Paper No. 41
`Trials@uspto.gov
`
`571-272-7822
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ASETEK DANMARK A/S,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`COOLIT SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2020-00747
`Patent 9,057,567 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held Virtually: Tuesday, June 22, 2021
`____________
`
`
`
`Before FRANCES L. IPPOLITO, SCOTT C. MOORE, and
`BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`
`571-272-7822
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ASETEK DANMARK A/S,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`COOLIT SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2020-00747
`Patent 9,057,567 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held Virtually: Tuesday, June 22, 2021
`____________
`
`
`
`Before FRANCES L. IPPOLITO, SCOTT C. MOORE, and
`BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00747
`Patent 9,057,567 B2
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`ERIC RACITI
`ARPITA BHATTACHARYYA
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT &
`DUNNER, LLP
`3300 Hillview Avenue
`2nd floor
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1203
`(650) 849-6600
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`REUBEN CHEN
`DUSTIN KNIGHT
`COOLEY, LLP
`3175 Hanover Street
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1130
`(650) 843-5480
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LLOYD L. POLLARD II
`GANZ POLLARD LLC
`P.O. Box 2200
`163 SE 2nd Avenue
`Hillsboro, Oregon 97123
`(503) 844-9009
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday, June 22,
`2021, commencing at 11:00 a.m. EST, by video/by telephone.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00747
`Patent 9,057,567 B2
`
`
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
` JUDGE MOORE: We're on the record. Good morning
`everyone. This is Judge Scott Moore and I'm joined by my
`colleagues, Judges Frances Ippolito and Brent Dougal. And
`we're here today for the oral hearing in IPR 2020-00747,
`Asetek Danmark A.S. v. CoolIT Systems, Inc. involving U.S.
`Patent 9,057,567 B2. Let's begin by taking appearances.
`First, who is here today on behalf of Petitioner?
` MS. BHATTACHARYYA: Good morning, Your Honors.
`This is Arpita Bhattacharyya for Petitioner Asetek Danmark
`A.S. and I am joined by lead counsel, Eric Raciti.
` MR. RACITI: Good morning, Your Honors.
` JUDGE MOORE: Welcome to both of you.
` And then for Patent Owner who is here?
` MR. CHEN: Yes. Good morning, Your Honors. You
`have Reuben Chen from Cooley LLP on behalf of Patent Owner,
`CoolIT Systems, Inc., and with me is lead counsel Lloyd
`Pollard, as well as my colleague Dustin Knight.
` JUDGE MOORE: Welcome to you as well.
` MR. CHEN: Thank you.
` JUDGE MOORE: So as everyone knows, this is a video
`hearing. We've got a great group of IT professionals here at
`the Board who make sure things generally run pretty smoothly,
`but if you have any technical difficulties during this
`
`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
`
`
`
`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
`
`IPR2020-00747
`Patent 9,057,567 B2
`
`hearing please let us know and we'll find a way to work
`around it.
` It's also important that we try to avoid speaking
`over one another. That can be a bit tricky in a multi-party
`video conference like this but please try to do your best and
`the court reporter will be grateful. Please also ensure that
`your microphone is muted when you're not speaking. Even if
`it's silent around you sometimes having unmuted microphones
`can cause feedback and then there's also unexpected noises as
`well. So it's best that anyone who is not speaking keep
`their microphone muted.
` So we have copies of both parties’ demonstratives
`here but we'd like to ask the parties, to repeat what we said
`in our scheduling order, to please make sure that you
`identify each demonstrative exhibit that you discuss by page
`number. It will make it easier for the reporter to keep an
`accurate record and it also helps us follow along.
` Now there's a public audio line that was requested
`for at least one of these two proceedings. I'm not certain
`whether it was the first or the second one. So I'd like
`counsels to be aware of that. I don't believe that either
`party requested a protective order in the first proceeding
`but there was a request for a protective order in the second
`proceeding so counsels should proceed with the fact that
`members of the public may be listening in or may have access
`to the transcript. Counsels should proceed with that
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`IPR2020-00747
`Patent 9,057,567 B2
`
`understanding.
` So before we begin today's hearing we had a brief
`off-the-record discussion with counsels and we changed the
`time allocations somewhat with the agreement of counsels.
`Each party is going to be granted a total of 45 minutes
`argument time for each of the two proceedings we're hearing
`here today. So we're going to have separate hearings for
`each of the two proceedings. We'll begin with the hearing
`for the case I just announced, IPR 2020-00747. Each party
`will have a total of 45 minutes of argument time for this
`proceeding, then we'll take a big -- a short recess, and then
`we'll have a separate oral hearing for the second proceeding.
` So for this oral hearing we'll begin with
`Petitioner who will argue its case-in-chief. Petitioner
`should also use this time to present its arguments. I
`believe in this case Petitioner just has the case-in-chief.
`It didn't file any motions. So after Petitioner presents its
`case-in-chief -- and Petitioner can also reserve time for
`rebuttal -- we'll move onto Patent Owner that will present
`its arguments regarding the patentability of the original
`claims and any motions it wishes to argue. Patent Owner also
`will be allowed to reserve a short amount of time if it
`wishes to do so for sur-rebuttal. Then, if Petitioner has
`reserved time for rebuttal we'll proceed onto Petitioner and
`then onto Patent Owner's sur-rebuttal.
` Judge Ippolito will be watching the clock but I
`
`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
`26
`
`IPR2020-00747
`Patent 9,057,567 B2
`
`would like to remind each party that it is your
`responsibility to keep track of your own time. Judge
`Ippolito will try to give you a warning when you're running
`low on your time but if she is unable to do so the parties
`are responsible for keeping track of their own time so please
`don't rely too much on us.
` Also, I would like to ask the parties not to make
`objections while the other party is speaking. If either
`party has objections to the other party's presentation please
`raise them during your own time when it's your turn to speak.
`Does either party have any questions about these
`instructions?
` MS. BHATTACHARYYA: Nothing for Petitioner, Your
`Honor.
` MR. CHEN: Nothing for Patent Owner, Your Honor.
` JUDGE MOORE: Excellent. Okay. Let's begin.
`Counsels for Petitioner, who is going to be presenting
`arguments?
` MS. BHATTACHARYYA: I will be, Your Honor.
` JUDGE MOORE: And would you like to reserve time
`for rebuttal?
` MS. BHATTACHARYYA: Yes, Your Honor. For the first
`proceeding I would like to reserve five minutes for a
`rebuttal.
` JUDGE MOORE: Okay. Thank you. You may begin when
`you're ready.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`IPR2020-00747
`Patent 9,057,567 B2
`
` MS. BHATTACHARYYA: Thank you, Your Honors. The
`main dispute between the parties in this proceeding involving
`the ’567 Patent is about independent claim 1 and specifically
`about claim construction of a single term, "matingly
`engaged". Your Honors, I will start with Petitioner's slide
`9 which shows the claim element at issue. So claim 1 recites
`“a compliant member matingly engaged with the second side,”
`which is the underside of the housing member. Mating
`engagement ensures that fluid cannot bypass from the inlet to
`the outlet side of the heat exchanger through gaps between
`the compliant member and the underside of the housing. Fluid
`is instead forced to enter the microchannels and flow through
`the microchannels to the outlet.
` Slide 10 shows the parties' proposed construction
`for “matingly engaged.” Petitioner Asetek proposes that
`“matingly engaged” be given its plain and ordinary meaning
`which a person skilled in the art will understand as joined
`or fitted together to make contact. Patent Owner's
`demonstratives incorrectly state Petitioner's construction as
`“mechanically joined or fitted together to make contact.” That
`is incorrect, Your Honors. Petitioner's plain meaning
`interpretation does not limit the method of joining or
`fitting to only mechanical means. Instead, as Petitioner's
`reply makes it clear, fusion, adhesion, and other types of
`chemical bonding also fall within the plain meaning of
`“matingly engaged” in addition to mechanical attachment.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`IPR2020-00747
`Patent 9,057,567 B2
`
` Patent Owner, on the other hand, proposes a very
`narrow definition of “matingly engaged.” At first blush the
`term "matingly engaged" might create a notion that male and
`female parts have to connect but the meanings of the terms
`"mate" and "matingly" in the context of a mechanical device
`are not that narrow. Even dictionary definitions provided by
`Patent Owner state that “mate” simply means “to join or fit
`together.” And this is in Patent Owner's Exhibit 2030 which
`is an excerpt from Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary.
`Patent Owner has presented no dictionary or engineering
`textbook definition that limits mating of two parts or
`surfaces to mechanical joining or fixing or to the connection
`of male and female parts. Rather, as Petitioner's expert has
`testified, all possible ways of joining or fixing, including
`mechanical and chemical, fall within the scope of mating two
`parts or surfaces.
` Not being able to do much with the word “matingly,”
`given its broad dictionary definitions, Patent Owner has
`attempted to narrow the meaning of the term "engaged" and to
`do so Patent Owner plucks a very narrow definition of “engaged”
`from a dictionary to argue that engaged means “to interlock.”
`But interlock is a very specialized form of engagement. The
`Patent does not use the word interlock and the intrinsic
`record does not support limiting engaged to interlocking.
`Rather, the plain meaning of “engaged” is “to attach or to make
`contact.”
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`IPR2020-00747
`Patent 9,057,567 B2
`
` But even if interlock as a form of engagement is
`considered, Your Honors, the dictionary meaning of interlock
`is simply to fit together or to lock or join together. For
`instance, the Oxford Dictionary defines “interlock” as “fitting
`together or joining together,” and this is in Petitioner's
`Exhibit 1024. And it is also shown in Patent Owner's slide
`20.
` Now, Petitioner's expert has testified that
`adhesion or fusion which are taught in Bezama and Lyon cause
`interlocking of the compliant member with the housing. So to
`avoid the prior art Patent Owner argues that the interlocking
`has to be two complementary contoured features on the housing
`and the compliant member which is a very specialized meaning
`of interlocking.
` So to put it briefly, Your Honors, Patent Owner
`first limits the term “engaged” to “interlocking” and then
`further limits the term “interlocking” to “interlocking of
`complementary contoured features.” But nothing in the
`intrinsic record of the ’567 Patent supports limiting the term
`“engaged” to “interlocking of complementary contoured features.”
`Rather, “engaged” includes “contact or attachment between
`Surfaces” and in similar circumstances the Federal Circuit and
`District Courts have construed the term "engaged" to mean
`“contact or attachment” rather than “interlocking of features”
`and many of those cases are cited in Petitioner's reply at
`page 8.
`
`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
`26
`
`IPR2020-00747
`Patent 9,057,567 B2
`
` Patent Owner counters in its sur-reply that two
`parts will always make contact when joined or fitted
`together. While that may be true, the phrase "to make
`contact" in Petitioner's plain meaning interpretation
`provides clarity to the meaning of “matingly engaged” and it
`also articulates that the function of mating engagement is to
`provide contact between the housing and the compliant member
`to prevent fluid bypass between them.
` So the phrase "to make contact", it also provides a
`clear contrast to Patent Owner's position that “engaged” means
`“to interlock.” But if Your Honors find the phrase "to make
`contact" redundant then the plain meaning of “matingly engaged”
`should simply be “to join or fit together.” It cannot be “to
`interlock two complementary contoured features.”
` Patent Owner's sur-reply and demonstratives further
`criticize Petitioner for looking at the words “mating” and
`“engaging” piecemeal, but that is exactly what Patent Owner did
`in its response. Patent Owner's response at page 17 states
`that the term "matingly" is derived from the present particle
`of the verb "to mate" which was commonly understood to mean
`“join or fit together” in 2011. Petitioner agrees with that.
`And likewise, Patent Owner continues to argue that the term
`"engaged" is the past tense of engage understood to mean “to
`interlock with.” So Your Honor, it was Patent Owner who took
`those two words in piecemeal and Petitioner is simply
`responding to what Patent Owner has said.
`
`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
`26
`
`IPR2020-00747
`Patent 9,057,567 B2
`
` Turning to Petitioner's slide 11. This slide
`highlights the major flaws in Patent Owner's proposed
`construction. As I mentioned previously, Patent Owner argued
`that “engaged” should be “interlocking of complementary
`contoured features” -- example, a tongue-in-groove joint or
`the connection of Lego blocks -- and that other forms of
`engagement between the two surfaces should be excluded. For
`example, mechanical contact between two surfaces or adhesion
`or fusion of two surfaces should be excluded according to
`Patent Owner.
` Patent Owner is incorrect and, as stated in slide
`12, Petitioner's expert has testified that a person skilled
`in the art understands the meaning of “matingly engaged” as
`“joined or fitted together to make contact” and that is the
`plain and ordinary meaning of the term. The prior art Bhatti
`reference that we'll discuss in a bit supports that a person
`skilled in the art understands that the joining or fitting of
`two flat surfaces falls within the meaning and scope of
`“mating engagement.” “Mating engagement” does not always mean
`“interlocking of mechanical structures.” The contact or
`attachment of two flat surfaces also falls within the meaning
`of “mating engagement.”
` And as slide 13 shows, there are three functional
`purposes of matingly engaging the compliant member of a
`housing: to align the parts, to create fluid passages into
`the microchannels, and most importantly, to prevent fluid
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`IPR2020-00747
`Patent 9,057,567 B2
`
`bypass through gaps between the compliant member and the
`underside of the housing. There is no reason to restrict the
`meaning of “matingly engaged” to “interlocking of complementary
`features” like Legos because other forms of engagement like
`mechanical contact, fusion, adhesion, et cetera will all meet
`these functional requirements of mating engagement.
` And as Petitioner's expert further testified -- and
`this is on slide 14 -- no specific method of joining or
`fixing is required by the claims or the specification of the
`’567 Patent.
` Now turning to slide 15 --
` JUDGE IPPOLITO: Counsel, I have a question for
`you.
` MS. BHATTACHARYYA: Yes, Your Honor.
` JUDGE IPPOLITO: So under your interpretation it
`seems that there really is no purpose for the “matingly” term.
`I mean if any engagement is enough, even two flat sides
`touching together, I guess my question is what isn't matingly
`engaged then?
` MS. BHATTACHARYYA: So “matingly engaged,” Your
`Honor, means “to join or fit together.” So there has to be
`full contact between the two surfaces. Engagement can mean
`indirect contact as well. Two points can contact -- just two
`points can contact and there might be gap between
`the -- between the two surfaces. “Matingly” means that they
`are making full contact and they are joined together. They
`
`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
`26
`
`IPR2020-00747
`Patent 9,057,567 B2
`
`are fitted together. So either they're compressed together
`so that there is no space in between them or they are
`connected together through adhesives or they're connected
`together by fusing the two parts.
` JUDGE IPPOLITO: So you're saying that “matingly”
`means full direct contact of the entire surfaces between the
`two structures?
` MS. BHATTACHARYYA: Yes. Yes, Your Honor. So the
`two surfaces have to be fully joined.
` JUDGE IPPOLITO: Where is that in -- where is that
`in the record? Where have you made that construction that
`there has to be complete full contact between the surfaces?
` MS. BHATTACHARYYA: The dictionary definition of
`“matingly” says “to join or fit together” and as -- the record
`shows in both Lyon and in the Bezama references the compliant
`member and the underside of the housing are in full contact.
`They are in contact so that there is no liquid passing
`through them. And Petitioner's expert, Dr. Tilton, has
`testified that the two surfaces will be in full contact and
`that the whole purpose is to not have liquid flow in between
`the two surfaces.
` JUDGE IPPOLITO: Thank you.
` MS. BHATTACHARYYA: Turning to slide 15. Patent
`Owner's narrow construction is based on a single cherry-
`picked dictionary definition of “engaged” misuses the word
`“interlock.” But as I mentioned previously, the term “interlock”
`
`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
`26
`
`IPR2020-00747
`Patent 9,057,567 B2
`
`by itself is not as limiting as Patent Owner seems to convey.
`“Interlock” does not always require locking of complementary
`features. To support its narrow specialized dictionary
`definition of “interlocking” Patent Owner relies on a single
`exemplary embodiment shown in figures 10 and 12 of the ’567
`Patent that includes interlocking of features. Now it cannot
`be disputed that under Patent Owner's construction there has
`to be some raised or recessed features on the compliant
`member that mechanically join or fit together with
`complementary features on the second side of the housing but
`claim 1 does not recite such complementary contoured
`features.
` Patent Owner's expert admitted that during his
`deposition which is shown on slide 16. Even a quick read of
`claim 1 shows that complementary features or contoured
`surfaces are not recited in the claim. So Patent Owner's
`construction improperly imports this additional limitation
`into the claims from an exemplary embodiment. After
`Petitioner pointed out this legal error Patent Owner changed
`tact in its sur-reply to argue that the entire recess on the
`underside of the housing where the compliant member resides
`is equivalent to the contours on the housing as shown in
`figure 10 but that is not correct.
` Even Patent Owner's own expert does not agree with
`that interpretation and this is shown on slide 17.
`Petitioner's counsel asked their expert on redirect, “Does the
`
`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
`26
`
`IPR2020-00747
`Patent 9,057,567 B2
`
`language where the second side defines the recessed region
`inform you as to whether or not the second side of the
`housing has to have a contour?” And the expert responded, “No,
`it does not have to have a contour. It just needs to have a
`recessed region. A recessed region could be contoured or it
`may have some other form as well.” Not getting the answer
`that counsel wanted he asked the same question again and
`again Patent Owner's expert responded, “Just on the basis of
`that limitation it does not have to have complementary
`contoured features.” So it cannot be disputed that there are
`no complementary features or any structures recited in the
`claims that would interlock. So these limitations are being
`imported into the claim construction of “matingly engaged.”
` And even if just having a recessed region on the
`underside of the housing were sufficient under Patent Owner's
`construction of “matingly engaged” then of course both Lyon and
`Bezama have that. As shown in the annotated figure 3 of Lyon
`on slide 17, the compliant member fits into the recessed
`region on the underside of the housing in Lyon. And as we
`will discuss shortly, Bezama has that too.
` As discussed in slide 18, Patent Owner attempts to
`rationalize its importation of the complementary contoured
`features into the claims by pointing to an exemplary
`embodiment shown in figures 10 and 12 of the ’567 Patent where
`the body of the compliant insert (334) can include a recess
`and some raised features which straddle other features on the
`
`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
`26
`
`IPR2020-00747
`Patent 9,057,567 B2
`
`underside of the housing. Nowhere is that embodiment defined
`as the invention itself. Rather, the Specification says that
`the embodiments are all exemplary.
` There can be no doubt that Patent Owner is reading
`the complementary contoured features into claim 1 in
`violation of Federal Circuit precedent expressly prohibiting
`importation of limitations from the Specification into the
`claims. But that is exactly what Patent Owner is doing here.
`Claim 1 is broader than the exemplary embodiment that is
`shown in figures 10 and 12 of the Patent.
` Ultimately, when the single embodiment relied on by
`Patent Owner is considered in the context of the entire
`Specification it is evident that that single embodiment does
`not constitute a clear and unambiguous disclaimer that is
`needed to read the complementary contoured features into the
`challenged claims. As the fFederal cCircuit explained in the
`(indiscernible) case, it is important not to import into the
`claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For
`example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written
`description may not be read into the claim when the claim
`language is broader than the embodiment.
` And here, Your Honors, Patent Owner has not
`identified anything in the Specification or the prosecution
`history that rises to the level of disclaimer, a clear and
`unmistakable disclaimer of claim scope. And in fact,
`elsewhere in the Specification “matingly engaged” is defined
`
`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
`26
`
`IPR2020-00747
`Patent 9,057,567 B2
`
`broadly to mean “contact or attachment between mating
`surfaces.”
` As shown in slide 19, the Summary section of the
`’567 Patent explains that the manifold body can be configured
`to straddle the inlet manifold recess and matingly engage the
`housing body. The Summary section of the Patent describes
`“matingly engaged” to simply mean that the manifold body and
`the housing body make contact thereby defining the manifold
`regions. Significantly, the Summary section does not require
`the manifold body and the housing to have complementary
`features that interlock. Patent owner completely --
` JUDGE MOORE: At least in this example though you
`have one component that occupies a portion of a separate
`component, right? So that's a little bit more specific than
`your definition of “mating engagement” which would encompass
`two rectangular blocks just pressed up against each other.
`Doesn't this portion of the Specification indicate that
`“mating engagement” refers to at the very least a type of
`connection in which one component occupies a portion -- you
`know, fits within or occupies a recess within a portion of a
`second component?
` MS. BHATTACHARYYA: Yes, Your Honor. If that is
`the construction, Your Honor, then both Bezama and Lyon have
`that. In both Bezama and Lyon the compliant member fits
`within the recess of the housing cover but that, Your Honor,
`is required by a different limitation of the claim. So
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`IPR2020-00747
`Patent 9,057,567 B2
`
`further below in claim 1 it is recited that the compliant
`member has to occupy a portion of the recessed region. So
`those two terms cannot be interpreted the same way otherwise
`one of those limitations will be rendered superfluous. So I
`understand that Patent Owner is trying to conflate those two
`limitations but if they are in fact conflated then Lyon and
`Bezama both have that because in both those prior art
`references the compliant member fits into the recess that is
`defined on the underside of the housing.
` JUDGE MOORE: Right. I understand that and thank
`you for clarifying. I'm not sure if this is a helpful
`question or a helpful statement but it seems like what we
`have here is Petitioner has proposed a very broad
`construction that would include, for example, two rectangles
`pressed against one another. Patent Owner has a very narrow
`construction which would require something akin to
`interlocking Legos. And, you know, that kind of leaves the
`Board wondering if there are any intermediate positions, if
`there's anything between these two extremes that might be a
`better construction of the term. So I know that's kind of a
`broad open-ended type of question but do you have any
`thoughts as to that?
` MS. BHATTACHARYYA: Yes, Your Honor. So the middle
`ground which Petitioner agrees with is that “matingly
`engaged” -- if simple mechanical contact seems too broad then
`the term “interlock” as is defined by dictionary definitions
`
`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
`26
`
`IPR2020-00747
`Patent 9,057,567 B2
`
`means “to join or lock together.” And as Petitioner has
`argued, adhesion or fusion between the two surfaces will
`cause interlocking. So if just mechanical contact is not
`enough then both Bezama -- Bezama teaches that the compliant
`member is attached, sealed, or bonded to the underside of the
`housing to prevent liquid bypass. So Bezama teaches all
`three variations. It's just attached, it could be sealed, or
`it could be bonded using adhesives, soldering, or braising.
`So Bezama teaches all of that.
` And Lyon also teaches that the plate and the seal
`are fused to the underside of the housing and that will
`definitely cause mating engagement between the two surfaces
`if two of -- if the compliant member is locked through
`adhesives, soldering, or braising to the underside of the
`housing. So perhaps, Your Honor, that is a middle ground and
`Petitioner agrees with that and that also can be reconciled
`with the dictionary definitions of “matingly engaged” if
`“engaged” is construed to mean “interlock.” Just the Lego block
`connection thing, that is just a very, very, very specialized
`meaning of “interlock,” Your Honors.
` JUDGE MOORE: Okay. But doesn't the example you
`just gave about sealing, bonding -- I guess the interlocking
`would be between the sealant and a component and not between
`the two components. Is that correct?
` MS. BHATTACHARYYA: So in the case of adhesives,
`the adhesion -- yeah, there might be a thin layer of adhesive
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`IPR2020-00747
`Patent 9,057,567 B2
`
`between the compliant member and the housing, but not in
`fusion, Your Honor. Welding is a form of fusion in which two
`surfaces are brought in direct contact. There is no
`intermediate layer in between. So in fusion connection,
`which is taught in Lyon, two surfaces will be in direct
`contact with each other.
` JUDGE MOORE: So then -- I'm trying to understand I
`guess the term “interlock.” You're reading a little bit
`differently than I understood. I was reading the term
`“interlock” to require one portion of one component that fit
`within a different portion of a different component. And it
`seems that you're saying that if you glued two square cubes
`together just the existence of the glue would cause those
`components to then interlock. Is that correct or am I
`misunderstanding something?
` MS. BHATTACHARYYA: Yes, Your Honor. Petitioner's
`expert has testified that adhesion and fusion, they will both
`cause interlocking. And even as I mentioned, dictionary
`definitions say that “interlocking” simply means “to fit
`together, to lock together, or join together.” And both
`adhesion and fusion will cause the locking of two surfaces
`together. Just the requirement to have -- if one component
`has to fit within the other that would require the
`complementary contoured features on the surfaces which is not
`recited anywhere in the claims and it's only described in one
`exemplary embodiment of the specification.
`
`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
`26
`
`IPR2020-00747
`Patent 9,057,567 B2
`
` So to answer your question, Your Honor,
`interlocking can mean the contact between two flat surfaces
`either via adhesive or through fusion bonding, soldering,
`braising, any of those methods that will lock the two
`surfaces together. And Your Honor, the whole purpose of this
`mating engagement is to prevent fluid bypass from the inlet
`to the outlet side through gaps between the compliant member
`and the housing and any of those methods will fulfill that
`functional requirement. So a very specialized form of
`interlocking where one feature fits within the other, that is
`not required and that is not mandated by the Specification or
`anything in the intrinsic record.
` JUDGE MOORE: Okay. Thank you.
` MS. BHATTACHARYYA: And Your Honor, the --
` JUDGE DOUGAL: Counsel, this is Judge Dougal. I
`have a couple questions to go back just a second on your
`discussion of figures 10 through 12 and the related
`description. I believe it's on column 14 of the Patent.
` So I'd like to know I guess your -- give me a
`second to get there -- your thoughts on how -- I guess a
`better understanding of how we should interpret “matingly
`engaged” in view of this paragraph or this discussion of
`figures 10 through 12. So my issue is that we -- both
`parties have some dictionary definitions and some testimony
`on what “mating” and “engagement” mean but it doesn't seem like
`there's a whole lot in the record of examples where someone
`
`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
`26
`
`IPR2020-00747
`Patent 9,057,567 B2
`
`uses the term “mating engagement.” And so it kind of seems
`like you're arguing that we could ignore this because it's
`too specific. It's too much like the Legos that Patent Owner
`is arguing. But being as we don't have many examples of
`usage of the entire term, how should we view this description
`here that is obviously from the Patent, an example of the
`combined terms together? How much should this play in our
`analysis of the claim construction?
` MS. BHATTACHARYYA: Your Honor, this -- the passage
`that Your Honor referred is simply an exemplary embodiment
`that says that the compliant member and the housing can have
`features. So it is an exemplary embodiment and case law says
`that features from exemplary embodiment should not be
`imported into the claims. But that said, Your Honor, as I
`mentioned previously, in the general description of the
`invention earlier in the Patent the term "matingly
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
