Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 90
`Entered: July 11, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________
`
`CORNING INCORPORATED
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`DSM IP ASSETS B.V.
`Patent Owner
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2013-00049
`Patent 6,298,189 B1
`_______________
`
`
`Before FRED E. McKELVEY, GRACE OBERMANN,
`JENNIFER S. BISK, SCOTT E. KAMHOLZ, and
`ZHENYU YANG, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`KAMHOLZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 90
`Entered: July 11, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________
`
`CORNING INCORPORATED
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`DSM IP ASSETS B.V.
`Patent Owner
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2013-00049
`Patent 6,298,189 B1
`_______________
`
`
`Before FRED E. McKELVEY, GRACE OBERMANN,
`JENNIFER S. BISK, SCOTT E. KAMHOLZ, and
`ZHENYU YANG, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`KAMHOLZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00048
`Patent 6,298,189 B1
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner Corning Incorporated (“Corning”) requests reconsideration
`
`of the Board’s final written decision (“Dec.”), dated May 9, 2014 (Paper 94),
`
`to the extent we denied Corning’s request for cancellation of claims 56-58
`
`and 62-64 of U.S. Patent No. 6,298,189 B1 (the “’189 patent”), which is
`
`assigned to Patent Owner DSM IP Assets B.V. (“DSM”). Request for
`
`Rehearing 1 (Paper 89 (“Req.”)). We have considered Corning’s request,
`
`but we decline to modify the final written decision.
`
`
`
` STANDARD OF REVIEW II.
`
`A party challenging a final written decision by way of a request for
`
`rehearing must identify specifically all matters the party believes the Board
`
`misapprehended or overlooked. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The challenging
`
`party bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified. Id.
`
`
`
` DISCUSSION III.
`
`Corning challenges the final written decision with respect to our
`
`determinations that Corning failed to demonstrate that the prior art discloses
`
`the claimed “ratio of the change in length” and the “modulus of elasticity” of
`
`the outer primary coating.
`
`A. Ratio of change in length
`
`Corning identifies several points for reconsideration, which we
`
`consider in turn.
`
`1. Experimental methods
`
`Corning argues that we erred in determining that Corning’s petition
`
`evidence, as to how it carried out the “change in length” experiments, was
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00048
`Patent 6,298,189 B1
`
`
`sufficient to institute trial yet insufficient to warrant cancellation of the
`
`relevant claims. Req. 2-3. According to Corning, if the evidence had been
`
`sufficient to institute inter partes review, it should also have been sufficient
`
`for Corning to prevail in the final written decision. Id. at 3. Corning argues
`
`that it is unfairly prejudiced by this supposed discrepancy, particularly in
`
`view of the estoppel that attaches upon the issuance of a final written
`
`decision. Id. (citing 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)).
`
`This argument is unpersuasive, because the standard for instituting
`
`inter partes review is different from the standard for a petitioner to prevail
`
`in the final written decision. The standard for institution 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.
`
`The petitioner’s burden to prevail in the final written decision, in
`
`contrast, is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 316(e), which provides as follows:
`
`EVIDENTIARY STANDARDS.—In an inter partes
`review instituted under this chapter, the petitioner
`shall have the burden of proving a proposition of
`unpatentability by a preponderance of
`the
`evidence.
`
`The standards differ in that institution requires the petitioner to show
`
`merely a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail, whereas actually to
`
`prevail requires the petitioner to prove its case by a preponderance of the
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00048
`Patent 6,298,189 B1
`
`
`evidence. Compare 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) with 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). Showing a
`
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing is less stringent a standard than
`
`prevailing by a preponderance of the evidence. It is possible that a case
`
`strong enough to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, on the
`
`incomplete record available at the time the institution decision is made, is
`
`insufficient to prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence on
`
`the complete record. It is also possible that weaknesses in the petitioner’s
`
`case become more fully apparent only when considered in the context of the
`
`full record developed during the course of trial.
`
`In the present case, consideration of evidence developed and cited
`
`during trial highlighted gaps in Corning’s petition evidence, as we discussed
`
`in the final written decision. Dec. 41. In particular, we determined that
`
`paragraph 59 of the declaration of Ms. Inna Kouzmina (Ex. 1015), which
`
`was the only source of evidence in the Petition addressing the change-in-
`
`length calculation, was entitled to little or no weight, because it lacked a
`
`meaningful explanation of the experimental method used. Id. at 40-41. We
`
`did not overlook our determination that Corning’s petition evidence was
`
`sufficient for instituting inter partes review; rather, we explained that the
`
`insufficiency of the evidence was underscored upon consideration of the full
`
`record. Id.
`
`2. Dr. Winningham’s testimony regarding change-in-length
`experiments
`
`Corning argues that we should have given consideration to
`
`Dr. Winningham’s testimony in paragraphs 100-104 of his declaration
`
`(Ex. 1014). Req. 3 (citing Dec. 41 n.12).
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00048
`Patent 6,298,189 B1
`
`
`This argument is unpersuasive. Although Corning argues that
`
`paragraphs 100-104 provide the foundation for paragraphs 128, 132, 151,
`
`157, 166, and 172 which themselves are cited in the Petition, Corning still
`
`does not identify where in its Petition or other briefing it cited
`
`paragraphs 100-104, nor does Corning identify where paragraphs 100-104
`
`are cited as foundation for paragraphs 128, 132, 151, 157, 166, and 172.
`
`Moreover, we observed in the final written decision that, even if we gave
`
`these paragraphs consideration, they would not have been persuasive,
`
`because they provide no more detailed explanation of the measurement and
`
`calculation procedures than the evidence we did consider. Dec. 41 n.12.
`
`3. Witnesses lacking first-hand knowledge
`
`Corning argues that we criticized its witnesses’ evidence on the basis
`
`that the witnesses did not perform or observe first-hand the experiments
`
`reported, and that Ms. Kouzmina had an “incomplete understanding” of how
`
`the experiments were performed. Req. 4 (quoting Dec. 41). Corning asserts
`
`that this criticism is at odds with our earlier ruling that declaration testimony
`
`directed to experimental testing need not come from the person who actually
`
`conducted the testing. Req. 4 (citing Paper 49, 4 (Dec. on Mot. for
`
`Discovery)).
`
`We disagree. Corning notes correctly that our rules do not require
`
`that the declarant attesting to testing evidence be the person who actually
`
`conducted the test. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(b). We did not discount
`
`Ms. Kouzmina’s testimony on the basis that she did not perform the tests
`
`reported in her declaration. Rather, we gave her testimony full
`
`consideration, but we accorded it little weight, because it did not explain the
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00048
`Patent 6,298,189 B1
`
`
`methods Corning employed in conducting the experiments. Dec. 40-41. We
`
`noted the fact that Ms. Kouzmina did not have first-hand knowledge of the
`
`tests as part of our more general observation that Corning failed to provide
`
`convincing evidence of how the change-in-length calculations actually were
`
`carried out. See id. at 41.
`
`4. Rigorousness of testing procedure
`
`Corning argues that we dismissed its testing procedure as
`
`insufficiently rigorous, and that this was inappropriate because the
`
`’189 patent does not describe or claim a measurement procedure for Corning
`
`to have followed rigorously. Req. 4. Corning argues that the silence in
`
`the ’189 patent justified Corning’s use of a procedure that was endorsed by
`
`Dr. Winningham and by Dr. Jiann-Wen Woody Ju (a Corning reply
`
`witness). Req. 4-5.
`
`This argument is unpersuasive. We did not determine that Corning’s
`
`testing procedure was not rigorous. Rather, we determined that Corning had
`
`not cited sufficient evidence of rigor. Dec. 40:7-10. We explained that we
`
`were unable to understand the calculation process from the petition
`
`evidence, or the additional evidence cited during the trial, in sufficient detail
`
`to be persuaded of its probative value. Id. at 40-43. The lack of specificity
`
`in the ’189 patent as to how to perform the calculation does not excuse
`
`Corning from its burden of proof. Furthermore, we did not “substitute [our]
`
`independent scientific determination” for Dr. Ju’s testimony. See Req. 5.
`
`On the contrary, we considered Dr. Ju’s testimony fully and found it
`
`inadequate to support a finding that the procedure followed by Corning was
`
`sufficiently rigorous.
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00048
`Patent 6,298,189 B1
`
`
`5. Ms. Kouzmina’s level of understanding
`
`Corning argues that we failed to appreciate that Ms. Kouzmina’s
`
`direct declaration and cross-examination deposition testimony demonstrated
`
`her good understanding of the testing procedure. Req. 5-8 (citing Ex. 1015
`
`¶¶ 4, 59; Ex. 1044, 116:14-16, 122:9-11, 123:6-18, 123:24–124:5, 124:9-10,
`
`124:12, 126:8–127:7, 129:2-16, 130:6-14, 130:19–131:17, 132:9-15, 133:14-
`
`21; Ex. 2025, 806:16-25).
`
`This argument is unpersuasive. We summarized what we considered
`
`to be all of the significant evidence the parties cited on the issue of change-
`
`in-length testing (Dec. 34-40) and explained the reasoning underlying our
`
`finding that Ms. Kouzmina did not have a complete understanding of the
`
`procedure. Dec. 41. A rehearing request is not an opportunity for a party to
`
`re-argue its case.
`
`Moreover, Corning has not identified where in the record it cited the
`
`evidence from Ms. Kouzmina’s deposition that it now relies upon in support
`
`of this argument. Corning did not cite any of the above-listed passages from
`
`Ms. Kouzmina’s deposition in its Reply (Paper 58), in any subsequent
`
`papers, or at oral argument. We cannot have overlooked or misapprehended
`
`evidence that was not brought to our attention.
`
`6. Basis for Dr. Ju’s testimony
`
`Corning argues that we improperly discounted the testimony of its
`
`reply witness, Dr. Ju. Req. 8. In particular, Corning argues that we
`
`overlooked testimony in paragraph 80 of Dr. Ju’s declaration, in which he
`
`stated that his understanding of the change-in-length testing process was
`
`based on his review of Ms. Kouzmina’s declaration and portions of her
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00048
`Patent 6,298,189 B1
`
`
`deposition, and upon a video-conference demonstration by Corning’s
`
`microscopist, Mr. Earl Sanford. Id. at 9 (citing Reply 1-2 (citing Ex. 1035
`
`¶¶ 78-90)).
`
`This argument is unpersuasive. We cited paragraph 80 (Dec. 37-38)
`
`and have no reason to doubt that Dr. Ju based his opinion on the sources of
`
`information listed there. But Corning does not explain how this testimony
`
`overcomes the reasons we gave for finding Dr. Ju’s evidence unpersuasive.
`
`See Dec. 41. We discussed, in the final written decision, why both sources
`
`of information are insufficient to indicate that Dr. Ju’s understanding of the
`
`process reflects what happened during actual testing by Mr. Sanford.
`
`Dec. 41. First, we determined that Ms. Kouzmina had an incomplete
`
`understanding of the procedure. Id. To the extent Dr. Ju relies on
`
`Ms. Kouzmina’s evidence, it suffers from the same weakness. Second, we
`
`determined that nothing in Dr. Ju’s evidence establishes that the procedure
`
`demonstrated to Dr. Ju was the same procedure used to make the
`
`measurements reported in Ms. Kouzmina’s declaration. Id.
`
`Corning also argues that we overlooked certain cross-examination
`
`deposition testimony by Dr. Ju. Req. 9 (citing Ex. 2087, 202:4-6) (“Q. Is
`
`your understanding of the DL over L test that was conducted described in
`
`your declaration? A. Yes.”). Corning does not identify where in the record it
`
`cited this evidence, and we need not consider it further. But even upon
`
`consideration, we determine that it amounts to no more than a confirmation
`
`by Dr. Ju that his declaration includes a description of his understanding of
`
`the change-in-length test. Corning does not explain how this evidence
`
`addresses the problems we discussed in the final written decision.
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00048
`Patent 6,298,189 B1
`
`
`7. Use of talc particles to track points
`
`Corning argues that we should credit Dr. Ju’s testimony as to the
`
`reliability and accuracy of talc-based measurements, as well as his testimony
`
`that Corning’s method was “very good.” Req. 9-10 (citing Ex. 1035
`
`¶¶ 87-90; Ex. 2087, 35:2-10, 200:2-9, 202:15–203:5). Corning also argues
`
`that Ms. Kouzmina “fully explained” how talc particles can be used for
`
`precise measurements. Req. 10 (referring to discussion of Ms. Kouzmina’s
`
`deposition testimony, identified above in section III.A.5).
`
`We disagree. As we explained in the final written decision, even if
`
`we accept Dr. Ju’s (and Ms. Kouzmina’s) testimony as accurate descriptions
`
`of the actual measurement process, the cited testimony does not provide
`
`enough information about that process to assess its reliability and accuracy.
`
`Dec. 41-42. Dr. Ju, through his testimony, assures us that he discussed the
`
`method with Mr. Sanford and Ms. Kouzmina (Paper 78 ¶ 11 (citing
`
`Ex. 2087, 19:13-19), and that he is satisfied that Corning’s method is
`
`adequately reliable and accurate (Reply 2 (citing Ex. 1035 ¶¶ 78-90)). But
`
`we require more than a witness’s assurances that his opinions are supported
`
`by facts. We require the facts themselves. Dec. 40 (citing 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.65(a)). In the evidence Corning cited during the proceeding, neither
`
`Dr. Ju nor Ms. Kouzmina actually describes the precise steps carried out for
`
`the measurement procedure in sufficient detail to permit us to make a
`
`determination as to reliability and accuracy. Dec. 41-42. For this reason, we
`
`determined that Corning’s evidence on change-in-length measurements was
`
`not credible, and we declined, therefore, to credit that evidence. Dec. 42.
`
`Corning’s new reliance on Ms. Kouzmina’s deposition testimony is
`
`inappropriate for a rehearing request.
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00048
`Patent 6,298,189 B1
`
`
`Corning also argues that we erred in discounting Dr. Ju’s testimony by
`
`raising, on our own initiative, testimony from Dr. Ju’s deposition that he had
`
`asked questions of Ms. Kouzmina and Mr. Sanford, concerning how they
`
`were sure that they could find a particular pixel using a talc particle, but did
`
`not indicate whether he received answers or what those answers were.
`
`Req. 11 (citing Dec. 42).
`
`We did not raise this issue on our own initiative. Corning cited this
`
`passage from Dr. Ju’s deposition in its Response to DSM’s Motion for
`
`Observations. Paper 78 ¶ 11 (citing Ex. 2087, 19:13-19). We considered
`
`this evidence because Corning cited it. We explained that this evidence was
`
`not persuasive, by itself, because it does not fill the factual gaps in Corning’s
`
`explanation of the change-in-length testing. Dec. 42. Corning does not
`
`explain persuasively why that determination was in error.
`
`8. Additional issues
`
`Corning asserts that we addressed in the final written decision an issue
`
`not briefed by the parties, specifically, that it is not clear from the cited
`
`evidence whether talc particles can serve as faithful position markers.
`
`Req. 11 (citing Dec. 42). Corning argues that we overlooked several pieces
`
`of evidence in the record relevant to this issue. Req. 11-12 (citing Ex. 1035
`
`¶¶ 87, 89; Ex. 1046, 551:3-18; Ex. 2087, 202:15–203:5).
`
`This argument is not persuasive. We addressed this issue for the
`
`purpose of illustrating the sorts of questions that the gaps in Corning’s cited
`
`evidence on change-in-length testing leave open. Dec. 42. Whether uncited
`
`evidence of record addresses the issue is irrelevant. As we explained in the
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00048
`Patent 6,298,189 B1
`
`
`final written decision, we will not scour the record in search of relevant
`
`evidence. Dec. 14.
`
`B. Modulus of elasticity of the outer primary coating
`
`Corning argues that we overlooked Dr. Bowman’s inability to identify
`
`any other available oligomer suitable for use in Shustack Examples X and
`
`XI, other than EBECRYL® 284 oligomer, the one Corning actually used
`
`when it prepared those examples. Req. 14.
`
`We disagree. In the final written decision, we explained that evidence
`
`that no other suitable oligomer is commercially available was not persuasive,
`
`because it “does not address whether any other suitable oligomers exist or
`
`have been disclosed by Shustack.” Dec. 32:13-16 (emphasis added).
`
`Although our determination was directed to Dr. Sogah’s testimony, the
`
`reasoning is equally applicable to Dr. Bowman’s testimony. We declined to
`
`credit the evidence of either witness on this point not because we overlooked
`
`it, but because it was not probative of what the prior art discloses.
`
`IV.
`
` CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons given, we determine that Corning has not carried its
`
`burden of demonstrating that the Board misapprehended or overlooked any
`
`matters in rendering the final written decision. We decline to modify the
`
`final written decision.
`
`V.
`
` ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is
`
`ORDERED that the request for rehearing is denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00048
`Patent 6,298,189 B1
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`Michael L. Goldman
`Edwin Merkel
`Jeffrey Townes
`LeClairRyan, A Professional Corporation
`Michael.Goldman@leclairryan.com
`Jeffrey.Townes@leclairryan.com
`Edwin.Merkel@leclairryan.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`Sharon A. Israel
`Joseph Mahoney
`Mayer Brown, LLP
`SIsrael@mayerbrown.com
`JMahoney@mayerbrown.com
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
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
