`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TITEFLEX CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GOODSON HOLDINGS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00730 (Patent 7,562,448 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00731 (Patent 7,821,763 B2)
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: May 10, 2017
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, JUSTIN T. ARBES, and KIMBERLY
`McGRAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00730 (Patent 7,562,448 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00731 (Patent 7,821,763 B2)
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`JAMES DAY, ESQ.
`DEEPAK GUPTA, ESQ.
`Farella Braun & Martel LLP
`Russ Building
`235 Montgomery Street
`San Francisco, California 94101
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`TED BAROODY, ESQ.
`Carstens & Cahoon, LLP
`13760 Noel Road, Suite 900
`Dallas, Texas 75240
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday, May
`
`10, 2017, commencing at 10:02 a.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark
`Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Case IPR2016-00730 (Patent 7,562,448 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00731 (Patent 7,821,763 B2)
`
`
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE McGRAW: Good morning, everyone. Today we will
`hold oral hearing in two related inter partes review trials, IPR2016-00730,
`and IPR2016-00731 between Titeflex Corporation as Petitioner and
`Goodson Holdings, LLC as Patent Owner. I am Judge McGraw. To my left
`is Judge Arbes and to my right is Judge Deshpande.
`We will begin with the parties' appearances starting with
`Petitioner, please.
`MR. DAY: Good morning, Your Honors, James Day with Farella,
`Braun & Martel on behalf of Petitioner, Titeflex Corporation, and I am
`joined today by my partner, Deepak Gupta, also with Farella, Braun &
`Martel.
`
`MR. GUPTA: Good morning, Your Honors.
`JUDGE McGRAW: Patent Owner?
`MR. BAROODY: Good morning, Your Honors. Ted Baroody
`with Carstens & Cahoon on behalf of the Patent Owner, Goodson Holdings,
`LLC.
`
`JUDGE McGRAW: Welcome. We have set forth our procedure
`that we are going to follow today, but I will review it just to make sure we
`are all on the same page. As requested by the parties, the hearings for the
`730 and the 731 proceeding will be consolidated and will be conducted
`together. Each side will have 60 minutes to present their arguments. You
`
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00730 (Patent 7,562,448 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00731 (Patent 7,821,763 B2)
`
`can allocate the time between the two cases as you wish. We are not going
`to break up the transcript between the two cases. One transcript will be
`submitted in both cases and it will be part of the record of both.
`The Petitioner, of course, has the burden of proving
`unpatentability, so will argue first, followed by the Patent Owner. Petitioner
`may reserve rebuttal time, but may only use its time to rebut Patent Owner's
`arguments.
`Are there any questions before we begin?
`MR. DAY: No, Your Honor.
`JUDGE McGRAW: Okay, so we will get started with Petitioner.
`Mr. Day, do you wish to reserve any rebuttal time?
`MR. DAY: Yes, Your Honor. We expect to go for about 40
`minutes, maybe a bit less, and reserve the rest of our time for rebuttal, which
`Mr. Gupta will handle.
`Your Honor, I have hard copies of our slides, will that be helpful to
`the panel?
`JUDGE McGRAW: You can pass them up. Just hold on a
`moment.
`Whenever you're ready.
`MR. DAY: Thank you, Your Honor. Again, my name is James
`Day, I'm here on behalf of Petitioner, Titeflex Corporation, and we are going
`to be talking about two different related patents. First we have the '448
`patent, which issued first between the two. It relates to and it claims a
`method for protecting corrugated stainless steel tubing from electrical
`insults, say from a lightning strike. And it does it -- I'm looking here at slide
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00730 (Patent 7,562,448 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00731 (Patent 7,821,763 B2)
`
`2, which has some language from the abstract. It does it essentially by
`placing an electrical conductor on the outside of the tubing to provide an
`alternate path for current to go to ground, rather than having all the current
`go along the tubing, potentially damage the tubing, there's an external
`conductor that diverts the current.
`The '763 is a divisional, based on the same application that led to
`the '448. Instead of claiming a method as in the '448, the '763 claims the
`apparatus, essentially the tubing with the external conductor.
`And we're presenting and in our petition we set out an obviousness
`case, and that's what I'm going to talk through today, starting with the '448
`and getting into a little bit more detail. We see on slide 5, we've taken the
`two figures that show the embodiments of the lightning-protected tubing, the
`CSST, with the external conductor.
`In the upper left on slide 5 is figure 6A from the '448 patent, and
`you can see there's a wire that goes from one connector at one end of the
`tubing to a connector on the other end of the tubing, that creates this
`alternate path to ground. In figure 7B on the lower left side, there's a mesh
`that surrounds the tubing, the mesh creates the alternate path to ground.
`The '763 has the same specification, the figures are cleaned up a
`bit, but the same. There's 6A with the ground wire, 6B with the mesh, and in
`both cases, if an electric charge goes to ground, and we have a quote here
`from the '763 patent, obviously the same quote appears in both
`specifications, it talks about how that current from a lightning strike is sent
`to ground. The majority of the current is carried by the conductive wire
`rather than the CSST, and that prevents damage to the CSST.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00730 (Patent 7,562,448 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00731 (Patent 7,821,763 B2)
`
`
`Now, the first piece of prior art I want to talk about is Yamane.
`This is a Japanese patent application, and, frankly, it discloses the same
`invention as shown in figure 6A in the challenged patents. You see there's --
`in figure 1 here on slide 7, figure 1 of Yamane shows there's CSST
`corrugated stainless steel tubing, and there's an external wire or band-shaped
`conductive member. So that's the same wire that we saw in figure 6A of the
`challenged patents.
`And the description of how this invention works is strikingly
`similar to what we see in the challenged patents. It says, if there's a
`lightning strike, most of the lightning current produced by a discharge
`during a lightning strike is guided from this conductive member through the
`connecting joint, that's the connector, the end of the tubing, into the
`electroconductive equipment and to ground. So that there's virtually no
`effect on the tube body.
`So now if we start moving through the claim elements Yamane
`discloses lightning-protected tubing, that's what we're talking about. When
`we get to element (a), it talks affixing connectors to the two ends of the
`tubing using those connectors to connect the tubing to appliances. This is
`just reciting the way that you used CSST in the prior art.
`And Yamane talks about using corrugated stainless steel tubing in
`a gas supply system. We're talking about the same thing. To the extent it
`doesn't get into the details about how you connect CSST to an appliance,
`we've provided a prior art Titeflex Design Guide that does talk about CSST,
`the component parts, how it's installed, how it's tested, how it's used, and
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00730 (Patent 7,562,448 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00731 (Patent 7,821,763 B2)
`
`together certainly claim 1 element (a) is disclosed and there's no dispute on
`that point.
`So that takes us to element (b). Element (b) talks about coupling
`this conductive wire from one connector to the other, and in the institution
`decision, the panel construed this element according to its plain meaning.
`Essentially, I won't read the whole thing, but essentially coupling a
`conductive wire to the connectors at the ends of the gas tubing so that the
`connection allows electricity to flow directly from one connector to the other
`through the wire, through the conductive wire.
`And based on its plain meaning, Yamane certainly discloses this
`element, it talks about that conductive member, the thing highlighted in the
`conductive member on the exterior of the tubing may be connected directly
`to the connecting joint. That's the end connector. So we have the same
`thing.
`
`And there's really no dispute on this point under the board's present
`construction, what we'll talk about in a little bit later are some negative
`limitations that the Patent Owner has tried to use to distinguish Yamane and
`the other prior art, but we'll get to those, I think those are unsupported.
`Based on the Board's construction on the present construction, there's no
`dispute here. Yamane discloses element (b).
`When we get to element (c), the institution decision also construed
`this term based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, and again, I'm not
`going to read the whole thing, but essentially to mean a sufficient amount of
`current travels through this external conductor to prevent damage to the
`tubing. And that's exactly what Yamane discloses. The structure is the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00730 (Patent 7,562,448 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00731 (Patent 7,821,763 B2)
`
`same, and it discloses and explicitly states that most of the lightning current
`produced by a discharge travels through the conductor, the connecting joint,
`that's the end connector, again, the equipment to ground, so that there is
`virtually no effect on the tube body. The language is parallel.
`There's no dispute on the dependent claims, so I'm going to move
`quickly through element or claim 2 talks about CSST, both Yamane and the
`Design Guide talk about CSST. The Design Guide explicitly states that the
`end connectors are made of brass. Claims 4, 5 and 6 talk about using an
`electric -- sorry, using copper for the wire. This is an obvious design choice,
`as our expert witness, Dr. Rakov confirmed in his declaration. And, in fact,
`claim 6 talks about the external conductor being a single wire, and Yamane
`specifically states that you can have one conductive member.
`This brings us to claim 7, and while there's no dispute, let me take
`just a moment to talk about this. It says that that conductive wire of claim 1
`can be a mesh. So this is now that element -- embodiment shown in figure
`7B, the one with the mesh surrounding the tubing. And Yamane doesn't
`specifically talk about a mesh, but another prior art reference that we cite,
`Ohki, does. Ohki is another Japanese patent application, it has a very similar
`disclosure, there's some overlap in assignees and inventors, but the main
`difference is, instead of a conductive member, so a wire on the outside of the
`tubing, Ohki discloses the conductive layer that can be a metal mesh.
`And when you take that teaching and you add it to what we have in
`Yamane, you get the limitations of claim 7, and there's no dispute on that
`point.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00730 (Patent 7,562,448 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00731 (Patent 7,821,763 B2)
`
`
`So, Yamane and the Design Guide disclose every limitation of
`claims 1 through 6; claim 7 is disclosed if we add Ohki.
`So now let me get to the '763 patent. Here we've got two elements,
`these are both means plus function elements. And we start with (a),
`connecting means. Both parties agree this is a means plus function
`limitation. In the institution decision, the panel construed it as a means plus
`function limitation. There's really -- there's no dispute on that piece of this.
`And the Court correctly found that the function is, as stated in the claim
`language itself, coupling the tubing to gas lines and appliances, and the
`structure, so the corresponding structure, the piece that matters here, is the
`end connector 610 and 620. Those are the two connectors shown in figure
`6A and 6B. The patent talks about those being just ordinary CSST
`connectors, end connectors.
`And so between Yamane, which discloses connecting joints, which
`are the end connectors, and the Design Guide, which tells us that those end
`connectors are made of brass, which is a conductive material, we have
`element (a) and there is no dispute on that element.
`So, then we look at claim element (b). Again, both parties agree
`this is a means plus function limitation. The panel construed it as a means
`plus function limitation in the institution decision, and while I won't read the
`entire function, it's taken directly from the claim language, and in part at
`least, the function here is providing direct electrical contact between the
`connecting means at either end of the gas tubing, then carrying that current
`to ground to prevent damage to the tubing.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00730 (Patent 7,562,448 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00731 (Patent 7,821,763 B2)
`
`
`And the structure that corresponds to that function, or the
`structures are the wire 601 and the mesh 650 in figures 6A and 6B. Well, as
`we've discussed, Yamane discloses a conducting means because it discloses
`that same wire that connects the end connectors and diverts current from one
`connector to the other, creating an alternate path to ground and creating
`damage to the tubing.
`JUDGE McGRAW: As I understand Patent Owner's arguments,
`the prior art does not provide direct electrical contact between the
`connecting means because, in the event of a lightning strike, there's an
`electrical short and so the current travels over the CSST tube. Can you
`address that issue?
`MR. DAY: Right. So, that's incorrect. The -- an electrical short
`would require the current finding a more conductive or a less resistive path
`to ground. So that's what a short is, is you want current to go through one
`circuit, but because of a break in that circuit, it finds a different path to
`ground that you don't want.
`So in this case, a short would look like the current going along the
`conductor, then touching the stainless steel, and then continuing along the
`stainless steel. That's not the way the prior art works because the stainless
`steel is much less conductive than the external conductor. If the external
`conductor is copper or some other type of ground wire, so if it touches
`something that's much less conductive, the current is going to remain on the
`conductor.
`So this idea -- and this gets to what we're going to refer to as the no
`touching limitation, that you can't have one conductor touch another, is
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00730 (Patent 7,562,448 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00731 (Patent 7,821,763 B2)
`
`simply not supported -- first of all, it's not supported by the -- either of the
`patents, the '448 or the '763. Also it's not the way that any of the prior art
`references, or at least the way Yamane and Ohki discuss the way that they
`would operate. What they say is, the current will be diverted and if any --
`and if there's damage to the insulated layer, some current may get to the
`tubing, but it says most of the current will flow through the conductor.
`And this gets back to the construction of element (c) of claim 1, the
`'448 patent, where what we need is a sufficient amount of current to go
`through the conductor to prevent damage to the tubing.
`I'm going to move through these dependent claims quickly. Two,
`3, 4, 5, we've talked about the mesh is in Ohki, if we combine Ohki and
`Yamane, we have the mesh. And then 7 introduces a new term, this gas
`appliance connector, which is essentially just a short piece of CSST that's
`prefabricated. So it already has -- it's already cut to length and it has the end
`connectors installed rather than coming on a big spool.
`And so as our expert witness, Dr. Rakov, confirms in his
`deposition, the same arguments apply for a gas appliance connector. And
`there's no dispute on that. So, Yamane, the Design Guide and with regard to
`claim 6, Ohki, disclose every element of the challenged claims.
`I've mentioned the Ohki reference several times, let me take just a
`minute to talk about it in a little more detail. Again, Ohki is another
`Japanese application, very similar to the Yamane reference. The main
`difference is it has a conductive cover layer, which is highlighted here on
`slide 24, that surrounds the tubing, and Ohki specifically states that that
`conductive cover layer can be constituted by a metal mesh. So it's the same
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00730 (Patent 7,562,448 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00731 (Patent 7,821,763 B2)
`
`invention. It discloses the same tubing that we see in figure 6B of the
`challenged patents.
`And for very similar reasons, it discloses, in combination with the
`Design Guide, element (a) of claim 1 in the '448. When we get to elements
`(b) and (c) based on the constructions in the institution decision, the plain
`meaning of element (b), broadest reasonable construction of (c), Ohki
`discloses exactly what's claimed there. It says most of the lightning current
`is guided from the conductive cover layer through the connecting joint, then
`through the connective equipment and to ground. In this, where it says,
`"Most," I think this is just a recognition that some current can get to the wall
`of the tubing, which as I'll mention a little bit later on, is also something
`disclosed in the challenged patents. That even if you have this alternate path
`to ground, some current may get to the tubing wall.
`The dependent claims we talked about and our met in the same
`way, we don't challenge all the dependent claims, but they're met essentially
`in the same way for Yamane, and the Design Guide discloses the dependent
`claims. There's no dispute with regard to the dependent claims, other than
`those raised on claim 1.
`Similarly, claim 1 in the '763, we've got the connecting means,
`both in Ohki and the Design Guide, and we have very similar language
`because the Ohki lightning-proof tubing operates in a very similar way to the
`Yamane tubing, most of the lightning current is guided through that
`conductive cover layer to the end connectors, and to ground, so it prevents
`damage to the body.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00730 (Patent 7,562,448 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00731 (Patent 7,821,763 B2)
`
`
`Dependent claims are met essentially in the same way that we
`discussed with regard to Yamane, and all of the challenged claims that we've
`identified here are rendered -- are disclosed by the prior art with Yamane.
`That brings us to our third primary prior art reference, which is
`Rivest. Now, Rivest discloses CSST, and here in figure 1 from Rivest, on
`slide 36, we see the CSST has end connectors at both ends. You can see a
`cutaway shows the corrugated tubing, and there's a conductive jacket, a
`polymer jacket that goes around the tubing. And Rivest said, well, that
`polymer jacket is going to add some strength, and it's also going to
`essentially disperse current that may get on the side walls or may get to the
`CSST.
`
`Rivest was cited during prosecution of the patent, and what the
`Patent Owner said, or what the applicant said was, well, Rivest is different,
`because in Rivest, you don't have an external conducting wire that will
`divert current. What Rivest does is it takes the current and it allows it to go
`through the jacket to the tubing wall, and then go down to the end
`connectors and on to ground. And that's different. That was the Patent
`Owner's position.
`So when we talk about Rivest, it very clearly discloses (a). When
`we get to elements (b) and (c), if we adopt the Patent Owner's view of
`Rivest, what we need to do then is provide that external conductor and either
`Yamane or Ohki provides it. So here we show, if you take the conductive
`member of Yamane, and you were to add that to Rivest so that now either
`instead of or on top of that polymer jacket you've got a conductive member,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00730 (Patent 7,562,448 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00731 (Patent 7,821,763 B2)
`
`you have exactly what is claimed in -- frankly in both of the challenged
`patents.
`
`And our expert witness explained that one of skill in the art would
`have first considered these references together, they're all addressing the
`same problem, they're addressing it in a similar way, they're all the same
`field of endeavor, and one of skill in the art would have seen the benefit, the
`added protection of providing an alternate path to ground for lightning
`current.
`
`JUDGE ARBES: Counsel, just one question. I think you
`mentioned the person of skill in the art would be motivated to add it on top
`of the jacket in Rivest, is it adding on top or is it a replacement for the
`jacket?
`
`MR. DAY: It could be either, Your Honor. So, if you added it on
`top -- so, in Yamane, there are multiple different embodiments disclosed,
`and in those embodiments, the conductive member can be inside an
`insulative layer and that would be equivalent to putting it inside the polymer
`jacket of Rivest. It also says that it can be on the inside face or the outside
`face of the insulative layer in Yamane. And so any one of those
`embodiments, frankly, would translate over to Rivest, and so our expert
`witness talks about it as alternatives, you could replace -- one thing you
`could do is simply replace the jacket, but another thing that you could do is
`essentially equate that polymer jacket of Rivest with the insulation layer of
`Yamane, put the conductor either under, over or inside of that polymer
`jacket.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00730 (Patent 7,562,448 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00731 (Patent 7,821,763 B2)
`
`
`JUDGE ARBES: If we assume for the moment that Patent
`Owner's proposed interpretation is correct, that they cannot touch, placing
`the conductive member on top of the jacket, would that combination still
`work then? If the conductive member cannot touch the tube, if we agreed
`with Patent Owner on that, does your combination still work, placing it on
`top of the jacket in Rivest?
`MR. DAY: Yeah, so either on top of or inside of the jacket of
`Rivest would mean that it doesn't touch the tubing. And in either case, it
`would still create that alternate path to ground that Yamane talks about.
`JUDGE ARBES: Okay, so the jacket in Rivest does not touch the
`tube, then, I assume?
`MR. DAY: Well, the jacket -- no, that's -- the jacket in Rivest does
`touch the tube, but I think what Patent Owner is talking about is the
`conductor physically touching the tubing. If we assume that construction,
`then Yamane and Ohki both have embodiments where the conductor does
`not touch the tubing.
`JUDGE McGRAW: So just to be clear, your position is that in the
`combination, the conductive wire would be inside of the jacket and that is
`why the conductive wire itself does not touch the tube. Is that correct?
`MR. DAY: Yes. If we were to adopt that no touching
`construction, then putting the conductor inside of the conductive jacket
`would meet it.
`JUDGE McGRAW: Okay.
`MR. DAY: And similarly, and independently, the combination of
`Rivest with Ohki would disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and here what
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00730 (Patent 7,562,448 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00731 (Patent 7,821,763 B2)
`
`we're saying is, Rivest discloses a polymer jacket and the Patent Owner said,
`well, it's not as conductive as a wire. Ohki discloses a conductive layer,
`basically a jacket, that is more conductive, that is -- it's a metal mesh, or it
`can be a metal mesh.
`And so here you could substitute -- and our expert witness talks
`about this, you could substitute the polymer jacket of Rivest with the
`conductive layer and mesh from Ohki, or Ohki discloses an embodiment
`where that conductive layer sits on top of an insulator, and so you could do a
`similar thing with Rivest and have the metal mesh sit on top of the polymer
`jacket. In that embodiment, if we have this no-touching limitation, that
`embodiment would satisfy the no-touching limitation, which as we'll get to
`in a few minutes, I don't think exists.
`The dependent claims are all disclosed, and there's really no
`dispute on the dependent claims.
`The same analysis applies for the '763 patent. You could take
`Rivest and add the conductive member of Yamane, you could add the
`conductive layer of Ohki, and you get every limitation of claim 1 in the '763
`patent, for essentially the same reasons we just talked through in the
`dependent claims.
`Okay. So, in our petition, we provided all of that evidence. We
`just walked through showing how Yamane, Ohki, Rivest and where
`necessary the Titeflex Design Guide discloses every limitation of the
`challenged claims. And in response to that, in the preliminary response, the
`Patent Owner tried to distinguish the prior art based on some negative
`limitations, the tubing and the conductor can't touch each other, they can't
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00730 (Patent 7,562,448 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00731 (Patent 7,821,763 B2)
`
`even be close to each other, and you can't have a resin layer between the
`conductor and the tubing. And in the institution decision, the panel rejected
`those arguments because they're not supported by a specification, it would
`be importing limitations from the specification, at best, and, in fact, they're
`inconsistent with the specification.
`And these two IPRs were instituted, the Patent Owner provided a
`complete response, and made the exact same arguments. So what we see are
`these negative limitations that the Patent Owner is trying to graft onto the
`claims in order to distinguish the prior art. And I want to walk through
`these.
`
`So, there's really three. One, the external conductor must not touch
`the inner gas tubing; the external conductor, 2, can't even be close to the
`inner gas tubing; and three, it can't be separated by a resin from the tube.
`So, we will start with the no touching, which we will talk a little bit
`about. First, I would be very, very clear. Neither of the claims, nor the
`specification of either patent, says the conductive wire can't touch the
`tubing. It doesn't say that. So what Patent Owner has had to do is look for
`other words and phrases and use those to suggest some implicit limitation
`that should be imported into the claims. So, for instance, the specification
`says that the conductive wire is electrically in parallel with the tube.
`So they use that and say, well, they can't touch. Well, we supplied
`prior art texts. Exhibit 1030 is one that comes to mind that says, multiple
`conductors are electrically in parallel, even if they're touching, so we -- the
`example we used was a cable with multiple wires inside of it, so all the wires
`are touching, and the text refers to them as electrically in parallel.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00730 (Patent 7,562,448 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00731 (Patent 7,821,763 B2)
`
`
`This kind of gets back to the discussion we had, Judge McGraw,
`where I said, even if two conductors touch, if they're of different resistance,
`it doesn't create a short, it just means the current will continue along the
`easier path. It may be -- one of the points that Patent Owner's expert makes
`is, there may be some current transfer, but it will be related to the difference
`in the conductivity of the two materials. One is very conductive, like the
`ground wire, and one is not conductive, like stainless steel, most of the
`current is going to stay in the conductor, in the copper wire of the conductive
`member of Yamane and go to ground, which is exactly what Yamane and
`Ohki both say.
`JUDGE McGRAW: Well, if we agree that direct electrical contact
`means that the conductive wire cannot touch the gas tubing, would the prior
`art still teach compliance?
`MR. DAY: Yeah, so this gets back to the point about the
`embodiments in Yamane and Ohki, where the conductor does not touch the
`tubing. So Yamane says that the conductive member can be integrated
`within an insulative layer, in which case it would not touch the tubing or on
`the outer face of that insulative layer, in which case it would not touch the
`tubing.
`
`And in one embodiment, there's a conductor that actually connects
`the -- the wire to the tubing, but that's one alternate embodiment. The
`embodiment we're talking about is where Yamane says the conductive
`member can be directly connected to the end, the connecting joint, the end
`connector. And in that case, there is no connection, there's no physical --
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00730 (Patent 7,562,448 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00731 (Patent 7,821,763 B2)
`
`there's no touching and there's no conductor connecting the wire to the
`tubing.
`
`JUDGE McGRAW: In the event that there is an electrical insult,
`would the conductive wire at that point touch the CSST tubing?
`MR. DAY: No. So what the Patent Owner is talking about is if
`there were -- if the insulative layer, you know, exploded, and everything
`melted, would that -- you know, in that case, would some current get to the
`tubing? Theoretically, yes, but that's true of any -- anything. If we were to
`take the Goodson -- an embodiment of Goodson and, you know, cause an
`explosion, so that everything melts together, the same thing would happen.
`What we're talking about is what's actually disclosed in the prior
`art, and what's claimed. And what's claimed is that a sufficient amount of
`the current goes through the conductor to ground to prevent damage to the
`tubing, that's exactly -- I mean, in merely identical words, both Yamane and
`Ohki talk about doing the same thing.
`So it's not intended -- there's nothing in Yamane or Ohki that
`suggests it's intended to create some sort of path through the tubing. In fact,
`it says most of the current is going to go through the conductor, confirming
`that it's exactly the opposite of what the Patent Owner says.
`JUDGE McGRAW: How does the current get onto the tube in the
`event there is an electrical insult?
`MR. DAY: Well, there's two ways, Your Honor, and it has to do
`with two different ways that current can get into the tubing. And one is if
`you look at figure 1 and 2 in the Goodson patents, it talks about current
`coming from an appliance, in through an end connector, and onto the tubing
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00730 (Patent 7,562,448 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00731 (Patent 7,821,763 B2)
`
`that way. In that case, the current would split, because the tubing and the
`conductor present two different paths to ground, one greatly preferable to the
`other, but mathematically speaking, at least some current would go on the
`tubing. Most of the current would go on the conductor. So in that way, you
`could get some current on the tubing.
`The other way, if you look at figure 4 in the specification, in the
`common specification, you see that another way electricity can get to the
`tubing is
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
