Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper # 32
`Entered: February 16, 2022
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MASIMO CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`__________
`
`IPR2020-01521 (Patent 10,292,628 B1)
`IPR2020-01714 and IPR2020-01715 (Patent 10,631,765 B1)
`__________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held Virtually: January 19, 2022
`__________
`
`
`Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, ROBERT L. KINDER, and
`AMANDA F. WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper # 32
`Entered: February 16, 2022
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MASIMO CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`__________
`
`IPR2020-01521 (Patent 10,292,628 B1)
`IPR2020-01714 and IPR2020-01715 (Patent 10,631,765 B1)
`__________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held Virtually: January 19, 2022
`__________
`
`
`Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, ROBERT L. KINDER, and
`AMANDA F. WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01521 (Patent 10,292,628 B1)
`IPR2020-01714 and IPR2020-01715 (Patent 10,631,765 B1)
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`
`WALTER KARL RENNER, ESQUIRE
`
`ANDREW PATRICK, ESQUIRE
`
`HYUN JIN IN, ESQUIRE
`
`Fish & Richardson
`
`1000 Maine Avenue, S.W.
`
`Washington, D.C. 20024
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`STEPHEN JENSEN, ESQUIRE
`Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP
`2040 Main Street
`Irvine, CA 92614
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday,
`January 19, 2022, commencing at 10:00 a.m., EDT, at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, by video/by telephone, before Chris Hofer, Notary
`Public.
`
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01521 (Patent 10,292,628 B1)
`IPR2020-01714 and IPR2020-01715 (Patent 10,631,765 B1)
`
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
` - - - - -
`JUDGE COCKS: Good morning. I am Judge Cocks. I am joined by
`
`Judges Wieker and Kinder and we have something of a busy schedule today.
`We have scheduled oral argument in connection with six related inter
`partes review proceedings involving five separate patents. As we set
`forth in our order setting oral arguments, we have divided the hearings into
`four sessions. The first session beginning now involves IPR2020-01521,
`01714 and 01715 concerning patents 10,292,628 and 10,631,765. Let's
`begin with introduction of counsel who is arguing this first session. Let's
`begin with Petitioner. Would you please state your appearance today.
`
`MR. RENNER: Good morning, Judge. This is Karl Renner from
`Fish & Richardson and I am joined by Andrew Patrick, Hyun Jin In who'll
`be presenting in the first stanza today. Grace Kim and Usman Khan are also
`with us.
`JUDGE COCKS: All right. Thank you, Mr. Renner. And for Patent
`Owner, would you please state your appearance today.
`MR. JENSEN: Yes. I'm Stephen Jensen on behalf of Patent Owner.
`I'll be arguing the first set that you mentioned. With me is Jeremiah Helm
`and Josh Stowell who will be handling later proceedings.
`JUDGE COCKS: All right. Thank you, Mr. Jensen. All right. So,
`for this first session we have allotted 60 minutes of time per side. Petitioner
`bears the burden of showing unpatentability and will argue their case first
`and may reserve rebuttal time. Patent Owner will then argue their
`opposition to Petitioner's case and may reserve surrebuttal time. Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 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
`25
`
`IPR2020-01521 (Patent 10,292,628 B1)
`IPR2020-01714 and IPR2020-01715 (Patent 10,631,765 B1)
`
`will then argue their rebuttal and Patent Owner will argue their surrebuttal.
`A couple of logistics points is that there will be four separate
`transcripts for the four sessions. So, this first session involving the three
`cases will have a single transcript. As we have noted to the parties in our
`Order setting oral arguments, any argument the parties wish to appear in a
`given transcript per case must be stated in connection with that session or
`case. Also, we have electronic copies of the parties' demonstratives but if
`they would please try and identify the slide and slide deck as they go for
`both our benefit and the benefit of the transcript, we would appreciate it and
`that being said given that we have a full day, Mr. Renner, you may begin
`whenever you are ready.
`MR. RENNER: Certainly. Thank you, Your Honor, and we'll reserve
`20 minutes in this first argument and I'll welcome Andrew Patrick to join
`me.
`
`MR. PATRICK: Thank you. Thank you, Your Honors. May it
`please the Board. My name is Andrew Patrick and I represent Petitioner
`Apple. I am joined today by my colleagues Karl Renner and Hyun Jin In
`and we plan to divide our presentation on the '628 and '765 patents between
`us. I'd like to ask Your Honors if I could to turn to slide 2 of our
`presentation which provides an overview. From the record briefing it's no
`secret that the dispute between the parties in this proceeding (audio
`interference). Indeed, similar to the issues addressed last month during our
`hearing on related matters and as shown in the table of contents provided on
`this slide we've organized our presentation today to address the record
`evidence supporting the integration of features for which Masimo has
`
`
`
`
` 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
`
`IPR2020-01521 (Patent 10,292,628 B1)
`IPR2020-01714 and IPR2020-01715 (Patent 10,631,765 B1)
`
`questioned combinability.
`In that regard I will begin with issue 1A which addresses separate and
`distinct bases found within Ohsaki for integrating a cover with a protruding
`convex surface into each base reference. I will then turn to issue 1C which
`addresses an additional basis corroborated by Inokawa. My colleague today
`will speak today to issues 1B and 2 with issue 1B offering yet another
`separate and distinct basis found within Inokawa for integrating a cover with
`a protruding convex surface and with issue 2 addressing the multiple bases
`rooted within Inokawa for adding a second emitter to Aizawa. Finally, I will
`round out our direct by addressing issue 3 regarding the basis for integrating
`wireless communications with handheld computing devices into the primary
`references.
`Before digging in I would like to call your attention to a rather
`unusual fact pattern presented by this case. In it the prior art not only
`teaches each of the features central to the dispute before us, it sets forth
`explicit motivations for integrating these specific features and it does so in a
`striking way, by acknowledging structures that exist in the base references
`and by describing how those structures would be improved by inclusion of
`the features for which combinability has been questioned. This happens
`over and over again. We see it with regard to issue 1 where the Ohsaki
`reference tells us that several benefits flow from changing the flat surface
`found in conventional covers like Aizawa's to a cover featuring a convex
`protruding portion.
`Likewise, regarding issue 2, we see Inokawa acknowledge
`transmitters like those arguably described in the base reference Aizawa and
`
`
`
`
` 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
`
`IPR2020-01521 (Patent 10,292,628 B1)
`IPR2020-01714 and IPR2020-01715 (Patent 10,631,765 B1)
`
`nevertheless promote integration of a second emitter for, among other
`purposes, optical data transmission to a base station. With respect to issue 3
`we see this again. There Inokawa recognizes a need for further transmission
`from a base device to a computing device without offering details of the
`network interface by which such transmission might be accomplished.
`Mendelson-2006 offers those details alongside description of several
`advantages associated with its approach.
`At the same time, we find the Patent Owner focused almost
`exclusively on combinability and to this point, Masimo does not dispute the
`existence of disclosure of the central features nor does it dispute the prior
`art's disclosure and motivations for integrating these undisputed teachings
`into the base reference structures much less disclosure by the applied
`secondary references of improvements to structures that are similar to those
`found in the base references. Rather Masimo promotes what are largely
`teaching away theories focusing on design details and trivial alleged
`differences between structures in the prior art being combined and
`contending that these differences would lead a person of skill away from
`combinations of their teachings despite the benefits they recognize in such
`integration.
`With that, I'd like to ask Your Honors if I could to turn to slide 4
`which begins our treatment of issue 1, the obviousness of implementing a
`cover with a protruding convex surface in each base reference. On the right
`of slide 4 we see a proposed modification of Mendelson '799 to include a
`cover with a protruding convex surface. More specifically, at upper right we
`see an annotated version of Mendelson '799's figure 7 and at lower right we
`
`
`
`
` 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
`
`IPR2020-01521 (Patent 10,292,628 B1)
`IPR2020-01714 and IPR2020-01715 (Patent 10,631,765 B1)
`
`see an additional section being prepared by Dr. Kenny. In each view the
`cover is shown in red. Presented at left is paragraph 87 of Dr. Kenny's first
`declaration. In it Dr. Kenny offers three separate and distinct rationales for
`integrating a cover with a protruding convex surface as encouraged by
`Ohsaki into Mendelson '799's pulse oximetry sensor. As explained by Dr.
`Kenny, these motivations include improved adhesion between the sensor and
`the user's tissue, improved light gathering efficiency and protection of the
`elements that are accommodated within the sensor housing but that
`otherwise would be left exposed if uncovered.
`Similarly, slide 5 presents Dr. Kenny's testimony regarding Aizawa-
`based combinations which involve the same separate and distinct
`independently viable rationales for integration of a cover having a
`protruding convex surface.
`More specifically and moving on to issue 1A on slide 7. We again see
`graphics illustrating Aizawa before and after integration of a cover with a
`protruding convex surface as Dr. Kenny proposed. At upper right is Aizawa
`with its flat cover prior to modification. At lower right is Aizawa after
`integration with a cover with a protruding convex surface. Notably, and as
`Dr. Kenny explains in paragraph 98 reproduced at left, a person of skill
`would have understood from the Ohsaki secondary reference and found it
`obvious that integration of a cover with a protruding convex surface would
`improve adhesion between the user's wrist and the surface of Aizawa's
`sensor. That of course stands to reason as a convex surface would enhance
`grip but Dr. Kenny does not rely on his intuition for this. He cites among
`other things Ohsaki at paragraph 25 and in more detail and as referenced in
`
`
`
`
` 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
`
`IPR2020-01521 (Patent 10,292,628 B1)
`IPR2020-01714 and IPR2020-01715 (Patent 10,631,765 B1)
`
`the testimony presented on slide 8 Ohsaki's paragraph 25 explains that
`intimate contact between the convex surface of its cover and the user's skin
`prevents slippage of the detecting element from its position on the user.
`Moreover, that reduced slippage is set to yield another benefit highlighted on
`this slide in blue, increased signal strength through suppression and a
`"variation of the amount of the reflected light that reaches into the detected
`element."
`Turning to slide 9 we see the actual disclosure that's referenced by Dr.
`Kenny. At lower right is Ohsaki's figure 1 which is a cross-sectional view of
`a sensor attached to the user. At upper right is Ohsaki's figure 2, a schematic
`view of the mechanism for detecting a pulse wave. As for paragraph 25,
`Ohsaki is clear in crediting the convex surface and the intimate contact at the
`convex surface with the skin as independently responsible for preventing
`slippage off the detecting position of the user's wrist. Notably Ohsaki does
`not here mention whether its sensor is placed on the front or the back of the
`user's forearm or wrist and instead the prevention of slippage is set to result
`simply from the contact of the surface with the skin. Moreover, Ohsaki
`explains that this lack of slippage is both a goal unto itself as it earlier
`promotes user comfort at paragraph 6 and additionally beneficial insofar as
`we've just discussed it enhances sensor accuracy.
`Now, the record argument and evidence from Masimo doesn't dispute
`the slippage motivation and either this disclosure by Ohsaki of the reduce
`slippage, which was cited in the petition and by Dr. Kenny and not debated
`by Masimo, is itself recent enough to see that a person of skill would have
`indeed found it obvious to integrate a protruding convex surface per Ohsaki
`
`
`
`
` 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
`
`IPR2020-01521 (Patent 10,292,628 B1)
`IPR2020-01714 and IPR2020-01715 (Patent 10,631,765 B1)
`
`and to references that lack it like Aizawa and Mendelson '799 and moving to
`the next slide, slide 10.
`We again see paragraph 25 that beyond that reduction in slippage and
`the enhanced user comfort that would flow from that adhesion suppresses
`variation in the amount of reflected light that reaches the light receiving
`element and this is demonstrated both in the text on this slide and it's shown
`in the figures on the right of the slide, figures 4A and 4B that are referenced
`by that text. The text highlighted here in blue begins by describing a
`structure of the type that's found in Aizawa, a cover with a flat surface, and
`in so doing it references figure 4B which shows the adverse impact of user
`motion with significant variation and light. The text then describes a convex
`surface shape and in so doing it references figure 4A which shows
`suppression relative to figure 4B in the amount of variation of light reaching
`a sensor.
`Notably this paragraph and these figures are devoted to discussion of
`the convex surface of the cover without a mention of the position of the
`sensor which was separately addressed in figures 3A and 3B. That is Ohsaki
`offers two different mechanisms for adhesion, first via a positioning of the
`sensor, for example on a boney side of the wrist where its particular
`structure fits and second, via use of a cover with a protruding convex surface
`rather than a flat surface as illustrated in figures 4A and 4B.
`JUDGE COCKS: Counsel --
`MR. PATRICK: Now Masimo seeks to --
`JUDGE COCKS: Counsel, I have a question. So I've read the briefs
`and I know this is a point but just for clarity you are suggesting that the
`
`
`
`
` 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
`
`IPR2020-01521 (Patent 10,292,628 B1)
`IPR2020-01714 and IPR2020-01715 (Patent 10,631,765 B1)
`
`suppression of a variation of the amount of reflected light that reaches the
`detecting element is going to be true for detecting elements that are on the
`periphery versus detecting elements that are in the center?
`MR. PATRICK: Yes, Your Honor, that's correct and in that regard
`actually my colleague, HJ, will be providing more discussion on this very
`point and with respect to the optics of the systems and how that would be
`true. But very briefly, what I can say to that now is that the Inokawa
`reference for example, a secondary issue with respect to the Aizawa
`combinations, actually itself describes an enhanced light detection efficiency
`as a consequence of the incorporation of a cover or a lens in its terminology
`with the protruding convex surface and as Dr. Kenny has repeatedly
`testified, the person of skill would have understood that Inokawa's disclosure
`in that regard would apply in, for example, Aizawa's context as a
`consequence of the way in which light is gathered in these systems and
`further, to the extent that there were a question as to whether it would apply
`with respect to what Your Honor raised in terms of peripheral versus simple
`detectors, that question is resolved with respect to the principle of
`reversibility, a basic concept in physics that we'll go into in more detail
`when HJ stands and, you know, in that regard if Your Honors would like we
`could actually visit issue 2 in more detail now or I could continue through
`completion of this section before getting to that.
`JUDGE COCKS: I think we will leave your choice of presentation
`style and timing up to you.
`MR. PATRICK: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor. So, in that regard
`very briefly I would like to finish out. If I could ask Your Honors to return
`
`
`
`
` 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
`
`IPR2020-01521 (Patent 10,292,628 B1)
`IPR2020-01714 and IPR2020-01715 (Patent 10,631,765 B1)
`
`to slide 10. As we were saying with respect to this there is this illustration
`from Ohsaki of the suppression, the relative suppression, of the variation of
`light caused by motion that's accomplished through the incorporation of its
`convex surface.
`Now, big picture with respect to Ohsaki and with respect to this issue,
`it motivates twice over with respect to adhesion and in doing so it does offer
`a solution to the problem of slippage that is perfectly tuned for integration
`into each of Aizawa and Mendelson '799. Again, it tells you that the use of a
`convex surface actually prevents slippage from occurring and in so doing
`enhances user comfort. Moreover, as shown in the graphs on this slide it
`further explains that there is enhanced efficiency in terms of signal-to-noise
`ratio by prevention of variation in light.
`Now, absent further questions as to this topic I would like to briefly
`move to slide 42 to address issue 1C which presents another separate and
`distinct motivation for integrating a cover with a protruding convex surface
`and actually moving from slide 42 to slide 43, as earlier noted there was
`additional evidence that was offered by Dr. Kenny to demonstrate the
`Ohsaki cover would have been obvious to integrate into, for example
`Mendelson '799 based on that coverage utility as protecting sensor elements
`that otherwise would have been left exposed and so you'll recall that
`Mendelson '799 discloses no cover between components within its sensor
`housing and the user tissue to which its device is applied and yet as Dr.
`Kenny explains, a person of skill would have wanted to protect exposed
`sensors with a cover and indeed as shown in Dr. Kenny's testimony on slide
`43, a person of skill -- and on 44 -- a person of skill would have fond it
`
`
`
`
` 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
`
`IPR2020-01521 (Patent 10,292,628 B1)
`IPR2020-01714 and IPR2020-01715 (Patent 10,631,765 B1)
`
`obvious that a light permeable cover having a protruding convex surface like
`Ohsaki's could be used to achieve that protection, and so in describing this
`obvious benefit Dr. Kenny cites to figures 1 and 2 of Ohsaki and also at
`paragraph 25 among others.
`Moreover, and as shown on slide 45, Dr. Kenny further substantiates
`his view that a person of skill would be motivated to modify Mendelson '799
`with a cover to protect its otherwise exposed sensors by citing to
`corroborating evidence found in paragraph 15 and claim 8 of Inokawa which
`states that the "lens makes it possible to protect the LED or PD" there
`referring to its light emitting diodes and photodetector elements. Again, the
`person of skill is not an automaton and they would have been perfectly
`capable of taking these suggestions and applying them as improvements to
`Mendelson '799 and so unless there are further questions as to issues 1A or
`1C, I will turn it over to 1B and my partner, HJ, who will address that.
`JUDGE COCKS: Thank you.
`MR. PATRICK: Thank you.
`MR. IN: Thank you, Andrew. Thank you, Your Honors. I will now
`turn to slide 24 of the presentation. Here we provide, as Andrew alluded to
`just now, another reason why a POSITA would have added a cover
`comprising a protruding convex surface to Aizawa and Mendelson's device
`and specifically that is to enhance the sensor's light gathering ability.
`If we turn to slide 25 now. Now discussing a little bit in detail with
`respect to Aizawa here but the same concept really applies to the other
`Mendelson references as well as you will see. So in addition to obtaining
`the advantages of reduced slippage as my colleague Andrew just talked
`
`
`
`
` 12
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01521 (Patent 10,292,628 B1)
`IPR2020-01714 and IPR2020-01715 (Patent 10,631,765 B1)
`
`about, a POSITA also would have been led based in Ohkawa's teachings to
`add a lens to Aizawa's sensor to thereby increase the signal strength of the
`pulse signal that is generated and doing by that by improving
`the light gathering ability of Aizawa's sensor. The modification we propose
`is shown here on the lower right side of slide 25 here where we can see that
`the flat cover that is taught in Aizawa has been modified to have a lens that
`is shaped as per Inokawa and so now how does adding Inokawa's lens
`actually improve Aizawa's light gathering ability?
`As we've explained consistently through our briefings and through the
`testimony of Dr. Kenny, Inokawa provides a really general teaching that a
`convex lens when added to a pulse sensor increases its light gathering
`ability. Looking at the upper right section of slide 25 for instance, we see at
`paragraph 15 of Inokawa where it describes that adding a lens increases the
`light gathering ability and Inokawa critically adds no restriction whatsoever
`sort of about the particular shape of a lens or particular arrangement of the
`LED or the photodetector that results in this marked improvement in the
`light gathering ability.
`Another thing to note here, Your Honors, is that paragraph 15 here is
`actually describing claim 8 of Inokawa and claim 8 of course refers back to
`the earlier claims 1 through 7 that is in Inokawa and nowhere in there does it
`say that a sensor has to be in a certain place or that an LED has to be in a
`certain place. All it says is that there is a light emitting means and there is
`the light detecting means. That's all there is and as Dr. Kenny --
`JUDGE COCKS: Counsel?
`MR. IN: -- consistently --
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
` 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
`
`IPR2020-01521 (Patent 10,292,628 B1)
`IPR2020-01714 and IPR2020-01715 (Patent 10,631,765 B1)
`
`
`JUDGE COCKS: One question. Counsel?
`MR. IN: Yes.
`JUDGE COCKS: One question. Is there any embodiment of Inokawa
`that shows a detecting element other than in the center of the device?
`MR. IN: Yes, Your Honor. I was going to get to that. That is a great
`question. So if you look at the upper right of slide 25 we actually see right
`there you see the same lens that is being used on both the sensor side of the
`left and on the base side on the right and with that same lens setup what you
`see on the left is that you have the detector 25 at the center and on the right
`you have a detector 45 at the periphery and in describing the advantages of
`that lens in both systems there on both sides, Inokawa says that the light
`gathering ability is a task (phonetic). So, I think that's one example where
`Inokawa clearly does not limit the benefits of a lens to having a detector at
`the center.
`In addition to that there are other figures, figures 16, 19 as well where
`you see different configurations, all with the same lens and all with the same
`explanation that the benefit of a lens, the benefit you get in terms of
`enhancing the light gathering ability is achieved. Does that answer your
`question, Your Honor?
`JUDGE COCKS: Yes, thank you.
`MR. IN: Okay. Great. And I do want to point out here that the
`Patent Owner tries to sort of conveniently ignore these other portions of
`Inokawa, namely the general teachings that it provides with regard to the
`benefits of the lens, by saying that the benefits are only somehow derived if
`you have the exact configuration that's shown in figure 2 of Inokawa where
`
`
`
`
` 14
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01521 (Patent 10,292,628 B1)
`IPR2020-01714 and IPR2020-01715 (Patent 10,631,765 B1)
`
`the detector is at the center of the sensor face and at least for the reasons I
`just explained, we don't believe that is true and Dr. Kenny has consistently
`explained that and supported that position throughout the proceeding.
`Turning to slide 26 now just to briefly discuss some of Dr. Kenny's
`testimony. He explained for us in his second declaration here as you see
`here how a lens as in Inokawa when added to a base device, base sensor as
`in Aizawa or Mendelson, would allow light that otherwise would have
`completely missed the sensor face from now hitting the sensor face and so
`that light that otherwise would have been completely missed is now captured
`and redirected to the appropriate locations on the sensor and the result of
`course is that the lens now convinces light and converges and focuses that
`light across the entire sensor face gathering more light across all locations
`and he goes on to explain, as you see on the right side of slide 26 there, that
`a POSITA, you know, if needed certainly would have known how to shape
`these lenses, how to arrange these systems such that you really maximize
`that effect in gathering, you know, adding more light at the position where
`it's located. So, if needed, for instance, a POSITA would certainly know
`how to design the system and the lens such that, you know, more light can
`be gathered at specific locations where the detectors are and this is indeed
`consistent we think with the general teachings of Inokawa. I would
`reference to the various figures in Inokawa that I had discussed where all it
`says is that if you add a lens you get greater light gathering ability and we
`think that constant applies very well in the Aizawa and Mendelson
`combinations that we have proposed.
`JUDGE WIEKER: Could I ask a question, please?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 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
`
`IPR2020-01521 (Patent 10,292,628 B1)
`IPR2020-01714 and IPR2020-01715 (Patent 10,631,765 B1)
`
`
`MR. IN: Yes, Judge Wieker.
`JUDGE WIEKER: In the Patent Owner's response in their declarant's
`testimony they discuss some testimony of Dr. Kenny in the 1520 IPR where
`Dr. Kenny talks about I believe it's about the mean length of light that
`travels through a lens. Is that testimony inconsistent with the position taken
`here that I believe in 1520 Dr. Kenny stated that the light would condense
`towards the center, is that inconsistent with what's happening in these
`proceedings?
`MR. IN: That's another great question. Not at all, Your Honor. So,
`as you've correctly noted, that particular drawing that the Patent Owner has
`sort of relied on across multiple briefings, Dr. Kenny was really just trying
`to explain with respect to a dependent claim about this concept of their use,
`you know, a mean path link (phonetic). What that means -- I'm trying to
`illustrate sort of how having a lens results in that effect. So basically, what
`he's trying to do there is show for one very specific ray how having a lens
`would make that actual path shorter. It really has nothing to do with the
`aggregate effects or this condensing effect that you would have with the lens
`consistent with Inokawa's teachings and consistent with Dr. Kenny's
`testimony everywhere else which is that if you add a lens you are -- more
`light, you're gathering more light that otherwise would have completely
`missed the sensor to now be picked up and just pointing to one particular ray
`and sort of saying that because it goes to the center that means, you know,
`less light is at the portions where it's needed we don't think that that really
`accurately captures and our position and what Dr. Kenny has been
`consistently explaining through his testimony.
`
`
`
`
` 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
`
`IPR2020-01521 (Patent 10,292,628 B1)
`IPR2020-01714 and IPR2020-01715 (Patent 10,631,765 B1)
`
`
`JUDGE WIEKER: Thank you.
`MR. IN: Okay. So, in the interest of time let me skip over to slide 33.
`So, co-counsel Andrew, he briefly noted this fundamental concept, first of
`all, of reversibility. So, you know, as we noted the Patent Owner spends a
`lot of effort trying to focus on figure 2 of Inokawa and somehow say that it
`really limits the benefit of Inokawa's lens and that if you apply it to a
`different system that it's no longer applicable. This principle of reversibility
`which is, I mean it's a fundamental optical principle based on the even more
`fundamental Fermi's (phonetic) principle, it really we think really debunks
`that theory in another way which is to say that if a light ray inside an optical
`system travels, takes a particular path going one direction then it must take
`the exact same pathway going the other direction and so if you --
`JUDGE COCKS: Counsel, I have a question if I can interrupt.
`MR. IN: Yes.
`JUDGE COCKS: Thank you. My question, and pardon the pun here,
`was this principle of reversibility a focus of the petition or is that something
`that has emerged after the petition as a principle on which you were relying?
`MR. IN: Sure. It is not something that we really focused on at the
`petition stage but in the Patent Owner's response what they were sort of
`consistently saying and we can point to slide 28 here very briefly, is that
`somehow if you add Inokawa's lens on to Aizawa or Mendelson that all light
`goes to the center or to some particular location because that's all Inokawa's
`envisioning. So, in response to that, what our expert Dr. Kenny explained is
`that very simply this fundamental principle of optics which a POSITA
`certainly would have known basically dictates that if you simply reverse the
`
`
`
`
` 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
`
`IPR2020-01521 (Patent 10,292,628 B1)
`IPR2020-01714 and IPR2020-01715 (Patent 10,631,765 B1)
`
`locations of the sensor and the emitter you get the exact same effect. So, to
`the extent that Inokawa's lens provides a very specific optical benefit which
`we're not really sure how that would actually actualize but even if that were
`the case, this principle of reversibility means that the exact same benefit is
`gained even if the positions are swapped.
`So let me briefly now skip over to slide 39. So here I just want to
`briefly touch upon an issue that is specific to just one of the patents, namely
`the '628 patent where there is a ground here based on Mendelson-1988 that
`is not in the other petitions. Okay, slide 39 here, and as we've said in our
`briefings for the same reasons that we just explained and as set forth with
`regard to the Aizawa combination the exact same benefits would be
`conveyed to the Mendelson-1988 detector as well, mainly by having a lens
`on there. As for Inokawa you would enhance the sensor's light gathering
`ability and therefore produce stronger signals, and on the lower right side of
`slide 39 you can see how the left that's the original Mendelson-1988 sensor
`with a flat cover shown in blue and then on the right what Dr. Kenny has
`provided as an illustration of how the lens of Inokawa could be added to that
`and here --
`JUDGE COCKS: Counsel, I have --
`MR. IN: -- very briefly I'll note that Mendelson-1988 --
`JUDGE COCKS: Counsel? Counsel?
`MR. IN: Yes.
`JUDGE COCKS: I have a question. So, in looking at slide 39 are
`you suggesting that both of those illustrations are covers, both the flat and
`the curve, they both constitute covers?
`
`
`
`
` 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
`
`IPR2020-01521 (Patent 10,292,628 B1)
`IPR2020-01714 and IPR2020-01715 (Patent 10,631,765 B1)
`
`
`MR. IN: That's right, Your Honor.
`JUDGE COCKS: And you haven't gotten to this but I'm going to ask
`my question now. My reading of Mendelson-1988, and I believe this is
`Patent Owner's position, suggests that Mendelson-1988 draws distinction
`between a cover and resin surrounding components. Is that an accurate
`assessment of Mendelson,
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
