Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper # 32
`Entered: March 18, 2020
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`DONG GUAN LEAFY WINDOWARE CO. LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ANIL SPRING CO., LTD. and
`HSIEN-TE HUANG,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`PGR2020-00001
`Patent 10,174,547 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held Virtually: Monday, March 1, 2021
`
`
`
`Before: GEORGE R. HOSKINS, MICHAEL L. WOODS, and SCOTT C.
`MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper # 32
`Entered: March 18, 2020
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`DONG GUAN LEAFY WINDOWARE CO. LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ANIL SPRING CO., LTD. and
`HSIEN-TE HUANG,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`PGR2020-00001
`Patent 10,174,547 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held Virtually: Monday, March 1, 2021
`
`
`
`Before: GEORGE R. HOSKINS, MICHAEL L. WOODS, and SCOTT C.
`MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00001
`Patent 10,174,547 B2
`
`
`
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`HAO TAN, JD, PhD
`ARCH & LAKE, LLP
`203 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2100
`Chicago, Illinois 60601
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`MEKA MEHTA, ESQUIRE
`MICHAEL C. JONES, ESQUIRE
`PROCOPIO, CORY, HARGREAVES & SAVITCH, LLP
`1117 South California Avenue, Suite 200
`Palo Alto, California 94304
`
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Monday,
`March 1, 2021, commencing at 1:01 p.m., EST by video/by telephone.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00001
`Patent 10,174,547 B2
`
`
`
` (Proceedings begin at 1:01 p.m.)
` JUDGE HOSKINS: This is an oral hearing in
`PGR No. 2020-00001.
` This case is captioned Dong Guan Leafy
` Windoware Company, Ltd. v. ANLI Spring Company, Ltd.
` and Hsien-Te Huang. It concerns U.S. Patent No.
` 10,174,547 B2.
` The panel of APJs here today are myself, I'm
` George Hoskins, and my colleagues, Michael Woods and
` Scott Moore, are also participating today on behalf of
` the Board.
` So now, let me ask for formal appearances by
` our two counsels, and we'll start with petitioner,
` please.
` MR. TAN: Your Honors, this is Hao Tan from
`Arch & Lake for petitioner, Dong Guan Leafy Windoware
`Company, Ltd.
` JUDGE HOSKINS: Thank you, Mr. Tan.
` And for patent owner, please.
` MR. JONES: Meka, you're muted.
` This is Michael Jones for ANLI Spring, patent
` owner, with Meka Mehta, also for patent owner.
` JUDGE HOSKINS: Thank you, Mr. Jones.
` So today, as set forth in the oral hearing
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00001
`Patent 10,174,547 B2
` orders that we have previously issued in this case,
` we're going to hear first from petitioner. Petitioner
` is invited to address whatever issues petitioner would
` like to address with respect to the issued claims in
` the patent and also then the proposed substitute
` claims in the motion to amend all as part of the case
` in chief.
` Then we'll hear from patent owner on those
` same issues.
` And petitioner is then given an opportunity
` for rebuttal, if Mr. Tan wants some rebuttal, and then
` Mr. Jones also has an opportunity for some
` sur-rebuttal.
` So Mr. Tan -- let me make sure I'm pronouncing
` your name correctly. Is it Tan or Tan?
` MR. TAN: That's good. Just Tan is good.
` JUDGE HOSKINS: Mr. Tan. Thank you. Sorry
`about that.
` So would you like to reserve time for rebuttal
` here at the beginning of your argument?
` MR. TAN: Yes, Your Honor, I would like to
`reserve five minutes.
` JUDGE HOSKINS: Five minutes?
` MR. TAN: I think the total that of our
`argument is 30 minutes, right?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00001
`Patent 10,174,547 B2
` JUDGE HOSKINS: You actually have 60 minutes
`today.
` MR. TAN: For each side of the --
` JUDGE HOSKINS: Correct.
` MR. TAN: Okay. Then I would like to reserve
`30 minutes, yes.
` JUDGE HOSKINS: 30 minutes. Okay.
` And Mr. Jones, would you like to reserve time
` upfront for sur-rebuttal?
` MR. JONES: Yes, we'd like to reserve 15
`minutes for sur-rebuttal.
` JUDGE HOSKINS: Thank you, Mr. Jones.
` I will keep time during both of your
` presentations and endeavor to give you a little bit of
` warning as you approach the ending of your initially
` set time for your case in chief but, you know, those
` are not -- your reserve times are not set in stone.
` If you get to that point of your argument, you're
` welcome to change whatever allocation you want between
` case in chief and rebuttal.
` So the last point before I turn it over to
` Mr. Tan for his case in chief is, I believe we have a
` member of the public, at least one member of the
` public, listening in today to our webcast, but we do
` have some materials, three exhibits, that were filed
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00001
`Patent 10,174,547 B2
` under seal in relation, I believe, to the on-sale bar
` ground with respect to some Wang springs that were
` sold. And so I just want to notify counsel of the
` fact that we have a person from the public listening
` in, and if you intend to discuss any of those exhibits
` that were filed under seal, we need to do something to
` protect the confidentiality of that information before
` you go down that road.
` So with that in mind, I will now turn the case
` over to Mr. Tan to start his case in chief whenever
` he's ready.
` MR. TAN: Okay. Your Honors, thank you for
`arrange this oral argument at this time.
` This is Hao Tan for petitioner, Dong Guan
` Leafy Windoware Company, Ltd.
` Do I need to -- sorry -- do I need to ask
` someone to turn to the slides?
` JUDGE HOSKINS: We have everything in front of
`us. Please refer -- if you want to refer to your
`demonstratives or anything in the record, that's fine.
`We have that all here on our computer screen, you just
`have to direct us to a slide number or the particular
`portion of the record you want us to look at. But we
`have it all in front of us, there's nobody kind of
`going through the slides as you talk.
`
`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
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00001
`Patent 10,174,547 B2
` MR. TAN: Okay. Sorry. Okay.
` I'll go through my slides first, you know.
` Please, you know, turn to the, you know, second slide.
` The first slide is cover.
` So petitioner submitted this PGR, I believe,
` in late 2019. And the '547 patent at issue here have
` four -- has four claims; two independent claims and
` two dependent claims.
` The two independent claims only have
` difference in the preamble.
` And the main limitations of '547 patent have
`two aspects. The first aspect is the different
`sections of this unequal -- is this strip has
`different curvatures at different sections along the
`longitude of this strip.
` And the second aspect of the independent
`claims is the different sections with different
`curvatures generates a specific torque profile as
`elastic on the right side of the first -- the second
`slide in Figure 12.
` So petitioner used two references in the
`Institute, Ground 2. Please turn to the second -- or
`the next slide.
` Ground 2 is based on obviousness under
`Section 103, and the two reference he used is Lin 943
`
`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
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00001
`Patent 10,174,547 B2
`and Yamashita.
` As agreed by the Board, and conceded by patent
`owner, most of the limitations are taught by the two
`references. The only thing the patent owner is arguing
`right now, I believe, is the limitations about this
`second torque.
` Let's turn to the next slide which shows
`challenged Claim 1. And we can see the second
`torque -- the limitation about the second torque reads
`as, "A second torque that follows the first torque and
`is equal to a maximum value of the first torque is
`implemented between the second length and the third
`length."
` Let's turn to the next slide which have three
`figures.
` We do have a small correction here. I think
`the petition paper we said on page 7 of 19, but it's
`actually these figures on page 17 of 19.
` But in anyway, as agreed by the Board, and
`considered by the petitioner, our Figure 6 generally
`shows this torque profile except the second torque.
` Patent owner argues that the second torque has
`to be a constant, but also as agreed by patent owner's
`own expert, there is sensor noise here in this
`Figure 6 of the reference Lin 943.
`
`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
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00001
`Patent 10,174,547 B2
` And our petition is that this section from
`6-centimeter to 14-centimeter -- or 6-inch to 14-inch,
`I believe, shows a constant torque.
` And I'd like to point -- let's turn to the
`next slide.
` Lin 943 actually discloses a window covering
`includes at least one spring motor and disclose every
`limitation of Claims 1 and 3 of the '547 patent, as
`agreed by the Board, except this reed strip having
`sections with different curvatures, which would be
`discussed later by the other reference.
` As agreed by the Board in the Institution
`Decision, Lin 943 provides a second torque, the
`limitation that patent owner is arguing, but because
`the Board also agrees there is sensor noise in
`Figure 6, and we would like to add that the limitation
`the patent owner is arguing, which is at the count --
`that the second torque has to be a constant torque
`force throughout the whole length between L2 and L3 is
`actually not -- is actually not recited in the current
`claims.
` So our petition is that Lin 943, Figure 6,
`while have some sensor noise, shows a constant second
`torque section.
` JUDGE HOSKINS: Mr. Tan?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00001
`Patent 10,174,547 B2
` MR. TAN: Yes, Your Honor.
` JUDGE HOSKINS: The claim says that the second
`torque is equal to the maximum value of the first
`torque, correct?
` MR. TAN: Yes, Your Honor.
` JUDGE HOSKINS: So if that doesn't require the
`second torque to be that one value, and therefore be
`constant throughout the region of the second torque,
`what is it that's required of the second torque in this
`claim?
` MR. TAN: From our understanding, Your Honor,
`this second torque follows the first torque and is
`equal to a maximum value. That first portion means
`there is one torque value that equals to the maximum
`value of the first torque.
` And then the following portion is implemented
`between the second length and a third length. That
`does not mean this second torque has to be the same
`value throughout the second length and third length.
` And if we look at Figure 12, or Slide 7 of our
` presentation, you can actually see, as we pointed out
` in the red circle, around the end of L3 -- of the end
` of L2 of near L3 -- right? -- there is an apparent
` decrease in that section.
` So our understanding is between L2 and L3
`
`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
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00001
`Patent 10,174,547 B2
`there is a section, there is a torque force that's
`equal to a maximum of L -- of T -- of the first
`torque.
` And I think that's also consistent with the
`plain claim language that's recited in the current
`Claims 1 and 3.
` JUDGE HOSKINS: Thank you.
` MR. TAN: Thank you.
` So let's continue to Slide 7, as we just
`actually mentioned.
` The specification of the issued '547 patent is
`not consistent with what patent owner is arguing.
` While the specification itself may recite
`constant when they talk about the second torque, but
`the drawings shows different things.
` Let's move to the next slide.
` The ground -- the Institute Ground 2 also use
`a secondary reference, Yamashita, which remedies the
`deficiencies pointed out by the Board and shows that
`different sections have different curvatures.
` Let's move to the next slide.
` And petitioner agrees with preliminary
`institute -- Institution Decision that the combination
`of Lin 943 and Yamashita discloses every limitation of
`challenged Claims 1 and 3, and it would have been
`
`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
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00001
`Patent 10,174,547 B2
`obvious to modify the spring of Lin 943 to have
`different curvatures in view -- in light of Yamashita.
` Let's move to the next slide, Slide 10.
` The second Institute ground, which is
`Ground 8, petitioner submits that Claims 2 and 4, the
`two dependent claims of the '547 patent, are
`indefinite.
` Let's just take a look at Claims 2 and 4 on
`this slide.
` Again, the only limitation between them is the
`preamble, and the body of the claim reads, "The
`unequal torque coil spring generates usable feedback
`torque values with a ratio between 4-to-1."
` When viewed in the light of specification and
`prosecution history, Claims 2 and 4 fails to inform
`those skilled in the art about the scope of the
`invention with reasonable certainty.
` The ratio -- let's move to the next slide.
` A ratio between 4-to-1 suggests a range of
`ratios.
` As the Board found in the Institution
`Decision, this term, a ratio between 4-to-1, is
`fatal -- fatally unclear because the spring generates
`torque values with a ratio between suggested range of
`ratios but then recites only one ratio 4-to-1.
`
`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
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00001
`Patent 10,174,547 B2
` And if we wanted to find more certainty by
`looking -- or by reading the specification, it's not
`helpful because the specification only has one
`paragraph regarding this 4-to-1, which is almost the
`same as the claim language.
` And as agreed by the patent owner's expert, he
`also presents two interpretations; a ratio between
`4-to-1, according to patent owner's expert, could mean
`a ratio not greater than 4-to-1, which is a range, but
`also could mean a definite number which is just
`4-to -- which is just 4, I guess.
` So the claim language fails to specific a
`maximum ratio corresponding to a minimum ratio, or
`what kind of ratio this is by reading the current
`Claims 2 and 4, it's fatally unclear.
` Let's move to Slide 12.
` As pointed out by the patent owner that the
`specifications talk about different torque regions in
`the issued patent, Section 5, 19 to 9 -- lines 19 to
`50, and Section 8, lines 4 to 17.
` However, the only disclosure about the ratio
`is still the ratio between the above-described torque
`forces can be set between 4-to-1. That's in
`Section 5, lines 59 to 60.
` And the claim language again fails to specify
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00001
`Patent 10,174,547 B2
`which two values of the five previously described
`feedback torques are being compared in this ratio.
` Let's move to Slide 13.
` Patent owner cited again many excerpts to try
`to clarify this. However, reading all those excerpts,
`a person of ordinary skill in the art still could not
`figure out what kind of torques are compared to get
`this ratio and whether this ratio is a range or just a
`specific value.
` Let's move to Slide 14.
` Next, I would like to talk about the
`contingent revised motion to amend.
` Petitioner respectfully submits that patent
`owner's contingent motion to amend should be denied.
` Let's move to Slide 15.
` As we may know, this motion to amend is
`submitted under the pilot program which actually
`gives patent owner two chances to amend claims -- the
`claims.
` However, as we can see, the substituted
`Claims 5 and 6 are actually the same in both the
`initial -- the original motion to amend and the
`revised motion to amend.
` Patent owner is trying to tie a
`maximum feedback torque value and the minimum feedback
`
`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
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00001
`Patent 10,174,547 B2
`torque value to define this ratio, and then they're
`trying to further limit this ratio is 4-to-1.
` However, this motion to amend should be denied
`for two reasons.
` First, it is still unclear what torque value
`can have a ratio between 4-to-1.
` Let me make it clear, we are not arguing the
`claim itself is indefinite, we are arguing that the
`claim should fail due to a lack of written description
`support under 35 U.S.C. Section 112(a).
` And here, first, like I mentioned, it is
`unclear what torque values can have a ratio between
`4-to-1 by reading the disclosure. And the language
`between 4-to-1 in the original specification of the
`'547 patent refers to a range instead of a single
`value. And the general -- the disclosure of a general
`range does not provide sufficient written description
`to support the specific value in the substituted
`claims.
` Let's move to Slide 17.
` It is unclear what torque values have a ratio
`between 4-to-1 in the specification.
` Again, this is the paragraph that disclose the
`ratio in the specification. We can take a minute to
`read it. "A ratio between the above-described torque
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00001
`Patent 10,174,547 B2
`forces can be set between 4-to-1."
` Again, as mentioned earlier, there are five
`torque values mentioned, and it is not clear what
`two -- which two torque values are compared in this
`ratio.
` JUDGE WOODS: Mr. Tan, if I could interrupt to
`ask a question?
` MR. TAN: Yes, Your Honor.
` JUDGE WOODS: All right. So this is APJ
`Woods.
` So I understand your argument, but as I read
` these columns, and I understand that there's also some
` reference to Figures 6 through 9, at least, and I look
` at Figure 6, it appears that there's at least some
` support in that figure that the maximum to minimum
` torque values -- the maximum torque value is about
` four times that of the minimum torque value.
` So in looking at that figure, and then also in
` light of this written description in Column 5, it
` doesn't seem too unreasonable for patent owner to take
` the position that a skilled artisan would understand
` that ratio between 4-to-1 to mean the maximum torque
` and the minimum torque.
` Would you please elaborate on that? Or
` maybe -- I apologize -- if I mentioned Figure 6, I
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00001
`Patent 10,174,547 B2
` apologize. I meant Figure 12.
` MR. TAN: Your Honor, understood. That's
`fine.
` Let's take a look at Figure 12. So I have
` Figure 12 opened. And I can see from my screen that
` on the Y axis, there's only showing kilogram, there is
` no other value on the Y axis. So from reading
` Figure 12 alone, Your Honor, it's impossible for me to
` understand whether there is a ratio of 4-to-1.
` JUDGE WOODS: Thank you.
` MR. TAN: Thank you, Your Honor.
` JUDGE HOSKINS: So Mr. Tan, on that point, one
`of the things that -- this is Judge Hoskins again.
` On that point, one of the things that the
` patent owner's witness -- as I understand it, he took
` a ruler to this figure and determined that if it's
` drawn to scale, that the torque at -- between L2 and
` L3 that patent owner calls the maximum torque, and
` then the torque at L5 or torque -- I guess, it looks
` like it's T0 here in this figure, patent owner calls
` that the minimum torque. And patent owner says, if
` you -- if this is drawn to scale, then that maximum
` torque is, I think, 3.9 times on the scale where the
` minimum torque is.
` Do you have any expert testimony in 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
`25
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00001
`Patent 10,174,547 B2
` to that specific testimony from patent owner's
` witness?
` MR. TAN: Your Honor, I don't. I think we
`have -- we have some expert testimony on that.
` JUDGE HOSKINS: Can you point me to --
` MR. TAN: First --
` JUDGE HOSKINS: Yeah. Can you -- the
`paragraphs of the -- one of the supplemental
`declarations?
` MR. TAN: Sure. Sure. Let's -- let me find
`the paper first.
` (Pause in the proceedings)
` MR. TAN: So I believe we have our expert
`testified in the supplemental declaration in
`paragraph 21 of Exhibit 1017.
` Our expert testified, "In my opinion," I'm
` reading paragraph 21 on page 9, "In my opinion, a
` POSITA would not calculate a ratio between two values
` based on the recommended values from a plotted graph.
` In addition, Dr. Vallee, in his declaration, described
` the ratio of T3 to T4 was measured as 0.39 to 0.21."
` As shown in Figure 12, T3 and T4 both
` represent a range. It is confusing and is bad
` practice in engineering to compare two range value as
` a ratio.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00001
`Patent 10,174,547 B2
` JUDGE HOSKINS: Understood. Thank you very
`much. I appreciate the citation.
` MR. TAN: Sure. Thank you, Your Honors.
` Let's move to Slide 18 of our presentation.
` So between 4-to-1 in the specification refers
` to range instead of a single value.
` The plan -- the plain language of the cited
` passage and the phrase between 4-to-1 suggests a range
` of ratios.
` As the Board concludes in the preliminary
` guidance, the language between 4-to-1 in the U.S.
` application suggests a range of ratios but does not
` actually provide a range.
` And the definition of the term ratio itself
` does not support that the phrase between 4-to-1
` suggests a single value.
` In the cited passage, the first between is to
` compare the above-described torque forces why it's
` unclear which two forces are compared, and the second
`between may be use to indicate a range of a ratio that
`can be set at any number between 4-to-1.
` The discovery of a broad ratio range does not
`by itself provide written description support for a
`particular value within that range, such as 4-to-1
`or 4 as claimed by the patent owner.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00001
`Patent 10,174,547 B2
` And also, when the specification discloses
`broader range of values, a value within that range is
`claimed the disclosure must allow one skilled in the
`art to immediately discern the limitation at issue
`is -- that the limitation at issue in the claims.
` Let's move to the next slide.
` Our petitioner's petition is between 4-to-1
`refers to a range instead of a single value. And the
`patent owner in their most -- in the latest response
`or sur-reply, they argues -- they argue that the
`showing different interpretations of a ratio of the
`phrases between 4-to-1 is insufficient because simply
`showing a mere possibility of different results from
`different techniques of defining the scope of claim
`parameters was not sufficient that to invalidate a
`claim under 35 U.S.C. Section 112(b).
` Patent owner cited a Ball Metal Beverage for
` this -- to support their petition, however, patent
` owner mis-applies this case because the Federal
` Circuit's analysis and conclusion in Ball Metal is
` based on invalidity analysis of a patent claim under
` 35 U.S.C. 112(b), it's not under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)
` which requires the written description as petitioner
` is arguing in our opposition to the motion to amend.
` This concludes my presentation. Thank you,
`
`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
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00001
`Patent 10,174,547 B2
` Your Honors.
` JUDGE WOODS: I'm sorry. If I could ask a
`question on that last point that you made.
` So is that a distinction of form without
` substance? I mean, could you expound on that? Why is
` it different that -- why is it really significant that
` Ball Metal was addressing a 112(b) issue as opposed to
` sufficiency of written description support under
` 112(a)?
` MR. TAN: Your Honor, thank you for the
`question.
` As we know, there are two definite
` requirements under the 35 U.S.C. Section 112.
` In pre, it's a first time and a second time in
`the -- and right now it's Section 112(a) and Section
`112(b), and they are referring to definite
`requirements.
` And the 112(b) really requires a claim to be
`definite, which means, I guess, as the Board concludes
`in the preliminary guidance, which the current
`substitute Claims 5 and 6 seems to be not indefinite,
`that that's it met the requirement of
`Section 112(b) -- meets the now indefinite requirement
`under Section -- I believe this is Section -- let me
`make sure even it's A or B to make sure.
`
`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
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00001
`Patent 10,174,547 B2
` Yeah. It's Section 112(b), which is this
`claim has to be definite.
` So as the Board agrees, and we are not arguing
`that this substitute could not meet that -- they're
`not arguing the specification itself are indefinite,
`but the Section 112(a) requirement is the written
`description support, which means the claims has to be
`supported by the specification of the written
`description. But reading the written --
` The only disclosure in the current
` specification, if we turn to Slide 17 again of our
` presentation, the only disclosure is a ratio between
` the above-described torque forces can be set between
` 4-to-1, and maybe we can also add Figure 12 as another
` potential support.
` However, even with both the drawing and the
` single sentence here, "A ratio between the
` above-described torque forces can be set between
` 4-to-1," petitioner's petition is this is not -- this
` is not clear which torque forces are compared, and
` this is not clear what ratio is disclosed because
` between 4-to-1 is a range instead of a single ratio.
` JUDGE HOSKINS: So Mr. Tan, we just passed
`your 30-minute mark, but I have one more question for
`you, if my colleagues do not have anymore questions,
`
`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
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00001
`Patent 10,174,547 B2
`before we go over to patent owner.
` And it relates to a number of grounds in the
` petition that kind of died on the vine post institution. So
` there are nine grounds presented in the petition.
` MR. TAN: Yes.
` JUDGE HOSKINS: Two of them we found there was
`a sufficient basis to proceed. Obvious -- the first
`one was the obviousness of the Claims 1 and 3 over Lin
`943 and Yamashita, and the second is the indefiniteness
`of Claims 2 and 4.
` All the other ones we found one or more
`problems with the petition at that point in the
`proceeding.
` And so I'm wondering, what is the procedural
` status of those other grounds? Are you still
` maintaining those at the present time, or are they --
` are you done with those now so that we only have the
` two grounds that are actually argued in all of the
` briefing after trial was instituted?
` MR. TAN: Your Honors, and this is definitely
`a problem not caused by either you or me, I think it's
`caused by the, kind of, you know who, the decision
` in SAS. So petitioner's petition is we are
`only arguing these two grounds that we are arguing
`today, Grounds 2 and 8, I believe.
`
`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
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00001
`Patent 10,174,547 B2
` JUDGE HOSKINS: Thank you very much. I
`appreciate that.
` So does anybody have any further questions
` before we turn over to patent owner?
` JUDGE WOODS: No questions. Thank you,
`Mr. Tan.
` MR. TAN: Thank you, Your Honor.
` JUDGE HOSKINS: Okay. Thank you.
` So Mr. Jones, you've got your 45 minutes here
` for your case in chief, and you may proceed when you
` are ready.
` MR. JONES: Thank you, Your Honors.
` This is Michael Jones for the patent owner on
` the screen.
` As the Judge just mentioned, this
` originally -- petition originally identified nine
` grounds. Based on the Institution Decision, patent
` owner focused on Grounds 2 and 8, as we agreed with
` the Board's position that the patent owner -- I
` mean -- the petitioner had not stated sufficiently
` enough a case to justify their -- those grounds.
` I will be addressing Ground 2, whether
` claim -- Independent Claims 1 and 3 are obvious in
` view of Lin 943 in combination with Yamashita.
` My colleague, Mr. Mehta, will be addressing
`
`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
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00001
`Patent 10,174,547 B2
` Ground 8 regarding Claims 2 and 4 being allegedly
`indefinite, as well as the motion to amend given the
`overlapping issues between those two cases.
` I'd like to begin with Slide 4 of our
`demonstratives where we've provided the claim language
`as issue. Specifically, we've provided the claim
`language recitations with respect to the torque
`distribution.
` And the patent owner has focused its arguments
`on the recited second torque feature, but out of --
`for context, applicant has provided the entire
`claim -- I mean, patent owner has provided the entire
`claim to show how the second torque is described in
`the context of the entire claim.
` Specifically, the claim requires that the
`second torque have three features.
` The first feature is that the second torque
`must come after or follow the first torque, and the
`petitioner does not refute that this is a requirement,
`that the second torque come after the first torque.
` Second, the torque value must be equal to the
`maximum value of the first torque. And it's important
`that the claim language says "equal to" because all
`other torques recited in the independent claims, the
`increasing torque, the first torque, the third torque,
`
`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
`
`25
`
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00001
`Patent 10,174,547 B2
`and the fourth torque, five other torques are all
`described in the context of the claim using phrases of
`change.
` The increasing torque. The first torque
`follows the increasing torque and slowly increases.
` The third torque follows the second torque and
`gradually decreases.
` The fourth torque follows a minimum value of
`the third torque and gradually decreases.
` So the increasing torque, the first torque,
`the third torque, and the fourth torque are all
`described with language reciting change.
` Conversely, the second torque is described as
`equal to a maximum value. That is equal to a single
`value describing a constant torque.
` And the third requirement of the second torque
`is that it exists over -- it's implemented over the
`second length, from the second length to the third
`length. In other words, it extends from one location
`to a different location over a period.
` So it's a constant torque that follows the
` first torque in the claim, and it exists over a
` distance between the second length and the third
` length.
` JUDGE HOSKINS: Mr. Jones.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00001
`Patent 10,174,547 B2
` MR. JONES: Petitioner -- yes. I'm sorry. Go
`ahead.
` JUDGE WOODS: If I can interrupt to ask a
`question, I would appreciate that.
` So I understand your arguments, but if you
` could also address directly Mr. Tan's point, which is,
` if you look at your ow
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
