UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`—————————————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`—————————————
`
`
`JOHN CRANE, INC., JOHN CRANE
`PRODUCTION SOLUTIONS, INC. &
`JOHN CRANE GROUP CORP.,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`FINALROD IP, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`—————————————
`
`IPR No. IPR2016-00521
`U.S. Patent No. 8,851,162
`
`—————————————
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 311 & 37 C.F.R. 42.101
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00521 - U.S. Patent No. 8,851,162
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................... i 
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iv 
`EXHIBIT LIST ........................................................................................................ vi 
`I.  MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8) ................................................. 1 
`A.  Real Party-In Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) .............................................. 1 
`B.  Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) ...................................................... 1 
`C.  Counsel & Service Information (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3)-(4)) ..................... 1 
`II.  PAYMENT OF FEES (37 C.F.R. § 42.103) ..................................................... 2 
`III.  STANDING (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)) ................................................................ 2 
`IV.  INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 2 
`V. 
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)) & RELIEF
`REQUESTED (37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(1)) ................................................................... 3 
`VI.  BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR THE ’162 PATENT ........................ 6 
`A.  Background of the Field of Art ..................................................................... 6 
`B.  Overview of the ’162 Patent .......................................................................... 9 
`C.  Prosecution History of the ’162 Patent ....................................................... 10 
`VII.  THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE
`CLAIM OF THE ’162 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE ........................................ 12 
`A.  Relevant Field of Art and Level of Ordinary Skill ..................................... 12 
`B.  Claim Constructions .................................................................................... 12 
`(a)  “the compressive forces create a force differential along the wedge
`system greater at the closed end of the fitting and decreasing toward the open
`end of the fitting” (Claims 1, 11, 20, 31) ......................................................... 13 
`(b)  “the maximum thickness is substantially constant and the minimum
`thickness is substantially constant” (Claims 9, 18, 27, 31) ............................. 14 
`C.  Legal Standard for Obviousness ................................................................. 16 
`D.  Ground 1: Claims 1, 6-11, 16-20, 25-28, 30 & 31 are invalid under 35
`U.S.C. §103 as obvious over the Rutledge ’431 Patent in view of Strandberg ... 17 
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00521 - U.S. Patent No. 8,851,162
`
`(a)  Overview of the Rutledge ’431 & Strandberg Patents ............................. 17 
`(b)  Reasons and Motivations to Combine ...................................................... 18 
`(c)  Independent Claims 1, 11, 20 & 31 .......................................................... 19 
`(d)  Independent Claim 31 ............................................................................... 35 
`(e)  Dependent Claims 6, 16, and 25 ............................................................... 40 
`(f)  Dependent Claim 7 ................................................................................... 41 
`(g)  Dependent Claims 8, 17, and 26 ............................................................... 41 
`(h)  Dependent Claims 9, 18, and 27 ............................................................... 42 
`(i)  Dependent Claims 10, 19, and 28 ............................................................. 44 
`(j)  Dependent Claim 30 ................................................................................. 45 
`E.  Ground 2: Claims 2-5, 12-15, 21-24, and 32-38 are invalid under 35 U.S.C.
`§103 as obvious over the Rutledge ’431 and Strandberg Patents further in view
`of Morrow ............................................................................................................ 47 
`(a)  Overview of Morrow ................................................................................ 47 
`(b)  Reasons and Motivations to Combine ...................................................... 48 
`(c)  Dependent Claims 2, 12, 21, 32, and 38 .................................................. 48 
`(d)  Dependent Claim 33 ................................................................................. 50 
`(e)  Dependent Claims 3, 13, 22, 34, and 35 .................................................. 51 
`(f)  Dependent Claims 4, 14, 23, and 36 ......................................................... 52 
`(g)  Dependent Claims 5, 15, 24, and 37 ......................................................... 54 
`F.  Ground 3: Claims 29 and 39 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §103 as obvious
`over the Rutledge ’431 and Strandberg Patents further in view of Iwasaki ........ 55 
`(a)  Overview of Iwasaki ................................................................................. 55 
`(b)  Reasons and Motivations to Combine ...................................................... 56 
`(c)  Dependent Claim 29 ................................................................................. 56 
`(d)  Dependent Claim 39 ................................................................................. 58 
`G.  Ground 4: Claim 40 is invalid under 35 U.S.C. §103 as obvious over the
`Rutledge ’431 and Strandberg Patents further in view Rutledge ’560 ................ 58 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00521 - U.S. Patent No. 8,851,162
`
`(a)  Overview of the Rutledge ’560 Patent ..................................................... 58 
`(b)  Reasons and Motivation to Combine ....................................................... 59 
`(c)  Dependent Claim 40 ................................................................................. 59 
`VIII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 60 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00521 - U.S. Patent No. 8,851,162
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`CASES
`Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp.,
`320 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .............................................................. 28, 32, 49
`
`Page(s)
`
`In re Cuozzo Speed Techs.,
`793 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 12
`
`In re Paulsen,
`30 F.3d 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ............................................................................ 16
`
`In re Preda,
`401 F.2d 825 (CCPA 1968) ................................................................................ 16
`
`In re Schreiber,
`128 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .............................................................. 28, 32, 49
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................ 16
`
`Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc.,
`336 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .................................................................... 28, 49
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 12
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ..................................................................................................... 5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................................................................................passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 .................................................................................................. 11, 13
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ......................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15 ....................................................................................................... 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00521 - U.S. Patent No. 8,851,162
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22 ....................................................................................................... 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ................................................................................................... 12
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.101 ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ..................................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ................................................................................................. 2, 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00521 - U.S. Patent No. 8,851,162
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`Case No. IPR2016-00521
`U.S. Patent No. 8,851,162 (“’162 Patent”)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,851,162 File History
`U.S. Patent No. 6,193,431 (“Rutledge ’431 Patent”)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,475,839 (“Strandberg”)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,662,774 (“Morrow”).
`U.S. Patent No. 8,113,277 (“Rutledge ’277 Patent”)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,822,201 (“Iwasaki”)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,919,560 (“Rutledge ’560 Patent”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,253,946 (“Watkins”)
`Declaration of Gary R. Wooley
`Side-by-Side Comparison of the ’162 Patent claims
`U.S. Patent No. 4,401,396 (“McKay”)
`U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE32,865 (“Rutledge ’865 Patent”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,730,938 (“Rutledge ’938 Patent”)
`Edward L. Hoffman, Finite Element Analysis of Sucker Rod
`Couplings with Guidelines for Improving Fatigue Life, Sandia
`National Laboratories, (Jul. 11, 1997) (“Hoffman Article”).
`U.S. Patent No. 8,062,463 (“Rutledge ’463 Patent”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,886,484 (“Thomas”)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,653,953 (“Anderson”)
`Printout of Fiberod History from “https://superod.com/about-us/”
`Press Release for Smith’s purchase of Fiberod (March 19, 2008)
`Asset Purchase Agreement Between Smiths and Fiberod (March
`2008)
`Intellectual Property Disclosure Schedule from Asset Purchase
`Agreement
`
`Exhibit
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`1008
`1009
`1010
`1011
`1012
`1013
`1014
`1015
`
`1016
`1017
`1018
`1019
`1020
`1021
`
`1022
`
`
`
`
`
`
` vi
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00521 - U.S. Patent No. 8,851,162
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.101, the undersigned, on
`
`behalf of John Crane, Inc., John Crane Production Solutions, Inc., and John Crane
`
`Group Corp. (“John Crane” or “Petitioners”), respectfully request inter partes
`
`review of claims 1 – 40 of U.S. Patent No. 8,851,162 (“the ’162 Patent”, Exhibit
`
`1001), filed on August 9, 2011 and issued October 7, 2014, to Russell P. Rutledge,
`
`et al., and currently assigned to Finalrod IP, LLC (“Finalrod” or “Patent Owner”).
`
`As demonstrated herein, there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail
`
`with respect to at least one challenged claim.
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8)
`A. Real Party-In Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`
`Petitioners, John Crane, Inc., John Crane Production Solutions, Inc., and
`
`John Crane Group Corp., are the real parties-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`
`The ’162 Patent is currently the subject of the following litigation: Finalrod
`
`IP, LLC v. John Crane, Inc., et al., Case No. 7-15-cv-00097 (W.D. Tex. 2015).
`
`C. Counsel & Service Information (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3)-(4))
`
`Lead Counsel: Dion M. Bregman (Reg. No. 45,645). Back-up Counsel: Jason C.
`
`White (Reg. No. 42,223); Ryan B. McBeth (Reg. No. 69,817); Nicholas A.
`
`Restauri (Reg. No. 71,783); Matthew C. Lee (Reg. No. 58,189); Nicholaus E.
`
`Floyd (Reg. No. 74,438).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00521 - U.S. Patent No. 8,851,162
`
`Electronic Service Information: JohnCrane-FinalrodIPRs@morganlewis.com.
`
`Mail: Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, 2 Palo Alto Square, 3000 El Camino Real,
`
`Palo Alto, CA 94306. Telephone: 650.843.4000; Facsimile: 650.843.4001
`
`II.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES (37 C.F.R. § 42.103)
`
`Petitioners authorize the USPTO to charge Deposit Account No. 50-0310 for
`
`the fees set in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) for this Petition, and further authorizes payment
`
`for any additional fees to be charged to this Deposit Account.
`
`III. STANDING (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a))
`
`Petitioners certify that the ’162 Patent is available for inter partes review
`
`and that Petitioners are not barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes
`
`review challenging the patent claims on the grounds identified in this petition.
`
`IV.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`In 1978, Russ Rutledge, a named inventor on the ’162 Patent, founded a
`
`company called Fiberflex, Inc. In 1985, Mr. Rutledge subsequently founded a
`
`second company called Fiberglass Technologies, Inc. Fiberglass Technologies,
`
`Inc. later acquired Fiberflex, Inc. and formed a company called The Fiber
`
`Composite Company, Inc. or “Fiberod.” See Ex. 1019.
`
`In 2008, Petitioners, John Crane, acquired the Fiberod company. See Ex.
`
`1021. As part of this acquisition, Petitioners purchased several Rutledge patents
`
`from Fiberod including the prior art Rutledge ’431 Patent (Ex. 1003), Rutledge
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00521 - U.S. Patent No. 8,851,162
`
`’277 Patent (Ex. 1007), Rutledge ’865 Patent (Ex. 1013), Rutledge ’938 Patent
`
`(Ex. 1014), and Rutledge ’463 Patent (Ex. 1016), in addition to others (“the prior
`
`Rutledge patents”). See Ex. 1020; Ex; 1021; Ex. 1022. Under the purchase
`
`agreement, Mr. Rutledge agreed not to compete with John Crane for three years,
`
`i.e., until 2011. See Ex. 1021. On August 9, 2011, shortly after the expiration of
`
`the agreement, Mr. Rutledge filed a U.S. patent application which ultimately issued
`
`into the ’162 Patent challenged by this petition. Ex. 1001.
`
`On June 29, 2015, Finalrod, Mr. Rutledge’s new company, sued John Crane
`
`in W.D. Texas alleging infringement of the ’162 Patent. As set forth in detail
`
`herein, the ’162 Patent claims a device having similar features as disclosed by the
`
`prior Rutledge patents that Mr. Rutledge sold to John Crane in 2008.
`
`V.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)) &
`RELIEF REQUESTED (37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(1))
`Petitioners request inter partes review of and challenges claims 1 –40 of the
`
`’162 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 103 on the grounds set forth below, and requests
`
`that all these claims be cancelled. This petition explains in detail the reasons why
`
`claims 1 – 40 are unpatentable under the relevant statutory grounds. Additional
`
`explanation and support for each ground of challenge are set forth in the Expert
`
`Declaration of Gary R. Wooley (Ex. 1010).
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1)-(2), Petitioners identify the following
`
`challenges and statutory grounds for each challenge:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00521 - U.S. Patent No. 8,851,162
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1, 6-11, 16-20, 25-28, 30, and 31 are invalid under 35
`
`U.S.C. §103 as obvious over U.S. Patent No. 6,193,431 (“Rutledge ’431 Patent,”
`
`Ex. 1003) in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,475,839 (“Strandberg”; Ex. 1004);
`
`Ground 2: Claims 2-5, 12-15, 21-24, and 32-38 are invalid under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§103 as obvious over the Rutledge ’431 Patent and Strandberg Patent, further in
`
`view of U.S. Patent No. 4,662,774 (“Morrow,” Ex. 1005);
`
`Ground 3: Claims 29 and 39 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §103 as obvious
`
`over the Rutledge ’431 Patent and Strandberg Patent, further in view of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 4,822,201 (“Iwasaki”; Ex. 1007); and
`
`Ground 4: Claim 40 is invalid under 35 U.S.C. §103 as obvious over the
`
`Rutledge ’431 Patent and Strandberg Patent, further in view of U.S. Patent No.
`
`4,919,560 (“Rutledge ’560 Patent”; Ex. 1008).
`
`The ’162 Patent (Ex. 1001) was filed on August 9, 2011 and does not claim
`
`priority benefit of any earlier filed application. As such, the priority date of the
`
`’162 Patent is August 9, 2011, and the pre-AIA Act applies.
`
`The Rutledge ’431 Patent (Ex. 1003) was filed May 24, 1999 and issued
`
`February 27, 2001. Strandberg (Ex. 1004) was filed April 7, 1983 and issued
`
`October 9, 1984. Morrow (Ex. 1005) was filed February, 27, 1984 and issued May
`
`5, 1987. U.S. Patent No. 8,113,277 (“Rutledge ’277 Patent”; Ex. 1006) was filed
`
`on March 5, 2007 and published September 11, 2008. Iwasaki (Ex. 1007) was
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00521 - U.S. Patent No. 8,851,162
`
`filed June 15, 1987 and issued April 18, 1989. The Rutledge ’560 Patent (Ex.
`
`1008) was filed April 28, 1989 and issued April 24, 1990. U.S. Patent No.
`
`4,401,396 (“McKay”; Ex. 1009) was filed February 23, 1981 and issued August
`
`30, 1983. U.S. Patent No. 5,253,946 (“Watkins”; Ex. 1012) was filed May 20,
`
`1992 and issued October 19, 1993. U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE 32,865 (“Rutledge
`
`’865 Patent”; Ex. 1013) issued February 14, 1989, and is a Reissue of U.S. Patent
`
`4,360,288, which was filed September 17, 1979 and issued November 23, 1982.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,730,938 (“Rutledge ’938 Patent”; Ex. 1014) was filed March 5,
`
`2007 and issued June 7, 2010. Edward L. Hoffman, Finite Element Analysis of
`
`Sucker Rod Couplings with Guidelines for Improving Fatigue Life, Sandia National
`
`Laboratories, (Jul. 11, 1997) (“Hoffman Article”; Ex. 1015) was published
`
`September 1997. U.S. Patent No. 8,062,463 (“Rutledge ’463 Patent”; Ex. 1016)
`
`was filed March 5, 2007 and published September 11, 2008. U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,886,484 (“Thomas”; Ex. 1017) was filed February 12, 2003 and published
`
`August 12, 2004. U.S. Patent No. 4,653,953 (“Anderson”; Ex. 1018) was filed
`
`January 24, 1986 and issued March 31, 1987. Each of the foregoing exhibits
`
`qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b), as they issued or were
`
`published more than a year prior the ’162 Patent’s priority date of August 9, 2011.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00521 - U.S. Patent No. 8,851,162
`
`VI. BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR THE ’162 PATENT
`A. Background of the Field of Art
`A sucker rod pump is an oil extracting device that operates to bring below-
`
`ground oil to the earth’s surface. See Ex. 1015,
`
`at 9, Figure 1 (reproduced with coloring added).
`
`Generally, in order to recover oil from deep oil
`
`wellbores, a bore is drilled into the ground and a
`
`casing and tubing (yellow) is inserted into the
`
`bore. A reciprocating pump, such as a horse
`
`head pump (green), is used to actuate the pump
`
`to recover oil from the reservoir. A sucker rod
`
`(blue) is connected to the reciprocating pump at
`
`one end and is connected at its end to a travelling valve that reciprocates within a
`
`standing valve that is secured within the wellbore. “Typically, a series of sucker
`
`rods are connected end to end to form a sucker rod string, which extends from the
`
`pump drive . . . .” Ex 1006, 1:61 – 2:17. The sucker rod is typically fiberglass.
`
`The ’162 Patent is directed to an end fitting designed to be used in
`
`connection with oil sucker rod strings. Ex. 1001, Abstract. End fittings, such as
`
`those claimed by the ’162 Patent, are commonly used in the oil industry to connect
`
`two fiberglass sucker rods to each other end-to-end in order to form a string of
`
`sucker rods that may be used for oil extraction. Ex. 1010, ¶¶ 13-16; Ex. 1001, Fig.
`
`
`6
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00521 - U.S. Patent No. 8,851,162
`
`1. Given that the string of sucker rods can, at times, exceed a thousand feet in
`
`length, a well-known and common understanding in the industry is that end fittings
`
`must withstand “mechanical forces acting on the rod/adhesive/metal interface, . . .
`
`compressive forces, such as during a stroke of the pump either up or down, and
`
`negative load forces.” Ex. 1006, 7:51-54; see also Ex. 1010, ¶¶ 13-18.
`
`For decades, the industry standard has been to use fiberglass sucker rods to
`
`reduce the weight associated with traditional steel sucker rods. Ex. 1008, 1:21-24;
`
`Ex. 1010, ¶¶ 16-18. However, one problem to be solved is that “[f]iberglass is just
`
`difficult to grab a hold of and hold securely and it is very important that the
`
`structure have such integrity as to substantially eliminate fiberglass rod-to-end
`
`fitting parting . . . .” Ex. 1012, 1:51-54. In addition, it was well-understood that
`
`“[d]amaging stress concentrations in the area of rod entry into a fitting and within
`
`the rod end fittings must be minimized . . . .” Id. at 1:56-58; see also Ex. 1010, ¶¶
`
`18-35 (providing overview of force concentrations encountered
`
`during use). One of the earliest concepts for minimizing stress
`
`concentrations was to use a wedge design, wherein wedge-shaped
`
`gaps (yellow in the portion of Figure 25 of Ex. 1003 shown to the
`
`right) are formed between the inner wall of the steel end fitting
`
`(blue) and the fiberglass sucker rod (green). Ex. 1003, Fig. 25
`
`(references omitted and coloring added). The wedges are filled with an epoxy,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00521 - U.S. Patent No. 8,851,162
`
`such that when the epoxy hardens, “the angle of the taper of the respective pockets
`
`[] relieve stress on the epoxy . . . filling space between the rod 11 and each fitting
`
`12.” Ex. 1012, 2:63 – 3:1 (emphasis added); Ex. 1010, ¶¶ 36-43. Thus, it was
`
`well-known in the industry that the angle of the taper of the leading and trailing
`
`edges of each wedge, which affects wedge length, as well as many other features
`
`of the wedge, could be varied to affect the distribution of force on each wedge-
`
`shaped portion. See Ex. 1012, 3:1-14 (describing embodiments having various
`
`angles of taper); Ex. 1010, ¶¶ 38-43. A principal motive in wedge design is to vary
`
`these wedge features in order to distribute compressive stress and avoid spiking of
`
`compressive stresses at any one location, which can lead to premature failure. See
`
`Ex. 1010, ¶¶ 40-43 (describing that it was general knowledge to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (“POSITA”) to modify various
`
`wedge design features to distribute compressive forces). A POSITA would have
`
`been aware of these general force considerations and the common types of
`
`problems that must be addressed in any end fitting design that utilizes wedges. See
`
`Ex. 1010, ¶¶ 36-39 (discussing problems to address during sucker rod use,
`
`including “decrease the severity of the stress concentrations”), ¶¶ 40-43 (discussing
`
`factors that lead to stress concentration), ¶¶ 44-46 (discussing the naturally uneven
`
`distribution of forces on a wedge system), ¶¶ 47-49 (discussing well-known
`
`principles of wedge design to alter wedge shape and direct compressive forces).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00521 - U.S. Patent No. 8,851,162
`
`B. Overview of the ’162 Patent
`The ’162 Patent issued from one of a dozen patent applications relating to
`
`end fittings and wedge designs filed by members of the Rutledge family over the
`
`last 30 years. The ’162 Patent is directed to a wedge design for sucker rod end
`
`fittings. Ex. 1001, Abstract. As illustrated in detail in the below claim charts, the
`
`’162 Patent claims a combination of well-known and obvious design properties
`
`that were previously disclosed in the prior Rutledge patents, as well as other end
`
`fitting prior art. See Ex. 1010, ¶¶ 13-49 (discussing background knowledge of a
`
`POSITA), ¶¶ 103-201 (discussing each claim in view of prior art).
`
`The ’162 Patent has four independent claims, each having similar dependent
`
`claim sets. Independent claims 1, 11, and 20 are apparatus claims that recite
`
`features of a sucker rod end fitting, while
`
`independent claim 31 is a method for constructing
`
`a sucker rod end fitting. Regardless of form, the
`
`four independent claims sets are all directed to an
`
`end fitting design having three wedge cavities
`
`(shown in yellow to the right) at the interior
`
`surface of the end fitting (blue). Each wedge
`
`(yellow) has a longer leading edge (colored
`
`purple on middle wedge) facing the open end 106 of the end fitting that receives
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00521 - U.S. Patent No. 8,851,162
`
`the sucker rod, and a shorter trailing edge (colored red on middle wedge) facing the
`
`closed end 104 of the end fitting. See Ex. 1001, Fig. 2 (annotated and modified to
`
`remove extraneous features) (colorization added by Petitioners throughout). The
`
`independent claims recite that the top wedge shape proximate the closed end 104
`
`of the end fitting receives greater compressive forces than the second, intermediate
`
`wedge, and that the second, intermediate wedge receives greater compressive
`
`forces then the third, bottom wedge near the open end 106. Independent claims 1,
`
`11, and 20 also recite that each of the three wedges has an “apex forming a
`
`perimeter of equal dimension within the cavity that is the narrowest part of the
`
`cavity associated with each wedge shaped portion.” In other words, the narrowest
`
`parts of each of the wedge portions have “equal [width] dimension”, i.e., all
`
`wedges have the same inner diameter at their narrowest point. Independent claim
`
`31 is similar, but recites that the epoxy filling the wedge shaped portions has
`
`substantially constant maximum and minimum thickness across all three wedges.
`
`C.
`Prosecution History of the ’162 Patent
`The ’162 Patent was filed on August 09, 2011, over 32 years after Mr.
`
`Rutledge’s first application (Ex. 1013) related to wedge designs for end fittings.
`
`Ex. 1002, at 95-99. While Applicant disclosed each of the prior art patents cited
`
`herein to the Office, see Ex. 1002, at 72-73, the Examiner issued a single Non-final
`
`Office action on April 09, 2014 containing only drawing objections and rejections
`
`
`
`
` 10
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00521 - U.S. Patent No. 8,851,162
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 112, but otherwise indicating that all of the claims were
`
`allowable. Id. at 58-63. Applicants cured the objections in a May 19, 2014
`
`response and the application was allowed. Id. at 9, 26-39.
`
`The Examiner’s reasons for allowance were that:
`
`“The prior art of record does not teach or disclose [an] end fitting for a
`sucker rod with [a] first wedge shaped portion for receiving
`compressive forces that are greater than compressive forces at a
`second wedge portion and the second wedge portion receiving
`compressive forces that are greater than compressive forces at a third
`wedge so compressive forces create a force differential along the
`wedge system that is greater at a closed end of the fitting and
`decreases toward an open end of the fitting.”
`Id. at 62 (emphasis added). However, the reasons for allowance are based
`
`entirely on functional or intended use language that should have been
`
`accorded little to no patentable weight for the apparatus claims. The
`
`apparatus by itself does not include this purported force differential. Instead,
`
`it purportedly only occurs in use when connected to another sucker rod and
`
`when load is applied. Moreover, the claimed force difference is the natural
`
`result of any sucker rod end fitting design that has wedges, and was clearly
`
`disclosed in prior art patents by the same inventor. Ex. 1010, ¶¶ 44-46, 124.
`
`Applicants never corrected the Examiner’s reasons for allowance, and the
`
`application issued as the ’162 Patent on May 17, 2014. Ex. 1002, at 1.
`
`
`
`
` 11
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00521 - U.S. Patent No. 8,851,162
`
`VII. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE
`CLAIM OF THE ’162 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE
`
`A. Relevant Field of Art and Level of Ordinary Skill
`
`The ’162 Patent is directed to wedge designs for sucker rod end fittings. The
`
`relevant field of art therefore relates to the end fitting designs for sucker rods. See
`
`Ex. 1010, ¶¶ 67-68, 84. One of ordinary skill in the art for the ’162 Patent would
`
`have had at least 4 years of educational training in Mechanical Engineering or
`
`other similar fields, such as Civil Engineering or Petroleum Engineering, or
`
`equivalent field experience, plus at least two years’ experience in the design,
`
`development, or use of sucker rods and end fittings. Ex. 1010, ¶¶ 69-71.
`
`B. Claim Constructions
`
`A claim of an unexpired patent subject to inter partes review is given its
`
`“broadest reasonable construction [BRI] in light of the specification of the patent
`
`in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., 793 F.3d
`
`1268, 1276-79 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Under the BRI standard, “the claims must be
`
`interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. . . . This means that the
`
`words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is
`
`inconsistent with the specification.” MPEP § 2111.01.
`
`The BRI standard is distinct from that applied by District Courts. See
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Consequently, and
`
`solely for purposes of this review, Petitioners construe the claim language under
`
` 12
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00521 - U.S. Patent No. 8,851,162
`
`the BRI standard. Petitioners reserve the right to argue in litigation a different
`
`construction for any term, including all arguments arising under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`For terms not specifically construed, Petitioners apply the BRI of those terms.
`
`(a) “the compressive forces create a force differential along the
`wedge system greater at the closed end of the fitting and
`decreasing toward the open end of the fitting” (Claims 1, 11,
`20, 31)
`Claims 1, 11, 20, and 31 recite “the compressive forces create a force
`
`differential along the wedge system greater at the closed end of the fitting and
`
`decreasing toward the open end of the fitting.” As explained in connection with
`
`claim portion [1.6] and by Dr. Wooley, see Ex. 1010, ¶¶ 122-32, there are multiple
`
`interpretations of this limitation that would be “reasonable” to a POSITA, but the
`
`“broadest” reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification would be that
`
`“the radial compressive forces are greater toward the closed end of the end fitting
`
`and decrease toward the open end of the end fitting.” Ex. 1010, ¶¶ 75-78, 127.
`
`The ’162 Patent describes that “[t]he first wedge shaped portion 114A is
`
`proximate to the closed end 104 for receiving compressive forces that are greater
`
`than the compressive forces associated with the other wedged-shaped portions
`
`114B, C, etc.” Ex. 1001, 6:1-4. The ’162 Patent further describes that these
`
`“compressive forces” are “decreasing toward the open end 106 of the end fitting
`
`100.” Id., 6:14-16. The ’162 Patent does not provide any other detail on the
`
`“compressive forces.” A POSITA would understand that the actual forces acting
`
`
`
`
` 13
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00521 - U.S. Patent No. 8,851,162
`
`on a particular wedge will depend upon several factors, including the complex
`
`interaction between axial, radial, and circumferential forces encountered during
`
`use. Ex. 1010, ¶¶ 22-36, 123. Without more from the ’162 Patent and under the
`
`BRI standard, a POSITA would simply understand the term “compressive forces”
`
`as referring to radial compressive forces that are applied to the sucker rod when the
`
`wedges from the end fitting are squeezed inward by the end fitting when axial
`
`tensile load is applied to the sucker rod string during pumping. Id., ¶¶ 76-78, 123.
`
`Consistent with this understanding, the term “force differential” would then refer
`
`to the difference in radial compressive forces at the top of the wedge system (near
`
`the closed end of the end fitting) and at the bottom of the wedge system (near the
`
`open end of the end fitting). Id., ¶¶ 76-78, 127.
`
`For these reasons, the BRI of this claim limitation to a POSITA is that the
`
`“the radial compressive forces are greater toward the closed end of the end fitting
`
`and decrease toward the open end of the end fitting.”
`
`(b) “the maximum thickness is substantially constant and the
`minimum thickness is substantially constant” (Claims 9, 18,
`27, 31)
`Claims 9, 18, 27, and 31 recite that the epoxy between the wedge shaped
`
`portion and the fiber rod is uniform in thickness such that “the maximum thickness
`
`is substantially constant and the minimum thickness is substantially constant.” The
`
`’162 Patent specification describes the cavity 112 situated between the fiber
`
`
`
`
` 14
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00521 - U.S