguments, we provide a detailed listing of arguments we are responding to.
`So it should be clear in the record that we are always responding to
`something that they raised.
`So slide 20 please. So actually 23. So getting back to the spreading
`heat, earlier I was talking about in terms of a vapor chambers. So the
`particular term, spreading heat appears in many of the preambles and not in
`the claim language itself.
`And also, the, I would like to first note that the -- it's a heat pipe for
`spreading heat. It doesn’t say a vapor chamber for spreading heat. So
`they're trying to import that into the body of the claim which we think is
`improper. 24 please.
`JUDGE POLLOCK: Mr. Chen, does the heat pipe have any other
`function besides spreading heat?
`MR. CHEN: Heat pipe does -- a heat pipe does spread heat but this,
`these are structural claims so there is not a particular reason to import that
`function into any particular claim limitation.
`JUDGE BARRETT: Say that again. Because it’s structural we would
`not --
`MR. CHEN: So --
`JUDGE BARRETT: My understanding of Patent Owner’s position is
`that when you see vapor chamber, that’s a species of the genus heat pipe and
`it's a very specific structure.
`MR. CHEN: Yes. It’s a very specific structure but the functionality
`is actually not with respect to spreading heat, it is actually not in the claim
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00144 (Patent 7,066,240 B2)
`IPR2019-00337 (Patent 7,066,240 B2)
`IPR2019-00146 (Patent 7,100,679 B2)
`IPR2019-00334 (Patent 7,100,680 B2)
`IPR2019-00338 (Patent 7,100,680 B2)
`
`language itself. And therefore the importation of that into the claim
`language is not proper at least that is our position and I will go through the
`explanation.
`So first of all, in the preamble, this, the term spreading heat does not
`provide any antecedent basis for any actual claim limitation in the claim
`language. So that’s one factor.
`And it does not recite any essential structure or steps and it is not
`necessary to give life, meaning and vitality to any of the claims. And as
`Judge Pollock pointed out, heat pipes inherently, they’re used to spread heat
`and therefore adding that is, you know, superfluous. There is no particular
`point of doing that.
`The claims also already recite a structurally incomplete device and
`therefore it is improper to import a spreading heat requirement into the
`limitation.
`25 please. So Patent Owner also misinterprets the term spreading
`heat. And they're arguing that the prior device, devices disclose only one
`dimensional heat transport or heat flow. But and then they say that oh, you
`know, without any support in the actual evidence that they are saying oh, 99
`percent of heat is going to, only one direction and, you know, only, you
`know, maybe the other one percent we don’t know where that heat, you
`know, went.
`But they're also made up this figure so let’s see. The Nakamura figure
`does not have the -- does not have the heat generating components that they
`added to. So what is showing on the screen is the Cooler Master’s Exhibit
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00144 (Patent 7,066,240 B2)
`IPR2019-00337 (Patent 7,066,240 B2)
`IPR2019-00146 (Patent 7,100,679 B2)
`IPR2019-00334 (Patent 7,100,680 B2)
`IPR2019-00338 (Patent 7,100,680 B2)
`
`number 1004 page 11.
`That is showing the Nakamura prior art figures. So the figure I was
`talking about was Figure 3. As Your Honors can see, there is no heat
`generating elements on it. So this like, you know, 99 percent thing and it's
`completely made up.
`So next slide please. So Slide 26. So as shown in our reply briefs, it
`is clear that the heat flows in the prior devices are in multiple directions, I
`mean, it's a basic thermodynamics.
`You have a heat source and the heat will go everywhere. It’s not going
`to just, you know, 99 percent going into one direction. So we believe that
`that interpretation of prior art is incorrect. Slide --
`JUDGE HORNER: So is your argument that if we adopt the Patent
`Owner’s definition of spreading heat as requiring heat to be spread in more
`than one direction, that the prior art shows that?
`MR. CHEN: Yes, Your Honor. Yes. So therefore exactly correct. In
`terms of a spreading heat, the requirement in reality, the prior art shows that,
`you know, because as I mentioned its basic thermal dynamics.
`You put on the heat generating component and it will go everywhere.
`So even if that’s adopted, the prior art shows spreading heat.
`Slide 27 please. So the next dispute is about whether a capillary
`action is required but we have gone though that so we are going not skip
`that.
`
`Sorry, 28 please. 29. Actually, let’s go back to 28. So the parties
`actually they have agreed that the claim terms should be construed
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00144 (Patent 7,066,240 B2)
`IPR2019-00337 (Patent 7,066,240 B2)
`IPR2019-00146 (Patent 7,100,679 B2)
`IPR2019-00334 (Patent 7,100,680 B2)
`IPR2019-00338 (Patent 7,100,680 B2)
`
`consistently across all IPRs. So we just wanted to quickly mention one thing
`that shows this addition capillary action is improper.
`Next slide please. Next one. Actually here, here. Yes. So slide 29.
`So this is actually an exemplary claim that shows that the term capillary is
`already in the claim language.
`So in this particular claim, it also has the vapor chamber and therefore
`if you force the capillary action limitation or requirement to a vapor chamber
`it renders the capillary term or, you know, of the weights that are for
`capillary actions superfluous and that is improper on the Federal Circuit law
`as shown on Slide 30.
`Slide 31 please. So regardless, so, you know, in terms of the capillary
`action it is really about the combinability of Takahashi with Nakamura and
`Morikawa but and as, you know, I mentioned before the prior art is certainly
`combinable because they’re all about heat pipes.
`And then as Patent Owner argued they're saying that, you know, even
`if there is not a wick there could be capillary actions but I'm -- regardless of
`the whole thing it’s not going to change the fact that the prior art already
`disclosed capillary actions.
`Slide 32 please. Regarding the combinability, Takahashi is really
`used to address the sealing around the heat pipes. So as the patent,
`challenged patents admit themselves, the sealing of the heat pipe around
`these periphery or circumference that is actually conventional which
`supports the notion that what’s done in Takahashi was conventional at the
`time and well known by a person of skill in the art.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00144 (Patent 7,066,240 B2)
`IPR2019-00337 (Patent 7,066,240 B2)
`IPR2019-00146 (Patent 7,100,679 B2)
`IPR2019-00334 (Patent 7,100,680 B2)
`IPR2019-00338 (Patent 7,100,680 B2)
`
`
`Slide 33 please. So Patent Owner’s only another argument is that
`somehow if Takahashi is combined with Morikawa and Nakamura,
`something could go wrong. But that is actually not the right standard in
`terms of combining the references. The only requirement is the POSITA
`had a reasonable expectation of success when combining the references and
`that’s all that’s required.
`Slide 113 please. 113. Yeah. So this is an excerpt from the expert
`declaration and this shows why a POSITA would be motivated to combine
`Takahashi with Morikawa and or Nakamura.
`So Morikawa and Nakamura, they have these like kind of square or
`vertical edges on the sides. So it is very difficult to combine them to make a
`seal. So because they're like, you know, the force you're applying to and the
`surface that you're trying to seal -- surfaces you're trying to seal with, they're
`perpendicular to the force you're applying to.
`So a POSITA would be motivated to use the lip structures in
`Takahashi so that where you're sealing at the surface is actually a line, is
`actually in line with the force you're applying to so that you will make the
`sealing easier. And that’s why a POSITA would be motivated to do so.
`Slide 35 please. So another issue that was raised in the institution
`decision was whether the two terms of peripheral lip and circumferential
`edge lips should be construed in the same way.
`So first of all, I just wanted to mention that regardless if they're
`construed the same way, Takahashi discloses either of them because
`Takahashi shows the, that the entire circumference is sealed and then 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
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00144 (Patent 7,066,240 B2)
`IPR2019-00337 (Patent 7,066,240 B2)
`IPR2019-00146 (Patent 7,100,679 B2)
`IPR2019-00334 (Patent 7,100,680 B2)
`IPR2019-00338 (Patent 7,100,680 B2)
`
`entire circumference is sealed with the lip structures in Figures 5 and 6 of
`Takahashi.
`So but I will just quickly go through why they should be construed the
`same way. So Slide 38 please. So first of all, the Patent Owner response did
`not address these issues.
`But as Figure 3 shows, the periphery or circumference when those
`terms are used with respect to the edge lip, they really mean the same thing.
`So 39 please. So it’s really it’s like around the circumference or the
`periphery or around the entire device and obviously you need to seal it
`everywhere so that otherwise, you know, it will leak.
`So in that sense we believe that the, there is really no substantive
`difference between a circumferential edge lip and peripheral lip located at
`(inaudible).
`Slide 40 please. So actually, let’s go back to that record. Yes. So this
`is actually a page from petitions reply brief that cites to the expert
`declaration showing that the Takahashi actually shows the sealing of the
`entire circumference of the device.
`So obviously, you need to seal the whole thing and when the, when
`they were talking about the sealing the whole thing, originally they were
`talking about Figures 3 and 4.
`But then they actually expressly mentioned that in terms of a lips type
`of structure in Figures 5 and 6, the Takahashi prior art specifically explained
`that Figure 5 is a cross section view of a heat pipe and this is equivalent to
`Figure 3. And Figure 6 is the same cross sectional view and this drawing 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
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00144 (Patent 7,066,240 B2)
`IPR2019-00337 (Patent 7,066,240 B2)
`IPR2019-00146 (Patent 7,100,679 B2)
`IPR2019-00334 (Patent 7,100,680 B2)
`IPR2019-00338 (Patent 7,100,680 B2)
`
`equivalent to Figure 4.
`Therefore, Figure 3 is -- Figure 3 and Figure 4 are there corresponding
`to the entire circumference that is sealed and, you know, by the same token
`with that express disclosure for Figures 5 and 6 they’re talking about the lips
`and it also has to go around the entire circumference.
`So slide 41 please. So we are now going to talk about the spacer. 42.
`So Patent Owner argues that the spacer must be separate from the plates.
`Therefore, they're saying oh, spacers cannot be as, you know, integral to the
`plates but that is actually incorrect.
`Let's actually do a quick comparison of the proposed construction. So
`this is actually Patent Owner’s demonstrative page 27. So they’re saying
`that the spacer limitations should be construed to mean separate from the
`first and second plates.
`So Petitioner would like to note that this is actually a change of
`position. So let’s go to Cooler Master’s Exhibit 1019 on pages 5 and 6. So
`at the bottom of the page 5, on the bottom of page 5 showing on the screen,
`and also page 6 please.
`So these kind of split, but it shows the Patent Owner’s positions so
`let’s go back to 5. And I’ll read it. So on the top of the column as Your
`Honors can see, its obvious proposed construction.
`And that is what AAVID's position in the district court. So they're
`proposing for spacer it should mean a structure apart from separately
`claimed depressions. That is configured, go to the next one --
`JUDGE BARRETT: Counselor let me stop you there for a second.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00144 (Patent 7,066,240 B2)
`IPR2019-00337 (Patent 7,066,240 B2)
`IPR2019-00146 (Patent 7,100,679 B2)
`IPR2019-00334 (Patent 7,100,680 B2)
`IPR2019-00338 (Patent 7,100,680 B2)
`
`
`MR. CHEN: Sure.
`JUDGE BARRETT: So I understand you’re giving us proposed
`constructions in the district court.
`MR. CHEN: Yes.
`JUDGE BARRETT: We have to construe claims based on intrinsic
`and extrinsic evidence. How does this fit into our analysis?
`MR. CHEN: So this is about credibility because of they changed
`position during our IPR proceedings because they realized that they have a
`prior art issue and they want, they want to add that separate from the two
`plates limitation.
`JUDGE BARRETT: Understood.
`MR. CHEN: Yes.
`JUDGE BARRETT: So for my purposes and you can continue if
`you’d like, but for my purposes, it would help me immensely if you just
`focused on why your construction is correct.
`MR. CHEN: Yeah. Thank you, Your Honor, will do. So on Slide 43,
`it shows that the, what the specification of the challenged patents describe
`and define the spacers.
`So the, so the spacers are extending between and contacting the two
`plates. So the first part it says that a vapor chamber includes a pattern of
`spacers extending between and contacting the two plates.
`And then, below the specification, expressly states these spacers can
`be solid columns, embossed depressions formed in one of the plates or a
`mixture for the two.
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00144 (Patent 7,066,240 B2)
`IPR2019-00337 (Patent 7,066,240 B2)
`IPR2019-00146 (Patent 7,100,679 B2)
`IPR2019-00334 (Patent 7,100,680 B2)
`IPR2019-00338 (Patent 7,100,680 B2)
`
`
`So this disclosure clearly shows that with respect to the embossed
`depressions formed in one of the plates, they can be extending between and
`contacting the two plates.
`So 44 please. So this slide shows the two figures in the challenged
`patent. So Figure 1 and Figure 2. So in terms of 26, that is actually the
`embossed depression they mentioned.
`And as you can -- Your Honors can see, 26 is actually a part of the top
`plate. And therefore, this is how they describe such this kind of a spacer that
`is extending between and contacting the two plates.
`Slide 78 please. So, just as an example here is how the, that claim
`limitation appears in the '240 patent in the -00144 petition showing that
`that’s the spacer being claimed in the claim and next slide please.
`JUDGE POLLOCK: Mr. Chen, if the spacer is extending between
`and contacting first and second plates, how could it also be an embossed
`portion of the plate? How does an embossed portion contact itself
`essentially?
`MR. CHEN: Yes, that is essentially how the POSITA would read the
`disclosure because the disclosure says the pattern of spacers extending
`between and contacting the two plates and then immediately it says that the
`embossed depressions form in one of the plates.
`So in terms of the whole phrase as a whole, you know, extending
`between and contacting the two plates, they’re really talking about the
`spacer needs to be supporting the plates to create the clearance between the
`two.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00144 (Patent 7,066,240 B2)
`IPR2019-00337 (Patent 7,066,240 B2)
`IPR2019-00146 (Patent 7,100,679 B2)
`IPR2019-00334 (Patent 7,100,680 B2)
`IPR2019-00338 (Patent 7,100,680 B2)
`
`
`And then in terms of contacting, of course, in these two contact both
`plates in order to do that. So even though it is embossed depression from the
`first plate, in terms of the junction where the top plate is going down to have
`the depression and of course, you know, they’re connecting together and of
`course they are contacting.
`So that’s, you know, at least one way of looking at it. And yes, and,
`Your Honor, it is correct that also when you consider it goes down, it is
`contacting itself. But that point is actually not going to matter with respect to
`the prior art which I will explain.
`So slide 80 please. So as I mentioned earlier, actually let’s go back to
`81 just for one second. So here, that does say that the spacers can be solid
`columns and embossed depressions formed in one of plates or a mixture of
`the two. So I would like to bring that to Your Honors’ attention.
`The next slide please. 80, actually Slide 80. So they're claiming that
`a spacer must be separate from the plates. And that is clearly incorrect
`because the spacer is like the genus and it has at least two species,
`depressions, as shown in the embodiments or the embossed -- I'm sorry,
`embossed depressions or the columns, the solid columns that’s hollow in the
`center.
`So when they require the spacer limitation which is the genus to be
`separate from the plates they're excluding the embossed depressions from
`the possibility of being a spacer all together. And that makes -- so that is
`actually excluding preferred embodiments and that is why it is incorrect.
`83 please. And so with -- so I already talked about embossed
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00144 (Patent 7,066,240 B2)
`IPR2019-00337 (Patent 7,066,240 B2)
`IPR2019-00146 (Patent 7,100,679 B2)
`IPR2019-00334 (Patent 7,100,680 B2)
`IPR2019-00338 (Patent 7,100,680 B2)
`
`depressions where it is actually part of first plate. But even with respect to
`the hollow columns or solid columns hollow in the center, those are marked
`as 44 in Figures 1 and 2.
`So as Your Honors can see very clearly in the patent specifications
`depiction of such hollow columns or solid columns hollowed in the center,
`they show these structures to be part of the bottom plate.
`And w
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
