IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` Attorney Docket No.: 071116-0196
`
`Trial Number: To Be Assigned
`
`Panel: To Be Assigned
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In the Inter Partes Review of:
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE40,927
`
`Filed: August 5, 2005
`
`Issued: October 6, 2009
`
`Inventors: Norman R. Wild et al.
`
`Assignee: BAE Systems Information and Electronic
`Systems Integration Inc. (Optical Devices,
`LLC)
`
`
`For: OPTICAL DETECTION SYSTEM
`
`Mail Stop Inter Partes Review
`Commissioner for Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.100
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1 
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) ................................................ 3 
`A 
`Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) .................................................. 3 
`B 
`Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ........................................................... 3 
`C 
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ........................................ 3 
`D 
`Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ..................................................... 4 
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 .............................................................. 4 
`
`REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ............... 4 
`A 
`Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (a) .................................................. 4 
`B 
`Identification of Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b) and Relief
`Requested .................................................................................................................... 5 
`Claims for Which Inter Partes Review is Requested Under 37 C.F.R.
`1. 
`§ 42.104(b)(1) ................................................................................................. 5 
`The Specific Art and Statutory Ground(s) on Which the Challenge Is
`Based Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2) ........................................................... 5 
`How the Challenged Claim(s) Are to Be Construed Under 37 C.F.R. §
`42.104(b)(3) .................................................................................................... 7 
`How the Construed Claim(s) Are Unpatentable Under 37 C.F.R. §
`42.104(b)(4) .................................................................................................... 8 
`Supporting Evidence Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) ................................... 8 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`III. 
`
`IV. 
`
`V. 
`
`VI. 
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’927 PATENT .................................................................................... 8 
`A 
`Description of the Alleged Invention of the ’927 Patent ............................................ 8 
`B 
`Summary of the Prosecution History of the Original Patent ...................................... 8 
`C 
`Summary of the Prosecution History of the ’927 Patent .......................................... 10 
`
`THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE CLAIM OF
`THE ’927 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)(4) ................. 10 
`A 
`Identification of the References as Prior Art ............................................................ 10 
`B 
`Summary of Invalidity Arguments ........................................................................... 11 
`
`VII.  DETAILED EXPLANATION UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(B) ........................................ 11 
`A 
`Claim 37 (Independent) ............................................................................................ 11 
`B 
`Claim 38 (Dependent) ............................................................................................... 17 
`C 
`Claim 39 (Dependent) ............................................................................................... 21 
`D 
`Claim 48 (Independent) ............................................................................................ 23 
`E 
`Claim 49 (Dependent) ............................................................................................... 28 
`F 
`Claim 50 (Dependent) ............................................................................................... 29 
`G 
`Claim 51 (Dependent) ............................................................................................... 29 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`Claim 52 (Dependent) ............................................................................................... 30 
`Claim 53 (Dependent) ............................................................................................... 31 
`Claim 54 (Dependent) ................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. 
`Claim 55 (Dependent) ............................................................................................... 32 
`Claim 56 (Dependent) ............................................................................................... 32 
`Claim 57 (Dependent) ............................................................................................... 35 
`Claim 58 (Dependent) ............................................................................................... 36 
`Claim 59 (Dependent) ................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. 
`Claim 60 (Dependent) ............................................................................................... 37 
`Claim 61 (Independent) ............................................................................................ 37 
`Claim 62 (Dependent) ................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. 
`Claim 63 (Dependent) ............................................................................................... 41 
`Claim 64 (Dependent) ............................................................................................... 42 
`Claim 65 (Dependent) ............................................................................................... 43 
`Claim 66 (Dependent) ................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. 
`Claim 67 (Dependent) ............................................................................................... 44 
`Claim 68 (Dependent) ............................................................................................... 44 
`Claim 69 (Dependent) ............................................................................................... 45 
`Claim 70 (Dependent) ................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. 
`Claim 71 (Dependent) ............................................................................................... 46 
`
`H 
`I 
`J 
`A 
`B 
`C 
`D 
`E 
`F 
`G 
`H 
`I 
`J 
`K 
`L 
`M 
`N 
`O 
`P 
`Q 
`
`VIII.  CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... 47 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Advanced Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ., 212, F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ............................. 2
`
`Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .................................................... 9
`
`Callaway Golf Co. v. Acushnet Co., 576 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ................................................. 2
`
`In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831 (Fed. Cir. 1990) .......................................................................................... 8
`
`Statutes 
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ......................................................................................................................... 6, 12
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ............................................................................................................................. 12
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ......................................................................................................................... 6, 12
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................................................................................................................... 6
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 .................................................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) ........................................................................................................................... 5
`
`35 U.S.C. §181 ................................................................................................................................... 10
`
`Other Authorities 
`
`37 C.F.R. § 41.10(b) ............................................................................................................................ 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ............................................................................................................................... 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ............................................................................................................................... 5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (a).......................................................................................................................... 5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) .................................................................................................................... 5, 13
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1) ...................................................................................................................... 5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2) ...................................................................................................................... 5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ...................................................................................................................... 8
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) ................................................................................................................ 9, 12
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) ...................................................................................................................... 9
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a)............................................................................................................................. 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1) .......................................................................................................................... 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) .......................................................................................................................... 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) .......................................................................................................................... 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) .......................................................................................................................... 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) .......................................................................................................................... 4
`
`37 C.F.R. C 42.100 .............................................................................................................................. 1
`
`42 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .......................................................................................................................... 8
`
`M.P.E.P. § 2111 ................................................................................................................................... 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iv-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`On behalf of Panasonic Corporation and Panasonic Corporation of North America
`(collectively, “Panasonic” and “Petitioner”) and in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 311 and 37 C.F.R.
`C 42.100, inter partes review is respectfully requested for claims 37-39, 48-53, 55-58, 60-61, 63-65,
`67-69, and 71 of U.S. Patent No. RE40,927 (“the ’927 patent”).
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The ‘927 patent is one of three reissue patents that cite back to an application filed on March
`10, 1967. These patents generally share a common specification and relate to detecting – with a
`transceiver embodiment of the invention as shown below – the presence of distant optical systems
`such as binoculars or telescopes using the basic optics principle of retroreflection. Retroreflectors
`are devices that operate by returning light back to the light source along the same light direction.
`(Ex. 1007, Col. 1, ll. 10-13).
`
`
`
`There is nothing new in the claims of the ‘927 patent. As set forth in this Petition, the
`alleged “invention” of the ‘927 patent was well-known and obvious prior to the earliest application
`filing date listed on the front of the ‘927 patent (i.e., March 10, 1967). Specifically, the ‘927 patent
`claimed requirement of: (A) a transceiver device that transmits light to and receives light from a
`retroreflector, (B) a lens/reflector combination acting as a retroreflector, (C) a detector for detecting
`the retroreflected light with an optical gain, and (D) a measuring and utilization means connected to
`the detector were well known as explained below. Several dependent claims of the ‘927 patent
`require additional elements, such as claim 37 which requires a substantially concentric transceiver.
`These elements were also well known, as demonstrated below.
`
`There were a wide variety of combined transceiver and retroreflector devices in the prior art
`by March 10, 1967, including concentric devices. Some of these devices are listed on the face of
`the original patent. For example, U.S. Patent No. 3,215,842 to Thomas discloses such a device.
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Figure 1 from Thomas is shown below. Thomas discloses (A) a transceiver device that transmits
`light to and receives light from a retroreflector, (B) a retroreflector, and (C) a detector for detecting
`the retroreflected light with an optical gain, and (D) a measuring and utilization means connected to
`the detector. Thomas also discloses a concentric transceiver.
`
`
`
` The similarity between the transceivers of the ‘927 patent and the prior art reference
`Thomas is clear. Both disclose a transceiver that transmits light to and receives light from a
`retroreflector, both disclose a retroreflector, and both disclose a detector for detecting the
`retroreflected light with an optical gain. The purported invention of the ’927 patent, therefore, was
`not a mere transceiver. Rather, the purported invention was the apparent and alleged “discovery”
`“that any type of focusing device in combination with a surface, exhibiting any degree of
`reflectivity, and positioned near the focal plane of the device, acts as a retro-reflector.” (Ex. 1007,
`Col. 1, ll. 7-10).
`
`This Petition discloses two primary references, U.S. Patent Nos. 3,552,857 to Hock and
`3,481,672 to Zoot, and four secondary references, U.S. Patent Nos. 3,533,702 to Hock (“Hock II”),
`3,215,842 to Thomas, 3,020,792 to Kingsbury, and Electronics, vol. 39, No. 17, pp. 209-210.
`Because Zoot incorporates by reference Electronics with specificity, Zoot and Electronics constitute
`a combined Section 102(e) reference. See Advanced Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ., 212,
`F.3d 1272, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2000); see also Callaway Golf Co. v. Acushnet Co., 576 F.3d 1331,
`1345-47 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
`
`The two primary references cited in this petition – Hock, which discloses an optical
`measuring device for measuring the distance of a reflective object within an optical system, and
`Zoot, which discloses a non-contacting distance gauge and contour mapping apparatus. Each of
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`
`
`these references describe a transceiver and lens/reflective surface-type retroflector claimed in the
`‘927 patent. (Ex. 1011, Mansuripur Decl. ¶¶ 34, 38, 39, 44). Specifically, as shown in greater detail
`below, Hock and Zoot disclose: (A) a transceiver device that transmits light to and receives light
`from a retroreflector, (B) a lens/reflector combination acting as a retroreflector, (C) a detector for
`detecting the retroreflected light with an optical gain, and (D) a measuring and utilization means
`connected to the detector. (Ex. 1011, Mansuripur Decl. ¶¶ 34, 38, 39, 44).
`
`To the extent that Hock and Zoot do not sufficiently disclose all of the limitations of claims
`37-39, 48-53, 55-58, 60-61, 63-65, 67-69, and 71, those limitations are disclosed more fully by the
`secondary references. While Hock discloses a measuring and utilization means, the Petitioner
`includes Hock II in this Petition because Hock II discloses additional details concerning the
`measuring and utilization means of Hock. (Ex. 1011, Mansuripur Decl. ¶ 36). Hock and Zoot do
`not disclose a concentric transceiver. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
`skill in the art to design such a system. (Ex. 1011, Mansuripur Decl. ¶¶ 37, 43). Concentric
`transmitter and receiver systems were well known in the art before the priority date of the ’927
`patent as shown Thomas above. (Ex. 1011, Mansuripur Decl. ¶¶ 37, 43).
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)
`
`As set forth below and pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1), the following mandatory notices
`are provided as part of this Petition.
`A
`Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`
`Panasonic is the real party-in-interest for Petitioner.
`B
`Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`
`The ’927 patent is presently the subject of a patent infringement lawsuit by the assignee,
`Optical Devices, LLC against Panasonic and others, captioned: In the Matter of Certain Optical
`Disc Drives, Components Thereof, and Products Containing The Same, International Trade
`Commission, Case No, 337-TA-2977. The ’927 patent is also the subject of a patent infringement
`lawsuit by the assignee against Panasonic in district court, captioned: Optical Devices, LLC v.
`Pansonic Corp. et. al, United States District Court, District of Delaware, Case No. 1:13-cv-00726.
`C
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3) and 42.10(a), Petitioner provides the following
`designation of counsel.
`Lead Counsel
`Christopher D. Bright (Reg. No. 46,578)
`cbright@mwe.com
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`McDermott Will & Emery LLP
`4 Park Plaza, Suite 1700
`Irvine, CA 92614-2559
`Telephone: 949-851-0633
`Fax: 949-851-9348
`
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`Amol A. Parikh (Reg. No. 60,671)
`amparikh@mwe.com
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`McDermott Will & Emery LLP
`227 West Monroe Street
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Telephone: 312-372-2000
`Fax: 312-984-7700
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.10(b), a Power of Attorney accompanies this Petition.
`
`D
`
`Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)
`
`Service information for lead and back-up counsel is provided in the designation of lead and
`back-up counsel, above. Service of any documents via hand-delivery may be made at the postal
`mailing address of the respective lead or back-up counsel designated above.
`III.
`PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`
`The undersigned authorizes the Office to charge $27,200 to Deposit Account No. 502624 for
`the fees set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) for this Petition for Inter Partes Review. Twenty-two
`claims are being reviewed, so no excess claim fees are required. The undersigned further authorizes
`payment for any additional fees that might be due in connection with this Petition to be charged to
`the above-referenced Deposit Account.
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`As set forth below and pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104, each requirement for inter partes
`review of the ’927 patent is satisfied.
`A
`Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (a)
`
`Petitioner hereby certifies that the ’927 patent is available for inter partes review and that
`the Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review challenging the claims
`of the ’927 patent on the grounds identified herein. More particularly, Petitioner certifies that: [1]
`Petitioner is not the owner of the ’927 patent; [2] Petitioner has not filed a civil action challenging
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`
`
`the validity of a claim of the ’927 patent; [3] this Petition is filed less than one year after the date on
`which the Petitioner, the Petitioner’s real party-in-interest, or a privy of the Petitioner was served
`with a complaint alleging infringement of the ’927 patent; and [4] the estoppel provisions of 35
`U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) do not prohibit this inter partes review.
`B
`Identification of Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b) and Relief Requested
`
`The precise relief requested by Petitioner is that claims 37-39, 48-53, 55-58, 60-61, 63-65,
`67-69, and 71 of the ’927 patent be found unpatentable.
`1.
`Claims for Which Inter Partes Review is Requested Under 37 C.F.R. §
`42.104(b)(1)
`
`Petitioner requests inter partes review of claims 37-39, 48-53, 55-58, 60-61, 63-65, 67-69,
`and 71 of U.S. Patent No. RE40,927.
`2.
`The Specific Art and Statutory Ground(s) on Which the Challenge Is Based
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2)
`
`Inter partes review of the ’927 patent is requested in view of the following primary
`references: [1] U.S. Patent No. 3,552,857 to Hock (“Hock”) and [2] U.S. Patent No. 3,481,672 to
`Zoot et al. (“Zoot”). The relevant secondary references cited herein are: [a] U.S. Patent No.
`3,533,702 to Hock et al. (“Hock II”)1; [b] Electronics, vol. 39, No. 17, pp. 209-210 (August 22,
`1966) (“Electronics”)2; [c] U.S. Patent No. 3,020,792 to Kingsbury et al. (“Kingsbury”)3; and [d]
`U.S. Patent No. 3,215,842 to Thomas et al. (“Thomas”)4.
`Each of the patents listed above is prior art to the ’927 patent under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 (a), (e)
`and/or 103, as set forth herein.
`Claim
`No.
`
`Proposed Statutory Rejections for the ‘927 Patent
`
`37
`
`Claim 37 is anticipated under § 102(e) by Hock or obvious under § 103 by Hock, alone, or
`in view of Hock II
`Claim 37 is anticipated under § 102(e) by Zoot
`37
`Claim 38 is anticipated under § 102(e) by Hock
`38
`
`1 Hock II claims priority to the same German patent application L 50,566, dated April 24, 1965.
`2 Electronics is described in the specification of Zoot. (Ex. 1002, Col. 2:11-57).
`3 Kingsbury is discussed in the prosecution history of the original patent, U.S. Patent No. 6,603,134.
`4 Thomas is discussed in the prosecution history of the original patent, U.S. Patent No. 6,603,134.
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Claim
`No.
`
`38
`
`39
`39
`
`48
`
`48
`49
`49
`50
`50
`51
`51
`52
`52
`53
`
`53
`
`55
`55
`56
`56
`57
`57
`58
`58
`60
`60
`61
`
`Proposed Statutory Rejections for the ‘927 Patent
`
`Claim 38 is anticipated under § 102(e) by Zoot or obvious under § 103 by Zoot, alone, or
`in view of Electronics
`Claim 39 is obvious under § 103 by Hock, alone, or in view of Kingsbury or Thomas
`Claim 39 is obvious under § 103 by Zoot, alone, or in view of Kingsbury or Thomas
`Claim 48 is anticipated under § 102(e) by Hock or obvious under § 103 by Hock, alone,
`or in view of Hock II
`Claim 48 is anticipated under § 102(e) by Hock
`Claim 49 is anticipated under § 102(e) by Zoot
`Claim 49 is anticipated under § 102(e) by Hock
`Claim 50 is anticipated under § 102(e) by Zoot
`Claim 50 is anticipated under § 102(e) by Hock
`Claim 51 is anticipated under § 102(e) by Zoot
`Claim 51 is anticipated under § 102(e) by Zoot
`Claim 52 is anticipated under § 102(e) by Hock
`Claim 52 is obvious under § 103 by Zoot, alone, or in view of Electronics
`Claim 53 is anticipated under § 102(e) by Hock
`Claim 53 is anticipated under § 102(e) by Zoot or obvious under § 103 by Zoot, alone, or
`in view of Electronics
`Claim 55 is anticipated under § 102(e) by Hock
`Claim 55 is anticipated under § 102(e) by Zoot
`Claim 56 is obvious under § 103 by Hock, alone, or in view of Kingsbury or Thomas
`Claim 56 is obvious under § 103 by Zoot, alone, or in view of Kingsbury or Thomas
`Claim 57 is obvious under § 103 by Hock, alone, or in view of Zoot or Electronics
`Claim 57 is anticipated under § 102(e) by Zoot
`Claim 58 is anticipated under § 102(e) by Hock
`Claim 58 is anticipated under § 102(e) by Zoot
`Claim 60 is anticipated under § 102(e) by Hock
`Claim 60 is anticipated under § 102(e) by Zoot
`Claim 61 is anticipated under § 102(e) by Hock or obvious under § 103 by Hock, alone,
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Claim
`No.
`
`Proposed Statutory Rejections for the ‘927 Patent
`
`or in view of Hock II
`Claim 61 is anticipated under § 102(e) by Zoot
`Claim 63 is anticipated under § 102(e) by Hock
`Claim 63 is anticipated under § 102(e) by Zoot
`Claim 64 is anticipated under § 102(e) by Hock
`Claim 64 is anticipated under § 102(e) by Zoot
`Claim 65 is anticipated under § 102(e) by Hock
`Claim 65 is anticipated under § 102(e) by Zoot
`Claim 67 is anticipated under § 102(e) by Hock
`Claim 67 is anticipated under § 102(e) by Zoot
`Claim 68 is obvious under § 103 by Hock, alone, or in view of Zoot or Electronics
`Claim 68 is anticipated under § 102(e) by Zoot
`Claim 69 is anticipated under § 102(e) by Hock
`Claim 69 is anticipated under § 102(e) by Zoot
`Claim 71 is anticipated under § 102(e) by Hock
`Claim 71 is anticipated under § 102(e) by Zoot
`
`61
`63
`63
`64
`64
`65
`65
`67
`67
`68
`68
`69
`69
`71
`71
`
`3.
`
`How the Challenged Claim(s) Are to Be Construed Under 37 C.F.R. §
`42.104(b)(3)
`
`A claim subject to inter partes review receives the “broadest reasonable construction in light
`of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 42 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also In re Bond,
`910 F.2d 831, 833 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“It is axiomatic that, in proceedings before the PTO, claims in
`an application are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
`specification.”); M.P.E.P. § 2111 (“During patent examination, the pending claims must be ‘given
`their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.’”).
`Accordingly, for purposes of this Petition, Petitioner notes that the ‘927 patent specification
`defines a retroreflector as “any optical instrument which includes a focusing lens and a surface
`having some degree of reflectivity, no matter how small, positioned near the focal point of the lens.”
`(Ex. 1007, Col. 1, ll. 46-49). However, because the standard for claim construction at the PTO is
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`
`
`different than that used in U.S. District Court litigation, see In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367
`F.3d 1359, 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004); MPEP § 2111, Petitioner expressly reserves the right to
`argue in a different forum a different claim construction for any term in the ‘927 patent as
`appropriate in that proceeding.
`4.
`How the Construed Claim(s) Are Unpatentable Under 37 C.F.R. §
`42.104(b)(4)
`
`An explanation of how construed claims 37-39, 48-53, 55-58, 60-61, 63-65, 67-69, and 71 of
`the ’927 patent are unpatentable under the statutory grounds identified above, including the
`identification of where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed
`publications, is provided in Section VI, below, in the form of claims charts.
`5.
`Supporting Evidence Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5)
`
`The exhibit numbers of the supporting evidence relied upon to support the challenge and the
`relevance of the evidence to the challenge raised, including identifying specific portions of the
`evidence that support the challenge, are provided in Section VI, below, in the form of claim charts.
`An Appendix of Exhibits identifying the exhibits is also attached.
`V.
`SUMMARY OF THE ’927 PATENT
`
`A
`
`Description of the Alleged Invention of the ’927 Patent
`
`The ’927 patent discloses a system and method for using the principles of retroreflection to
`detect a separate optical system or retroreflector. Specifically, the system and method has great
`applicability in military optical system applications for detecting the presence of an enemy
`employing surveillance equipment and for neutralizing this surveillance capability. (Ex. 1007, ’927
`Patent, Abstract). A particular feature of the system and method is the detection of retroreflected
`rays from the optical system which, by nature, have an increased radiant flux density or optical gain.
`(Ex. 1007, Col. 3, ll. 59-65). A retroreflected ray has an increased radiant flux density because of
`the narrowing effect of retroreflection. (Ex. 1007, Col. 3, ll. 61-63). It is a characteristic of
`retroreflector optical systems to reflect enery rays in a very narrow beam. (Ex. 1007, Col. 4, ll. 7-8).
`The size of the reflected beam is a function of the angular resolution of the optical system, which
`includes a lens and a reflecting surface. (Ex. 1007, Col. 4, ll. 8-11).
`B
`Summary of the Prosecution History of the Original Patent
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`
`
`The ’927 patent is the first reissue patent of U.S. Patent No. 6,603,134 (“the ’134 patent”).
`Claims 37-39 of the ’927 patent were included as claims 37-39 of the original ’134 patent. The
`remaining claims at issue, 48-71, were added during prosecution of the ’927 patent. The ’134 patent
`was filed on March 10, 1967. The application for the ‘134 patent was subject to a secrecy order
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §181 until March 15, 2000. The ’134 patent issued on August 5, 2003 with
`47 claims, of which claims 1, 17, 37, 40, 42, 43, and 44 were independent.
`On February 4, 1969, the Examiner issued a non-final rejection. In response, the Patent
`Owner conceded that the prior art disclosed the use of retroreflection with cooperating optical
`devices, but not with uncooperative or passive devices such as telescopes, periscopes, and cameras.
`Specifically, the Patent Owner argued:
`It is admittedly true that the prior art discloses that an optical corner
`reflector will reflect impinging optical energy back in the direction from
`which it came. This fact has been employed in the apparatus described in
`the patents to Bruce, Kingsbury, Thomas and Laudon, all of which
`disclose the use of cooperating retrodirective optical corner reflectors.
`What was not known in the prior art, however, was the fact that complex
`optical systems which include a focusing means and a surface exhibiting
`some degree of reflectivity disposed in or near a focal plane in the optical
`system operate to retroreflect or autocollimate impinging optical energy
`with a sufficient optical gain to overcome background discrimination
`problems. Such optical systems as telescopes, binoculars, periscopes,
`cameras and even the human eye, all of which prior to the Applicants’
`discovery were considered to be totally passive systems and thus
`undetectable were rendered readily detectable.
`
`(Ex. 1010, 7/29/69 Amendment, pg. 9). Additionally, the Patent Owner amended the claims as
`follows:
`
`Claims 1, 18, 37 and 40 have been amended hereby to specifically recite
`that the discovery involves detecting uncooperative optical systems, that
`the optical system retroreflects impinging energy with an optical gain and
`that the energy having a radiant flux density in excess of a preselected
`value.
`
`(Ex. 1010, 7/29/69 Amendment, pg. 8). Additionally, the Patent Owner cancelled several claims
`and added several claims.
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`
`
`On March 5, 1971, the Examiner allowed claims 1-4, 7-9, 11, 14-22, 24-34, and 37-55. On
`September 5, 2002, the Examiner issued a Notice of Allowance. The ‘134 patent issued on August
`5, 2003.
`C
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History of the ’927 Patent
`
`The ’927 patent was filed on August 5, 2005, and issued on October 6, 2009 with 71 claims,
`of which claims 1, 17, 37, 40, 42, 43, 44, 48, and 61 were independent. The ’927 patent is the first
`reissue of U.S. Patent No. 6,603,134. As filed, the ’927 patent application deleted claim 12 of the
`original patent, added claims 48 to 94, and corrected claim 17. New independent claims 72 and 80
`were directed to “examining an eye.”
`On June 1, 2007, the Examiner indicated that claims 72 to 94 were directed to inventions
`that were distinct from the original application. Claims 72-91 were drawn to an apparatus for
`examining the eye. Claims 92 to 94 were directed to an apparatus for detecting properties of an
`object in an optical system. The Examiner allowed claims 44-47 and objected to claims 4, 8, 24, 25,
`30-32. The remaining claims were rejected as anticipated or obvious. On December 3, 2007, the
`Patent Owner successfully traversed the cited prior art.
`The Examiner issued a June 9, 2008 non-final rejection which allowed the claims (1-11, 13-
`43, and 48-71) but raised technical issues concerning the format of the Patent Owner’s December 3,
`2007 response.