Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 61
`Date: April 28, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`
`
`ATHENA AUTOMATION LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`HUSKY INJECTION MOLDING SYSTEMS LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2013-00290
`Patent 7,670,536 B2
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before JENNIFER S. BISK, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and
`GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BISK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`AMENDED FINAL WRITTEN DECISION ON REMAND
`35 U.S.C. § 144 and 35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00290
`Patent 7,670,536 B2
`
`
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`This Decision addresses the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
`
`Circuit’s remand in Husky Injection Molding Sys. v. Athena Automation Ltd., 838
`
`F.3d 1236 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`On May 20, 2013 a Petition (Paper 3, “Pet.”) was filed by Athena
`
`Automation Ltd. (“Petitioner”) challenging claims 1–22 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,670,536 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’536 patent”) owned by Husky Injection Molding
`
`Systems, Ltd. (“Patent Owner”). We instituted an inter partes review (Paper 18,
`
`“Inst. Dec.”) and, after briefing and oral argument, we issued a Final Decision
`
`(Paper 45, “Final Dec.”) finding claims 1, 4–16, 18, and 20–22 anticipated by
`
`Arend,1 but finding that Petitioner did not meet its burden to show that claims 1–7,
`
`12, and 17–20 were anticipated by Glaesener2 with portions of Choi3 incorporated
`
`by reference. Both parties appealed to the Federal Circuit.
`
`On September 23, 2016, the Federal Circuit issued a decision, dismissing-in-
`
`part and vacating and remanding-in-part the Final Decision. Husky, 838 F.3d at
`
`1249. Relevant to this Decision, the Federal Circuit vacated our finding relating to
`
`anticipation by Glaesener with respect to claims 2, 3, 17, and 19 (“the remanded
`
`claims”) and remanded the case for further consideration of Petitioner’s challenge
`
`of these claims. Id. Specifically, the Federal Circuit held that Glaesener
`
`incorporates “at least some portions of Choi,” contrary to our finding in the Final
`
`Decision, and, thus, remanded “for the Board to evaluate anticipation in the first
`
`instance in light of Glaesener/Choi.” Id. The mandate issued November 14, 2016.
`
`Following a teleconference, during which the parties disagreed upon the
`
`issues before us in this remanded proceeding, we authorized each of the parties to
`
`
`1 U.S. Patent 5,417,913 (Ex. 1004).
`2 U.S. Patent Application 2004/0208950 (Ex. 1002).
`3 U.S. Patent 5,753,153 (Ex. 1003).
`
`2
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00290
`Patent 7,670,536 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`file a post-remand brief. Paper 56. The parties filed their briefs on February 10,
`
`2017. Paper 59 (“PO Remand Br.”); Paper 60 (“Pet. Remand Br.”).
`
`After considering the entire record, we conclude that Petitioner has shown,
`
`by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 2, 3, 17, and 19 are anticipated by
`
`Glaesener with the relevant portions of Choi incorporated by reference.
`
`A. The ’536 Patent
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`The ’536 patent is titled “Molding-System Clamp” and relates to injection
`
`molding machines that inject, under pressure, injectable molding material into a
`
`mold cavity. Ex. 1001, 8:8–10, 37–42, 63–66. The mold cavity is created by two
`
`halves of a mold, each mounted on a platen, closed against each other. Id. at 9:20–
`
`24, 57–61. Once closed, the mold is held in that position by a clamp assembly, and
`
`the two platens are secured by a locking mechanism. Id. at 8:37–42; 9:29–31;
`
`Figs. 2A, 2B.
`
`The locking mechanism includes both a lock member associated with a rod
`
`and a complementary lock member associated with a platen. Id. at Abstract. Once
`
`the two members of the locking mechanism are engaged (locked), clamp actuators
`
`apply a clamping force to keep the mold closed as it receives molding material
`
`under pressure. Id. at 8:39-42. This clamping force causes uneven load stresses on
`
`the platen. Id. at 13:42–45. Thus, some portions, or zones, of the platen receive
`
`less load stress in comparison to the stress experienced by other zones. Id. The
`
`uneven stress causes the platen to bend, or flex, more at some zones (relatively
`
`higher flex zones) relative to others (relatively lower flex zones). Id. Accordingly,
`
`the ’536 Patent discloses engaging the two lock members at a position that is
`
`proximate to a relatively lower flex zone of the platen resulting in reduced wear
`
`associated with the teeth of the locking mechanisms. Id. at 13:55–67.
`
`3
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00290
`Patent 7,670,536 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`Figures 2A and 2B of the ’536 patent, reproduced below, depict the clamp
`
`assembly of the molding system, according to one embodiment, in which the
`
`clamp assembly is placed in a mold opened position.
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2A of the ’536 Patent illustrates clamp assembly 102 in the mold opened
`
`position. Ex. 1001, 7:29–31. Clamp assembly 102 includes (i) stationary platen
`
`120, (ii) movable platen 122, (iii) platen stroke actuators 123, (iv) clamp actuators
`
`128, (v) rods 121, and (vi) tie-bar locking mechanisms 130. Figure 2A does not
`
`depict the mold. Id. at 8:62–63. Figure 2B depicts the clamp assembly of Figure
`
`2A with mold portions 142 and 144 visible in the mold opened position—the mold
`
`portions are separated from each other. Id. at 8:58–62; 9:47–50.
`
`4
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00290
`Patent 7,670,536 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 8A of the ’536 patent, reproduced below, depicts clamp actuator 128,
`
`also referred to as a clamp.
`
`
`
`Figure 8A illustrates the clamp of clamp assembly 102. Ex. 1001, 7:51–52. The
`
`clamp is actuated so that clamping force 506 is applied to rod 121. Id. at 13:12–14.
`
`The ’536 patent provides a series of figures illustrating an exemplary
`
`embodiment of clamp assembly 102 at various times during the molding process.
`
`Each figure depicts positions of the two mold portions and clamp. Several of the
`
`figures explicitly show locking teeth 238 and 248 and whether the teeth are
`
`separated by a gap or not.
`
`Figures 5C, 6C, and 7B are reproduced side-by-side below. In Figures 6C
`
`and 7B, teeth 238 are shown in yellow, and teeth 248 are shown in green (coloring
`
`added). The gap between the teeth, unlabeled in the original figure 6C, is shown in
`
`red, as annotated.
`
`5
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00290
`Patent 7,670,536 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 5C depicts the locking mechanism in an “unlocked condition.” Id. at 7:41–
`
`44. The mold portions are in the “mold closed position.” Id. at 12:32–36. Figure
`
`6C depicts the locking mechanism in a “lockable condition.” Id. at 7:45–46. The
`
`mold portions are in the “mold closed position.” Id. at 12:50–54. According to the
`
`’536 patent, “[t]he gap between the teeth 238 and the teeth 248 is clearly visible in
`
`this view.” Id. at 12:54–55.
`
`Figure 7B depicts the clamp in a “gap closed condition.” Id. at 7:48–50.
`
`The “gap closed condition” is defined as the condition in which “(i) the gap
`
`between the teeth 238, 248 has been taken up (that is, removed), and (ii) the teeth
`
`238, 248 contact each other.” Id. at 12:65–13:3. In addition, the locking
`
`mechanism is in the “locked condition” meaning that “platen 122 is no longer
`
`movable relative to the rod 121” and the fluid in chamber 205 is pressurized
`
`“sufficiently enough to push the piston 202 away from the platen 122.” Id. at
`
`13:3–7. As a result, “rod 121 is pushed away from the platen 122 sufficiently
`
`enough to take up the gap between the teeth 238, 248” so that the teeth 238, 248
`
`abut each other. Id. at 13:7–10. Spring 204 is compressed. Id. at 13:10–11.
`
`In Figures 8B and 9B, reproduced side-by-side below, teeth 238 are shown
`
`in yellow, and teeth 248 are shown in green (coloring added).
`
`6
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00290
`Patent 7,670,536 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 8B depicts an “actuated” clamp. Id. at 7:51–52. Mold portions 142 and
`
`144 are in the “mold closed position” and the locking mechanism is in the “locked
`
`condition.” Id. at 13:28-30. In addition, “rod 121 is stretched as a result of
`
`transmitting the clamping force 506 to the platen 122.” Id. at 13:30–31. Figure 9B
`
`depicts the clamp in a “decompressed condition.” Id.at 7:56–58. Mold portions
`
`142 and 144 are in the “mold closed position” and the locking mechanism is in the
`
`“locked condition.” Id. at 15:14–16. In this figure, “[t]he mold break force has not
`
`been applied.” Id. at 15:16–17.
`
`Figures 10A, B, and C, reproduced side-by-side below, depict clamp
`
`assembly 102 in a “post mold break condition.” Id. at 7:59–61.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In Figure 10A, the locking mechanism is in the “lockable condition” and “[m]old
`
`break has occurred, and the teeth 248, 238 have become separated from each other
`
`so that, in effect, a gap exists between the teeth 248, 238.” Id. at 15:21–25. In
`
`Figure 10B, the locking mechanism is in the “unlocked condition” and “teeth 248,
`
`238 have been rotated away from each other so they become misaligned relative to
`
`7
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00290
`Patent 7,670,536 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`each other.” Id. at 15:26–32. Figure 10C depicts mold portions 142 and 144 once
`
`again in the “mold opened position” such that the molded article 145 may be
`
`removed from the mold cavity. Id. at 15:37–41.
`
`Figure 8D of the ’536 Patent, reproduced below, depicts the lock in which
`
`the clamp is actuated.
`
`
`
`Figure 8D, above, illustrates an end view of the locking mechanism in which the
`
`lock is placed in the locked condition. Id. at 13:32–33. Rod 121 transmits the
`
`clamping force 506 across teeth 238 and 248. Id. at 13:38–40. Then the clamping
`
`force is transferred to platens 122 and 120 and ultimately to mold 140. Id. at
`
`13:40–42.
`
`The location of relative stress zones (514, 516) will depend on the structural
`
`supports of platen 122. Id. at 13:48–54. When the locking mechanism is actuated,
`
`teeth 238 and 248 become aligned at a position that is located proximate to a
`
`relatively lower flex zone 514. Id. at 13:55–60.
`
`B. The Remanded Claims
`
`Claims 2 and 3 depend from independent claim 1, claim 17 depends from
`
`independent claim 12, and claim 19 depends from independent claim 18. Claims
`
`1–3, 12, and 17–19 are reproduced below.
`
`8
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00290
`Patent 7,670,536 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`1. A lock of a molding system having a rod and a platen, the lock
`comprising:
`
`a lock member associated with the rod that is movable between a
`clamped position and a released position by a clamp
`assembly; and
`
`a complementary lock member associated with the platen; the lock
`member and the complementary lock member cooperatively
`operable to move between a lockable condition and an
`unlockable condition; wherein
`
`the complementary lock member is engagable with the lock member
`within a relatively lower flex zone of the platen;
`
`the relatively lower flex zone of the platen being a portion of the
`platen adjacent to the rod and having a flex that is lower
`relative to a relatively higher flex zone of the platen also
`adjacent to the rod.
`
`2. The lock of claim 1, wherein the rod is biased towards the released
`position, thereby maintaining a gap between the lock member and the
`complementary lock member during movement of the lock between the
`lockable condition and the unlockable condition.
`
`3. The lock of claim 1, wherein movement of the rod to the released
`position by the clamp assembly creates a gap between the lock member
`and the complementary lock member to reduce wear therebetween
`when they move between the lockable condition and the unlockable.
`
`12. A molding system comprising:
`
`a rod that is movable between a clamped position and a released
`position by a clamp assembly;
`
`a platen;
`
`a lock including:
`
`a lock member associated with the rod; and
`
`a complementary lock member associated with the platen of the
`molding system,
`the complementary
`lock member
`cooperatively operable to move between a lockable
`condition and an unlockable condition with the lock
`member,
`the complementary
`lock member being
`
`9
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00290
`Patent 7,670,536 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`engagable with the lock member within a relatively lower
`flex zone of the platen;
`
`the relatively lower flex zone of the platen being a portion of the
`platen adjacent to the rod and having a flex that is lower
`relative to a relatively higher flex zone of the platen also
`adjacent to the rod.
`
`17. The molding system of claim 12, wherein movement of the rod to
`the released position by the clamp assembly creates a gap between the
`lock member and the complementary lock member to reduce wear
`therebetween when they move between the lockable condition and the
`unlockable condition.
`
`18. A method of actuating a lock of a molding system having a rod that
`is movable between a clamped position and a released position by a
`clamp assembly and a platen, the method comprising:
`
`engaging a lock member associated with the rod with a
`complementary lock member associated with the platen at a
`position located proximate to a relatively lower flex zone of
`the platen;
`the relatively lower flex zone of the platen being a portion of the
`platen adjacent to the rod and having a flex that is lower
`relative to a relatively higher flex zone of the platen also
`adjacent to the rod.
`
`19. The method of claim 18, wherein moving the rod to the released
`position by the clamp assembly creates a gap between the lock member
`and the complementary lock member in the lock to reduce wear
`therebetween when they move between a lockable condition and an
`unlockable condition.
`
`C. Claim Construction
`
`In the Final Decision, we explicitly construed several claim terms. Final
`
`Dec. 11–25. Nothing in the Federal Circuit’s decision or in post-remand briefing
`
`from the parties indicates that any of our constructions need be revisited or that any
`
`further terms need be construed explicitly. See Husky, 838 F.3d 1236 at 1247–49;
`
`10
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00290
`Patent 7,670,536 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`PO Remand Br.; Pet. Remand Br. We, therefore, rely on the constructions, as
`
`summarized below, set forth in the Final Decision. Final Dec. 11–25.
`
`Claim Term
`
`lock member
`
`complementary lock member
`
`released position
`
`clamped position
`
`the movable rod limitation4
`
`relatively lower flex zone
`
`relatively higher flex zone
`
`Construction
`
`encompasses a mechanism made up of at
`least one tooth structure (id. at 11)
`
`encompasses a mechanism made up of at
`least one tooth structure that is engagable
`with the tooth structure of the corresponding
`lock member (id.)
`
`a condition in which no clamping force has
`been applied to the rod (id. at 14–16)
`
`a condition in which the lock member and the
`complementary lock member are aligned, and
`the clamping force is applied to the rod (id. at
`16)
`
`includes movement by the rod other than
`axial displacement in its entirety, including
`stretching; the states between which the rod
`moves may include conditions where the lock
`member teeth may or may not be separated
`by a gap (id. at 12–21)
`
`that portion of the platen that exhibits a lower
`flex, compared to the flex in any other
`portion of the platen, in response to the
`application of a clamping force on the platen
`(id. at 21–24)
`
`that portion of the platen that exhibits a
`higher flex, compared to the flex in any other
`portion of the platen, in response to the
`application of a clamping force on the platen
`(id.)
`
`
`4 Each of the remanded claims requires “a rod” or “a lock member associated with
`the rod” “that is movable between a clamped position and a released position by
`the clamp assembly” (“the movable rod limitation”).
`
`11
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00290
`Patent 7,670,536 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`biased
`
`plain and ordinary meaning, not limited to
`being carried out by a spring (id. at 25)
`
`D. The Asserted Prior Art
`
`1. Overview of Glaesener
`
`Glaesener describes an injection molding machine with a platen having
`
`reinforcing ribs that cause the edges of the platen to bend less than they otherwise
`
`would when subjected to clamping forces. Ex. 1002, Abstract, ¶ 40.
`
`Figure 5 of Glaesener is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 5, above, “is an enlarged perspective view of a corner of platen” 50. Ex.
`
`1002 ¶ 33. Platen 50 includes “pairs of angled/inclined but straight ribs [40]
`
`located on at least two opposed sides of the platen.” Id. ¶ 38. According to
`
`Glaesener, this configuration of ribs 40 is desirable to ensure an even distribution
`
`of load to the platen during clamping. Id. Each angled rib 40 may be
`
`12
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00290
`Patent 7,670,536 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`complemented by an angled support gusset 42 that extends laterally outwardly
`
`from each angled rib and provides greater support of the platen edge. Id. ¶ 42.
`
`Figure 2 of Glaesener is reproduced below.
`
`Figure 2 shows a sectional view of platen 12 in the context of a partial
`
`representation of an injection molding machine. Ex. 1002 ¶ 34. Platen 12 is
`
`shown with front wall or front face 18 and rear wall 16. Id. The two walls are
`
`coupled through intermediate support structure 20. Id. Tie bar pairs 22 and 24 are
`
`coupled to the rear wall 16 by tie-bar nuts 26 and 28. Id. ¶ 35. “The tie-bar nuts
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00290
`Patent 7,670,536 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`can be secured to the rear wall 16 by any appropriate mechanism, such as the
`
`pineapple and toothed-ring mechanism described in Choi.” Id.
`
`2. Overview of Choi
`
`Choi discloses a clamping device for positioning and sustaining engagement
`
`of a movable mold platen on a carrier device relative to another platen. Ex. 1003,
`
`Abstract. Figure 3A of Choi is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 3A, above, is a cross-sectional view of the clamping assembly disclosed in
`
`Choi. Ex. 1003, 4:3–5. Tie bar 20a extends between the corners of movable platen
`
`14 and a fixed platen 12 (not shown above). Id. at 4:63–67. Tie bar 20a includes
`
`an elongated end section with four strips 39 of teeth 38 on its outer surface. Id. at
`
`5:42–53. Clamping assembly 22 includes piston 44 having an inner surface with
`
`four strips 49 of teeth 48, which are adapted to engage teeth 38. Id. at 5:59–6:12.
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00290
`Patent 7,670,536 B2
`
`
`
`A portion of Figure 4 of Choi is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`
`
`The reproduced portion of Figure 4 of Choi, above, is the lower section of an end
`
`view of the injection molding machine showing the clamping assemblies and
`
`rotational mechanism. Ex. 1003, 4:6–9. The dotted lines in Figure 4 indicate
`
`movement of a rotational mechanism 68 that synchronously rotates the pistons 44
`
`of the clamping assemblies 22 to bring strips 49 of teeth 48 into alignment with
`
`strips 39 of teeth 38 prior to the application of a clamping force on the platens 12
`
`and 14. Id. at 7:53–8:9.
`
`E. Incorporation by Reference
`
`In remanding this case, the Federal Circuit explained that “Glaesener
`
`identifies with sufficient particularity what it incorporates from Choi.” Husky, 838
`
`F.3d 1236, 1248–49. This is true even though “Choi does not recite either of the
`
`words ‘pineapple’ or ‘toothed-ring’” because “Choi explicitly identifies toothed
`
`components when discussing its securing/clamping assemblies, i.e., its [only]
`
`locking mechanism.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002; Ex. 1003, 5:40–6:5, Fig. 3A). The
`
`Federal Circuit concludes that “Glaesener’s two paragraphs, ¶ 35 and ¶ 49,
`
`15
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00290
`Patent 7,670,536 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`accordingly work in concert to incorporate at least some portions of Choi.” Id.
`
`Ultimately, the Federal Circuit explains that Glaesener incorporates Choi “for
`
`purposes of anticipation” and it is “of no consequence” whether Glaesener
`
`incorporates the rest of Choi. Id. at 1249.
`
`Patent Owner argues that the Federal Circuit held only that “the toothed
`
`components of the piston (44a) and tie bar (20a), shown in Figure 3A, and
`
`discussed at 5:40–6:5 is incorporated into Glaesener.” PO Remand Br. 6.
`
`According to Patent Owner, to find any more of Choi incorporated “would go
`
`beyond the Federal Circuit’s directive and analysis.” Id. Petitioner, on the other
`
`hand, argues that the Federal Circuit held that Glaesener incorporates “all portions
`
`of Choi that a skilled artisan would understand describe how to use the Choi Lock
`
`with a platen, in particular, the portions of Choi cited by Athena during trial.” Pet.
`
`Remand Br. 3.
`
`We are not persuaded that, for purposes of this Decision, there is a
`
`meaningful difference between the positions of the two parties. To the extent that
`
`Patent Owner’s proposal strictly limits the portions of Choi incorporated by
`
`reference into Glaesener to those explicitly referred to in the Federal Circuit
`
`decision, we disagree. Instead, we agree with Petitioner’s reading of the Federal
`
`Circuit decision. Accordingly, we will rely, for our anticipation analysis below, on
`
`all portions of Choi that a skilled artisan would understand describe how to use the
`
`disclosed lock, as shown in Figure 3A, with a platen.5
`
`F. Anticipation by Glaesener/Choi
`
`Petitioner contends that Glaesener/Choi anticipates claims 2, 3, 17, and 19.
`
`Pet. 32–44. We have reviewed Petitioner’s explanation identifying where
`
`
`5 For the rest of this Decision, the combination of Glaesener with these portions of
`Choi will be referred to as “Glaesener/Choi”
`
`16
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00290
`Patent 7,670,536 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`Glaesener/Choi describes each limitation of claims 1–3, 12, and 17–19 along with
`
`the proffered testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Mr. Link. Pet. 32–40; Pet.
`
`Remand Br. 5–9; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 23–30, 44–55. We have also reviewed Patent
`
`Owner’s argument and evidence that Petitioner’s contentions are deficient. PO
`
`Resp. 16, 17, 39–50 (Paper 24); PO Remand Br. 7–10.
`
`1. Independent Claims 1, 12, and 18
`
`The Petition alleges that each limitation of independent claims 1, 12, and 18
`
`would have been understood to be disclosed by Glaesener/Choi. Pet. 32–39. In its
`
`Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner contends that Glaesener/Choi fails to
`
`describe the movable rod limitation and the relatively higher/lower flex zone
`
`limitations. PO Resp. 44–48. Each of Patent Owner’s arguments relating to
`
`limitations recited by the independent claims, however, rely on proposed claim
`
`constructions inconsistent with the constructions adopted in the Final Decision. Id.
`
`Patent Owner does not renew these arguments in post-remand briefing. PO
`
`Remand Br. 7–10.
`
`We agree with, and adopt, Petitioner’s assertions that Glaesener/Choi
`
`discloses each of the limitations of independent claims 1, 12, and 18. In particular,
`
`we find that Glaesener/Choi discloses: (1) the lock of a molding system having tie
`
`bar 20 (a rod), and platen 50 (Ex. 1002, ¶ 50; Ex. 1003, 4:63–5:7, Figs. 1–6B);
`
`(2) securing/clamping assembly 22 that moves tie bar 20 from a clamped
`
`(stretched) position to a released position (Ex. 1003, 5:42–58, 6:57–62, 10:60–65,
`
`11:16–25, 13:39–46, Fig. 3A; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 28–30); and (3) teeth 48, which are
`
`associated with platen 50, and teeth 38 and 48 that are cooperatively operable to
`
`move between a lockable condition (the teeth are aligned) and an unlockable
`
`condition (the teeth are not aligned) (Ex. 1003, 6:65–7:4, 7:55–67, Fig. 6A, 6B;
`
`Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 28–30).
`
`17
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00290
`Patent 7,670,536 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`With respect to the relative flex zones of the platen, we are persuaded that
`
`Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Glaesener/Choi’s
`
`platen 50 includes zones equivalent to those claimed and that Glaesener/Choi’s
`
`teeth 38 and 48 are engagable within the relatively lower flex zone of platen 50.
`
`Pet. 32–35; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 27, 44–55. In particular, we agree with Petitioner’s
`
`assertion that Glaesener/Choi teaches that “the portions of the platen 50 adjacent
`
`each bore 14 that coincide with ribs 40 and gussets 42 experience a relatively
`
`lower flex than portions of the platen 50 that do not coincide with the ribs 40 and
`
`gussets 42 during clamping.” Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 27). Mr. Link
`
`corroborates this assertion, explaining that he supervised a 3D computer modeling
`
`and finite element analysis to predict the deformation of Glaesener’s platen 50
`
`using Choi’s lock member. Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 44–55; see Pet. 33–35. According to Mr.
`
`Link, he regularly relies upon such analyses. Ex. 1006 ¶ 44. Moreover, Mr. Link
`
`describes, in some depth, the process followed, tools used, and assumptions made
`
`for the analysis. Id. at 45–55. We find Mr. Link’s testimony, including his
`
`description of the finite element analysis and its results, credible. Patent Owner
`
`does not direct us to any evidence to the contrary. Thus, we determine that
`
`Petitioner has provided sufficient evidence to show that Glaesener/Choi necessarily
`
`discloses engagement within the relatively lower flex zone, as required by the
`
`claims.
`
`Patent Owner argues, post-remand, that, “[i]n its Final Written Decision, the
`
`Board correctly found that ‘even when considered as one reference’ it was ‘not
`
`persuaded that Petitioner has met its burden to show that various portions of Choi
`
`and Glaesener, on which it relies, are combined in the same way as recited in the
`
`challenged claims.’” PO Remand Br. 10 (quoting Final Dec. 30–31). According
`
`to Patent Owner, nothing in the Board’s decision on Petitioner’s request for
`
`rehearing of the Final Decision or the Federal Circuit’s opinion “require the Board
`
`18
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00290
`Patent 7,670,536 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`to reverse its prior analysis on this point.” Id. Thus, Patent Owner contends that
`
`Petitioner has still failed to show that Glaesener discloses its platen and Choi’s
`
`lock arranged as in claims 1, 12, and 18. Id.
`
`Contrary to Patent Owner’s assertion, the Federal Circuit’s holding negates
`
`our determination, in the Final Decision, that Petitioner has not met its burden to
`
`show that “the various portions of Choi and Glaesener, on which it relies, are
`
`combined in the same way as recited in the challenged claims.” Final Dec. 31.
`
`The Final Decision explains that this determination was based on our
`
`understanding that (1) Petitioner “does not explain how the relied upon elements of
`
`Choi’s device secure the tie-bar nuts of Glaesener to real wall 16 of Glaesener’s
`
`platen,” (2) Choi does not use the term “pineapple and toothed-ring mechanism,”
`
`and (3) “Petitioner does not provide persuasive evidence as to what part of Choi is
`
`included in the term ‘pineapple and toothed-ring mechanism.’” Id. at 30–31. The
`
`Federal Circuit, however, disagreed, holding that a reasonably skilled artisan
`
`would understand Glaesener’s use of the term “pineapple and toothed-ring” to refer
`
`to the locking mechanism described in Choi. Husky, 838 F.3d at 1249. Given this
`
`knowledge of the person of ordinary skill in the art, we determine Petitioner has
`
`provided sufficient evidence to show that Glaesener discloses its platen and Choi’s
`
`locking mechanism arranged in the same way as recited in claims 1, 12, and 18.
`
`See Pet. 32–39; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 25–30, 44–55.
`
`Accordingly, we are persuaded Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of
`
`the evidence, that Glaesener/Choi anticipates independent claims 1, 12, and 18.
`
`2. Dependent Claims 2, 3, 17, and 19
`
`Dependent claims 3, 17, and 19 each add a limitation requiring that
`
`“movement of the rod to the released position by the clamp assembly creates a gap
`
`between the lock member and the complementary lock member” “to reduce wear
`
`therebetween when they move between” the lockable and unlockable conditions.
`
`19
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00290
`Patent 7,670,536 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, 16:33–37, 18:1–5, 18:18–22. Claim 2, similarly, requires “maintaining a
`
`gap between the lock member and the complementary lock member during
`
`movement of the lock between the lockable condition and the unlockable
`
`condition,” and also requires that “the rod is biased towards the released position.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 16:28–32.
`
`In the Petition, Petitioner refers to claims 2, 3, 17, and 19 as the “Gap
`
`Claims” and alleges that each of their recited limitations would have been
`
`understood to be disclosed by Glaesener/Choi. Pet. 39–40. In its Patent Owner
`
`Response, Patent Owner contends that Glaesener/Choi fails to disclose “biasing” as
`
`recited by claim 2 and “movement of the rod . . . creates a gap . . . to reduce wear”
`
`as required by all of the Gap Claims. PO Resp. 49–50. Patent Owner reiterates
`
`these arguments in its post-remand briefing. PO Remand Br. 7–10.
`
`With respect to claim 2’s biasing requirement, we agree with Petitioner that
`
`“Choi discloses that the tie bar 20 (i.e., the ‘rod’) is biased toward a released
`
`position when the cavity 65a is filled with fluid.” Pet. 39–40. Glaesener/Choi
`
`discloses that clamping pressure is released by (1) releasing hydraulic pressure
`
`from space 66a, thus removing the “clamping pressure against surface 62a of
`
`piston 44a,” and (2) “applying hydraulic fluid under pressure in cavity 65a against
`
`surface 67a of piston 44a,” thus maintaining engagement between pistons 44 and
`
`time bar 20 and “power[ing] in the backward direction” the securing/clamping
`
`assemblies. Ex. 1003, 6:57–65, 14:26–37, Fig. 3A; Ex. 1006 ¶ 30.6 Glaesener
`
`
`6 Patent Owner argues, in post-remand briefing, that “Petitioner improperly sought
`to bolster its position in reply, including citing to Choi at . . . 14:26–31.” PO
`Remand Br. 7. To the extent Patent Owner is arguing that we may not rely on this
`portion of Choi to support disclosure of biasing, we do not agree. Petitioner was
`properly responding to arguments made by Patent Owner in its response. Paper 31,
`12; see PO Resp. 48–49. Moreover, at this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner
`
`20
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00290
`Patent 7,670,536 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`/Choi, thus, discloses a tendency, caused by pressure on piston 44, to return to a
`
`released position—“biased towards the released position”—as recited in claim 2.
`
`Patent Owner argues to the contrary, asserting that Glaesener/Choi’s short
`
`burst of hydraulic fluid does not show biasing as claimed because it is only used to
`
`“break the two mold halves apart at the end of a mold cycle” known as a “mold
`
`break.” PO Remand Br. 8. According to Patent Owner, Glaesener/Choi’s “mold
`
`break” “does not occur during the timeframe required by the claim (during
`
`movement of the lock from a lockable to unlockable condition).” Patent Owner
`
`asserts that the Gap Claims require “the gap to be maintained or created . . . after
`
`the molds have completely separated” and that Glaesener/Choi’s burst of hydraulic
`
`fluid “takes place after the mold has been injected.” Id. at 8–9. Patent Owner also
`
`argues that “mold break” activity is distinguished from biasing in the ’536 patent.
`
`PO Remand Br. at 8.
`
`We do not agree that the recited “during movement of the lock between the
`
`lockable condition and the unlockable condition” is limited to the time “after the
`
`molds have completely separated.” The ’536 patent discloses that in both the
`
`“lockable” and “unlockable” conditions the mold portions can be in the gap closed
`
`position. See Ex. 1001, Fig. 5C (showing the “unlocked” condition with mold
`
`portions closed), Fig. 6C (showing the “lockable condition” with mold portions
`
`closed), 7:41–46, 12:32–55. Moreover, Figures 10A, B, and C, reproduced side-
`
`by-side below, with annotations as described above, depict clamp assembly 102 in
`
`a “post mold break condition.” Id. at 7:59–61.
`
`
`has had ample time to respond to this argument, including in its post-remand
`briefing.
`
`21
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00290
`Patent 7,670,536 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Fig. 10A shows the claimed locking mechanism in “lockable condition” where
`
`“mold break has occurred.” Ex. 1001, Fig. 10A, 15:18–25. At this point, the gap
`
`between the teeth is visible, but the mold portions are still closed. Id. Similarly,
`
`Fig. 10B shows