Paper 9 Tel: Entered: July 11, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Transcription

1 Paper 9 Tel: Entered: July 11, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD PANASONIC CORPORATION and PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA, Petitioner, v. OPTICAL DEVICES, LLC, Patent Owner. Case IPR Before ERICA A. FRANKLIN, GLENN J. PERRY, and JAMES B. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judges. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review 37 C.F.R

2 A. Background I. INTRODUCTION Panasonic Corporation and Panasonic Corporation of North America (collectively, Petitioner ) filed a petition (Paper 2; Pet. ) to institute an inter partes review of claims of Patent No. US RE42,913 E (Ex. 1003, the 913 patent ) pursuant to 35 U.S.C Pet Optical Devices, LLC ( Patent Owner ) filed a preliminary response (Paper 8, Prelim. Resp. ). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. 314(a), which provides as follows: THRESHOLD. The Director may not authorize an inter partes review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition. Petitioner relies upon the following references and declaration in support of its grounds for challenging the identified claims of the 913 patent: Exhibits References and Declaration 1001 Patent No. US 3,552,857 to Hock ( Hock ) 1002 Patent No. US 3,481,672 to Zoot ( Zoot ) 1007 Declaration of Masud Mansuripur, Ph.D. Petitioner only asserts that the challenged claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) on the following specific grounds (Pet. 4-5): 2

3 Claims Grounds Reference Anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) Hock Anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) Zoot For the reasons set forth below, we determine that, on this record, Petitioner fails to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we deny institution of inter partes review as to claims of the 913 patent. B. Related Proceedings The parties indicate that the 913 patent is the subject of Optical Devices, LLC v. Panasonic Corp., Case No. 1:13-cv (D. Del. 2013). Pet. 3; see Paper 6, 1 (identifying other related cases). In addition, the patent currently is the subject of an investigation before the International Trade Commission: In the Matter of Certain Optical Disc Drives, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-897. Paper 6, 1. Further, Petitioner has filed another petition for inter partes review, IPR , with respect to a related patent, Patent No. US RE40,927 E, involving the same Patent Owner. Id. C. The 913 Patent The application that eventually issued as the 913 patent was filed on March 10, Pet. 7. This application was subject to a secrecy order for many years. Id. Figure 1 of the 913 patent is reproduced below: 3

4 Figure 1 of the 913 patent depicts an optical system including lens 20 and reflective surface 22 (e.g., a mirror) positioned in focal plane 24 of lens 20. Ex. 1003, col. 3, ll Radiation rays 26 and 28 are directed towards lens 20 of the optical system from a radiation (e.g., light) source (not shown). Id. at col. 3, ll For purposes of clarity, patentee depicts the incident rays at the top of lens 20 and the reflected rays at the bottom of lens 20. Id. at col. 3, ll Incident rays 26 and 28 are refracted by lens 20 and focused at focal point 32 on the mirror surface 22. Id. at col. 3, ll The rays are reflected, such that the angle of reflection equals the angle of incidence, and the reflected rays are refracted again by lens 20 and emerge therefrom as retroreflected rays 26R and 28R. Id. at col. 3, ll Figure 3 of the 913 patent is reproduced below: Figure 3 of the 913 patent depicts that the radiant flux density at surface 22B may vary based on characteristics of the components of the optical system, such as placement or imperfections in lens 20B. Id. at col. 3, ll ; col. 4, ll ; see Prelim. Resp For example, in Figure 3, 4

5 reflective surface 22B is positioned substantially, but not entirely, in focal plane 24B. Id. at col. 3, ll According to the 913 patent, the rays 38 and 40 are parallel to the optical axis 30B but are not focused at a single point on the focal plane 24B, and instead form an image on the mirror 22B, which image is referred to as the circle of confusion. In most practical optical systems there are circles of confusion and the mirror is normally positioned at the plane of least circle of confusion, herein depicted by the reference numeral 42. The image formed on the mirror by means of the rays 38 and 40 can be considered to be a radiant source, and the retroreflected rays 38R and 40R exit from the lens 20B substantially parallel to each other. Id. at 4 (quoting Ex. 1003, col. 3, ll ). Thus, [Figure 3] demonstrates that as long as a surface exhibits some degree of reflectivity and it is positioned in or near the focal plane of a lens, the lens and surface will form a retro-reflector. Id.; see also Ex. 1003, col. 1, ll (definition relied upon by Petitioner at Pet. 5-6). More importantly, the difference in radiant flux density between the smaller circle of confusion of Figure 1, i.e., where surface 22 lies in the focal plane, and Figure 3, i.e., where surface 22B lies substantially, but not entirely, in focal plane 24B, is described in the 913 patent as optical gain. See Ex. 1003, col. 5, ll In particular, according to the 913 patent, [i]n order to obtain a measure of the optical gain we must compare the retroreflector to a standard or reference. Prelim. Resp. 5 (quoting Ex. 1003, col. 4, ll ); see also Ex. 1003, col. 4, ll (describing an example of the calculation of the difference in radiant flux density). 5

6 D. Illustrative Claims The 913 patent contains claims Claim 48 is an independent, method claim, and claims 49 and 50 depend therefrom. Claim 51 is an independent, apparatus claim, and claims 52 and 53 depend therefrom. Claims 48 and 51 are illustrative and are reproduced below, with emphases added: 48. A method of detecting characteristics of an object within an optical system, comprising: transmitting energy at an object included in an optical system having retroreflective characteristics, wherein the optical system includes a lens and the object includes a surface exhibiting some degree of reflectivity disposed substantially in a focal plane of the lens; receiving reflected radiant energy with an optical gain after retroreflection of the radiant energy; and detecting the reflected radiant energy after retroreflection to determine at least one characteristic of the object. 51. An apparatus for detecting characteristics of an object within an optical system, the apparatus comprising: a radiant energy source for transmitting energy at an object included in an optical system having retroreflective characteristics, wherein the optical system includes a lens and the object includes a surface exhibiting some degree of reflectivity disposed substantially in a focal plane of the lens; and a detector for detecting received reflected radiant energy with an optical gain after retroreflection of the radiant energy to determine at least one characteristic of the object. 6

7 E. Claim Construction Consistent with the statute and the legislative history of the Leahy- Smith America Invents Act, 1 we interpret claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012); 37 C.F.R (b). There is a presumption that claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech. Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). An inventor may rebut that presumption by providing a definition of the term in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In the absence of such a definition, limitations are not to be read from the specification into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Petitioner does not propose specific constructions for any terms of the challenged claims and, instead, merely proposes that the challenged claims should be construed according to their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. Pet. 5. Petitioner proposes a definition for the term retroreflector. Id. at 5-6. Specifically, Petitioner proposes that this term should be construed to mean 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. Id. (quoting Ex. 1003, col. 1, ll ). Nevertheless, this term does not appear in the challenged claims. Pet Pub. L. No (2011). 7

8 Patent Owner, however, proposes constructions for the claim terms: focal plane, retroreflection, optical gain, optical system, and an optical system having retroreflective characteristics, as follows: 1. Focal Plane Patent Owner proposes to construe focal plane as a plane through the focus perpendicular to the axis of an optical element. Prelim. Resp. 9. Petitioner did not propose an alternative construction, and we are persuaded that Patent Owner s construction is the broadest reasonable construction consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term (see Ex. 2001) and with the Specification of the 913 patent (see, e.g., Ex. 1003, figs. 1-4; col. 3, l. 4-col. 4, l. 3). 2. Retroreflection Patent Owner proposes to construe retroreflection as reflection of an incident ray in a manner such that the reflected ray is parallel to the incident ray for any angle of incidence. Prelim. Resp. 10. Petitioner did not propose an alternative construction, and we are persuaded that Patent Owner s construction is the broadest reasonable construction consistent with the Specification of the 913 patent. Id. at 10 (citing Ex. 1003, col. 1, ll ; col. 3, l. 4-col. 4, l. 3; col. 6, ll ; col. 7, ll ). 3. Optical Gain Patent Owner proposes to construe optical gain as a change in radiant flux density of reflected radiant energy. Prelim. Resp The Patent Owner contends that retroreflected radiant energy does not necessarily or inherently exhibit an optical gain. Rather, in order to exhibit optical gain, retroreflected radiant energy must show a change in its radiant flux density relative to the radiant flux density of other reflected radiant energy, e.g., reflection from a reference or a standard. 8

9 Id. at 10 (citing Ex. 1003, col. 4, ll ). Petitioner did not propose an alternative construction, and we are persuaded that Patent Owner s construction is the broadest reasonable construction consistent with the Specification of the 913 patent. Id. at 10 (citing Ex. 1003, col. 3, l. 50-col. 5, l. 10). 4. Optical System Patent Owner proposes to construe optical system as a collection of optical elements including at least a lens and a reflective surface. Prelim. Resp Petitioner did not propose an alternative construction, and we are persuaded that Patent Owner s construction is the broadest reasonable construction consistent with the Specification of the 913 patent. Id. at (citing Ex. 1003, col. 2, ll ; col. 3, ll ; col. 5, ll ; col. 8, ll ; figs. 1-4, 6-12). 5. An Optical System Having Retroreflective Characteristics Patent Owner proposes to construe an optical system having retroreflective characteristics as an optical system as defined above having a focusing element and reflective surface that is located substantially in the focal plane of the focusing element, wherein the system is configured so that a ray incident on the focusing element and focused on the reflective surface is reflected along a path parallel to the incident ray for any angle of incidence. Prelim. Resp. 12. Petitioner did not propose an alternative construction, and we are persuaded that Patent Owner s construction is the broadest reasonable construction consistent with the Specification of the 913 patent. Id. at 12 (citing Ex. 1003, col. 2, ll ; col. 3, ll ; col. 5, ll ; col. 8, ll ; figs. 1-4, 6-12). 9

10 A. Overview II. ANALYSIS Petitioner argues that claims of the 913 patent are anticipated by Hock. Pet Petitioner also contends that claims of the 913 patent are anticipated by Zoot. Id. To support these positions, Petitioner presents the testimony of Dr. Masud Mansuripur (Ex. 1007). A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference. Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). On this record, we are persuaded that Petitioner fails to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in the challenges to claims B. Asserted Grounds 1. Anticipation of Claims by Hock a. Hock Hock is directed to a multi-purpose optical measuring device for determining the position or the movement of an object relative to a reference point or the movement of an object relative to a reference point or a reference direction. Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll Figure 1 of Hock is reproduced below: 10

11 Figure 1 depicts an embodiment of a measuring device that includes a light source 10 in front of a condenser 11 [that] illuminates a moving diaphragm 12[,] the slot 12a of which defines the scanning mark. Id. at col. 3, ll According to Hock, [t]he movement of the diaphragm may for example be oscillating or may consist of a pivoting movement around an axis parallel to the instrument axis in such a way that the scanning mark 12a remains constantly or intermittently in the path of light. The scanning light beam coming thus from the scanning mark 12a is directed onto a reflector [26] via the first beam splitter 13 and the objective 14. The light rays of the beam reflected from the reflector travel backward through the objective 14 and are directed by beam splitter 13 onto the index carrier 16, provided with the indices 15. The image of the index plate of the carrier 16 is, via a second beam splitter 17, produced in an eyepiece 18 as well as on a photoelectric transducer 19. Beam splitter 17 can be a semi-silvered mirror, a conventional device for separating two polarized components or 11

12 a dichroic device for splitting the beam as a function of wave length. Id. at col. 3, ll. 6-23; see also id. at col. 3, ll (describing lightabsorbing graduation 21a of fig. 1a). Hock s Figure 3a is reproduced below: Figure 3a depicts another embodiment of a measuring device that includes a telescopic magnifier that includes optical system 40 with reflector 41 being positioned in the focal plane of the optical system 40. Id. at col. 3, ll Yet another embodiment of the reflector, reflector 23, is depicted in Figure 2 (not shown) of the 913 patent. Id. at col. 2, ll ; fig

13 b. Hock Analysis Petitioner s arguments regarding Hock are set forth almost entirely in the claim charts. Pet Petitioner argues that Hock discloses each and every element of the invention, as recited in claims Id. In particular, independent claims 48 and 51 recite that the optical system includes a lens and the object includes a surface exhibiting some degree of reflectivity disposed substantially in a focal plane of the lens. Petitioner argues that Hock discloses a focusing means (14) and a reflective surface (26, 21) positioned within the focal plane of the focusing means. Specifically, Hock discloses a reflector being positioned in the focal plane thereof. (Ex. 1001, Col. 3, ll ). Hock also discloses that the reflector is located in the image plane of the objective 14. (Ex. 1001, Col. 4, ll. 20). Pet. 11 (Claim 48), 14 (Claim 51). Patent Owner argues that Petitioner improperly relies upon different embodiments of Hock to disclose the elements recited in independent claims 48 and 53. Prelim. Resp We agree. As the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals explained, [s]uch picking and choosing may be entirely proper in the making of a 103, obviousness rejection, where the applicant must be afforded an opportunity to rebut with objective evidence any inference of obviousness which may arise from the similarity of the subject matter which he claims to the prior art, but it has no place in the making of a 102, anticipation rejection. Application of Arkley, 455 F.2d. 586, (CCPA 1972); see also Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (2008) ( Thus, it is not enough that the prior art reference... includes multiple, distinct teachings 13

14 that the artisan might somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention. ; citation to Arkley omitted). Thus, Petitioner fails to demonstrate that Hock discloses, in a single embodiment, each and every element of claims 48 and 51, as set forth in the claims. See Verdegaal Bros., 814 F.2d at 631. Indeed, Petitioner selects elements from multiple embodiments of Hock in order to meet the above-quoted limitation of claims 48 and 51. In particular, Petitioner refers to the embodiment of Hock s Figures 1 and 1a as disclosing a focusing means (14) and a reflective surface (26, 21) positioned within the focal plane of the focusing means, and Petitioner refers to the embodiment of Hock s Figure 2 as disclosing that the reflector is located in the image plane of the objective 14. Pet. 11 (Claim 48), 14 (Claim 51); see Ex. 1001, col. 3, ll ( an embodiment ); col. 4, ll ( [a]nother embodiment ); see also id. at col. 3 ll (referring to in this embodiment of Figure 3a). Petitioner further argues that Hock discloses receiving reflected radiant energy with an optical gain after retroreflection of the radiant energy. Pet. 10. In particular, Hock discloses detection means 19, which is described as a photoelectric transducer. Id. (citing Ex. 1001, col. 1, l. 20). Further, Hock discloses a photoelectric cell. Id. (citing Ex. 1001, col. 1, l. 58). Because of these disclosures by Hock, Petitioner contends that Hock discloses optical gain, as recited in claims 48 and 51. Id. In support of this contention, Petitioner appears to rely on the conclusory statement by its declarant, Dr. Mansuripur, that Hock discloses all of the limitations of the [ 913 patent] claims at issue, including this optical gain limitation. Ex ; see id. 35. As noted above, however, Patent Owner argues that retroreflected radiant energy does not necessarily or inherently exhibit an optical gain. 14

15 Rather, in order to exhibit optical gain, retroreflected radiant energy must show a change in its radiant flux density relative to the radiant flux density of other reflected radiant energy, e.g., reflection from a reference or a standard. Prelim. Resp. 10 (emphasis added; citing Ex. 1003, col. 4, ll ). In particular, Patent Owner argues that Hock [does not] rely on such variation of the radiant flux density of the reflected light. Rather, as discussed above, Hock relies only on the luminous scanning mark from diaphragm 12 illuminating the surface of reflector 41 being reflected so as to merely impinge on the carrier 16. In contrast, claim 48 recites receiving reflected radiant energy with an optical gain after retroreflection of the radiant energy; and detecting the reflected radiant energy after retroreflection to determine at least one characteristic of the object. Thus, in contrast to the teachings of Hock, in the method of claim 48, the optical gain of reflected radiant energy after retroreflection is detected. Prelim. Resp. 17 (emphasis added). Hence, Patent Owner argues that Hock fails to disclose optical gain, as recited in claims 48 and 51. Again, we agree. Moreover, we give little weight to Petitioner s declarant s conclusory statements regarding Hock s alleged disclosure of optical gain. See Ex , 35; see also Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,763 ( Affidavits expressing an opinion of an expert must disclose the underlying facts or data upon which the opinion is based. ). Thus, we are persuaded that Petitioner fails to demonstrate that Hock discloses each and every element of claims 48 and 51, as set forth in those claims. See Verdegaal Bros., 814 F.2d at 631. Because claims 49 and 50 depend from claim 48, and claims 52 and 53 depend from claim 51, we also are persuaded that Petitioner fails to demonstrate that Hock discloses each and every element of these dependent 15

16 claims. Therefore, we conclude that Petitioner fails to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that claims of the 913 patent are anticipated by Hock. 2. Anticipation of Claims by Zoot a. Zoot Zoot discloses [a] non-contacting distance gauge and contour mapping apparatus utilizing a high intensity light source. Ex. 1002, col. 1, ll Figure 1 of Zoot is reproduced below: Figure 1 depicts an embodiment of that apparatus, which includes light source 10, e.g., a laser, whose radiation is directed to object 11. Ex. 1002, col. 3, ll Primary lens 12 and composite lens-reticle 13 are disposed in the optical path between light source 10 and object 11. Id. at col. 3, ll The composite lens-reticle structure 13, in turn, comprises an annular transmitting objective lens 14, an annular transmitting reticle 15 and a receiving objective lens 16, which is located within the central region of annular transmitting lens 14. Id. at col. 3, ll The apparatus includes reflecting members 18 and 19, a nutating plate 20, a receiving reticle 21 and an optical filter 22. Id. at col. 4, ll The apparatus also includes an optical detector 17, which is capable of generating an electrical output 16

17 signal, the magnitude of which varies in response to the intensity of the light incident upon it.... Id. at col. 3, ll In operation, a light beam generated by light source 10 is directed via lens 12 as a diverging light beam to lens-reticle structure 13, where the central portion of the diverging light beam is intercepted by reflector 18. Id. at col. 4, ll The annular outer portion of the diverging light beam passes through transmitting objective lens 14 and is split into four somewhat pie-shaped segments by transmitting reticle 15 and focused on object 11. Id. at col. 4, ll In the embodiment of [Figure 1], the region of object 11 on which the transmitted light beam is focused coincides with the focal point of the primary lens-transmitting objective lens combination. Id. at col. 4, ll When object 11 is so situated, the transmitted light beam appears as a spot on the surface of object 11. Id. at col. 4, ll Objective lens 16 converges light reflected from the spot imaged on object 11, and the converged light is reflected via reflection members 18 and 19 onto nutating plate 20. Id. at col. 4, ll The passage of the converging light beam through the nutating plate causes its displacement from the optical axis. Id. at col. 4, ll By rotating nutating plate 20 by means of a motor assembly, indicated generally by windings 23, the converging light beam can be made to trace a circular path. Id. at col. 4, ll The rotating nutating light beam is directed toward receiving reticle 21, which periodically interrupts the light beam so that it passes through optical filter 22 to detector 17 only four times per revolution of nutating plate 20. Id. at col. 4, ll

18 b. Zoot Analysis Petitioner s arguments regarding Zoot are set forth almost entirely in the claim charts. Pet Petitioner argues that Zoot discloses each and every element of the invention, as recited in claims Id. In particular, independent claim 48 recites the step of receiving reflected radiant energy with an optical gain after retroreflection of the radiant energy. Similarly, independent claim 51 recites a detector for detecting received reflected radiant energy with an optical gain after retroreflection of the radiant energy to determine at least one characteristic of the object. Petitioner argues that Zoot discloses a detection means (17), which is described as an optical detector (Ex. 1002, Col. 3, ll. 72). Pet. 12. Nevertheless, Petitioner does not mention where Zoot discloses that the radiant energy is received with an optical gain. Id. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner fails to demonstrate that Zoot discloses optical gain, as recited in claims 48 and 51. Prelim. Resp. 26. Petitioner argues that [a] retroreflected ray has an increased radiant flux density because of the narrowing effect of retroreflection. (Ex. 1003, col. 4, ll. 6-8). It is a characteristic of retroreflector optical systems to reflect energy [sic] rays in a very narrow beam. (Ex. 1003, Col. 4, ll ). Pet. 6. Again, however, Petitioner s declarant, Dr. Mansuripur, makes only conclusory statements about Zoot s alleged disclosure of optical gain. Specifically, Dr. Mansuripur opines that those skilled in the art would know the reflective object (11) disposed in the focal plane of a focusing lens (14) of Zoot discloses optical gain as defined by the [ 913 patent]. Ex Consequently, and for reasons similar to those set forth above with 18

19 respect to Hock, we give little weight to Petitioner s declarant s conclusory statements regarding Zoot s alleged disclosure of optical gain. See id. Therefore, we determine that Petitioner fails to demonstrate that Zoot discloses optical gain, as recited in claims 48 and 51. Patent Owner further contends that Zoot fails to disclose a retroreflection of energy because the incident light and the reflected light pass through different lenses. Prelim. Resp. 27. In particular, referring to Zoot s Figure 1, the apparatus depicts incident light passing though annular lens 14 and reflected light passing through central lens 16. Ex. 1002, col. 3, ll ; fig. 1. We agree with Patent Owner s description of this feature of Zoot s Figure 1, but claims 48 and 51 do not require that the incident and the reflected light rays pass through the same lens. Specifically, claim 48 merely recites receiving reflected radiant energy with an optical gain after retroreflection of the radiant energy, and claim 51 merely recites a detector for detecting received reflected radiant energy with an optical gain after retroreflection of the radiant energy. Thus, neither claim requires that the incident and reflected light rays pass through the same lens. Consequently, because Petitioner fails to demonstrate that Zoot discloses optical gain, as recited in claims 48 and 51, Petitioner fails to demonstrate that Zoot discloses each and every element of claims 48 and 51, as set forth in those claims. See Verdegaal Bros., 814 F.2d at 631. Because claims 49 and 50 depend from claim 48, and claims 52 and 53 depend from claim 51, we also are persuaded that Petitioner fails to demonstrate that Zoot discloses each and every element of these dependent claims. Therefore, we conclude that Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of 19

20 prevailing in showing that claims of the 913 patent are anticipated by Zoot. III. CONCLUSION Petitioner fails to demonstrate that there is a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its challenge to the patentability of claims of the ʼ913 patent. Consequently, the petition is denied as to the following grounds proposed: (1) anticipation of claims by Hock; and (2) anticipation of claims by Zoot. IV. ORDER For the reasons given, it is ORDERED that the petition is denied as to claims on the grounds listed above in Section III. 20

21 PETITIONER: Christopher D. Bright Amol A. Parikh MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP PATENT OWNER: Thomas Engellenner Reza Mollaaghababa PEPPER HAMILTON LLP Theodosios Thomas OPTICAL DEVICES, LLC 21