Inter Partes Review IPR2017-00152
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,780,890
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`GUANGDONG ALISON HI-TECH CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ASPEN AEROGELS, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`__________
`
`Case No.: IPR2017-00152
`U.S. Patent No. 7,780,890
`__________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,780,890
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ET SEQ.
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`
`1004
`
`1005
`1006
`1007
`1008
`1009
`1010
`1011
`1012
`
`1013
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`1001
`Aspen Aerogel Inc.’s U.S. Pat. No. 7,780,890
`1002
`Prosecution history of the ’890 patent
`1003
`Prosecution history of Aspen’s U.S. Patent No.
`6,989,123
`Prosecution history of Aspen’s U.S. Patent No.
`7,399,439
`Nakanishi (U.S. Pat. No. 4,950,148)
`Ramamurthi (U.S. Pat. No. 5,306,555)
`Champagne (U.S. Pat. No. 6,187,250)
`Andersen (U.S. Pat. No. 5,665,442)
`Chew (U.S. Pat. No. 6,106,722)
`Leeke (U.S. Pat. No. 4,496,461)
`Roberts (U.S. Pat. No. 3,042,573)
`Complainant Aspen Aerogels, Inc.’s Second
`Supplemental Response to Guangdong Alison Hi-
`Tech Co., Ltd.’s First Set of Interrogatories (Nos.
`31, 43, 44, 45, 46) (Public Version) and Aspen’s
`Second Supplemental Responses to Nano Tech,
`Co., Ltd.’s First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 25, 35,
`43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49) (Public Version) from ITC
`Investigation No. 337-TA-1003
`Product Information – Gels – Dow Corning® CY
`52-276, 2-part, clear, 1:1 mix ratio, gel with
`controlled volatility
`Silicone Chemistry Overview Dow Corning®
`Handbook of Sealant Technology (Edited by
`Mittal, K.L. and Pizzi, A (2009))
`Bibliographic data from Public Pair on the USPTO
`website for application Ser. No. 06/814,726
`
`1014
`1015
`
`1016
`
`721768570
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`1017
`History of Dow Corning from Dow website
`Declaration of George W. Scherer, Ph.D.
`1018
`Curriculum vitae of George W. Scherer, Ph.D.
`1019
`1020
`Sonoda (Japanese Patent No. H8-34678)
`1021
`English Translation of Sonoda (w/ certification)
`1022
`Uchida (U.S. Pat. No. 6,123,882)
`1023
`Aspen’s Initial Claim Construction Brief in 337-
`TA-1003 (filed Sept. 20, 2016)
`Ryu (U.S. Pat. No. 6,068,882)
`Coronado (U.S. Pat. No. 5,973,015)
`D. Hotza and P. Greil, “Review: Aqueous Tape
`Casting of Ceramic Powders,” Materials Science
`and Engineering, A202 (1995), pp. 206-17
`J.S. Reed, Principles of Ceramics Processing,
`Second Edition, pp. 525-41 (1995)
`Britannica Encyclopedia – “Advanced Ceramics”
`(2001)
`Declaration of Bryan Nese
`
`1024
`1025
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`
`
`721768570
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ .. 1
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1) ......................... 1
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1) ....................... ..1
`A.
`Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ........................... 1
`A.
`Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ......................... ..1
`B.
`Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) .................................... 2
`B.
`Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) .................................. ..2
`C.
`Lead and Back-up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) .................. 2
`C.
`Lead and Back-up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ................ ..2
`D.
`Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) .............................. 2
`D.
`Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ............................ ..2
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37
`III.
`REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37
`C.F.R. § 42.104 ............................................................................................... 3
`C.F.R. § 42.104 ............................................................................................. ..3
`A. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)) .................................... 3
`A.
`Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)) .................................. ..3
`B.
`Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)) ............................ 3
`B.
`Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.l04(b)) .......................... ..3
`1.
`Summary of the Prior Art .......................................................... 3
`1.
`Summary of the Prior Art ........................................................ ..3
`2. Motivation to Combine .............................................................. 4
`3.
`Summary of Challenges ............................................................. 8
`3.
`Summary of Challenges ........................................................... ..8
`IV. U.S. PATENT NO. 7,780,890 ........................................................................ 9
`IV. U.S. PATENT NO. 7,780,890 ...................................................................... ..9
`A.
`Brief Description of the Challenged Patent ......................................... 9
`A.
`Brief Description of the Challenged Patent ....................................... ..9
`B.
`Prosecution History ............................................................................ 11
`B.
`Prosecution History .......................................................................... .. 11
`C.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art .................................................... 12
`C.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art .................................................. ..12
`D.
`Claim Construction ............................................................................ 13
`1.
`“a moving element” ................................................................. 13
`1.
`“a moving element” ............................................................... .. 13
`2.
`“fibrous batting material” ........................................................ 14
`2.
`“fibrous batting material” ...................................................... ..14
`RELEVANT PRIOR ART ........................................................................... 14
`A.
`Technology Background .................................................................... 14
`A.
`Technology Background .................................................................. .. 14
`B. Description of the Prior Art ................................................................ 15
`B.
`Description of the Prior Art .............................................................. .. 15
`1.
`“Conveyor Prior Art” ............................................................... 15
`1.
`“Conveyor Prior Art” ............................................................. ..15
`2.
`“Rolling and Drying Prior Art” ............................................... 17
`2.
`“Rolling and Drying Prior Art” ............................................. .. 17
`3.
`“Spacer Prior Art” .................................................................... 21
`3.
`“Spacer Prior Art” .................................................................. ..21
`VI. STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED (37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)) ............ 22
`VI.
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED (37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)) .......... ..22
`
`2.
`
`Motivation to Combine ............................................................ ..4
`
`D.
`
`Claim Construction .......................................................................... ..13
`
`V.
`
`V.
`
`RELEVANT PRIOR ART ......................................................................... .. 14
`
`721768570
`
`721768570
`
`i
`
`i
`
`

`
`
`
`E.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`A. Grounds 1-3: Claims 11-13, 15, 17, and 21 Are Obvious Over
`Nakanishi in View of Ramamurthi, Roberts, and Andersen .............. 22
`1.
`Claim 11 ................................................................................... 22
`2.
`Claim 12 ................................................................................... 31
`3.
`Claim 13 ................................................................................... 32
`4.
`Claim 15 ................................................................................... 34
`5.
`Claim 17 ................................................................................... 35
`6.
`Claim 21 ................................................................................... 35
`7.
`Summary of Grounds 1-3 ......................................................... 37
`B. Ground 4: Claims 11-13, 15, 17, and 21 Are Obvious Over
`Ramamurthi in View of Nakanishi. ................................................... 42
`C. Ground 5: Claims 11-13, 15, 17, and 21 Are Obvious Over
`Ramamurthi in View of Champagne. ................................................. 43
`D. Ground 6: Claims 11-13, 15, 17, and 21 Are Obvious Over
`Sonoda in View of Uchida. ................................................................ 49
`1.
`Claim 11 ................................................................................... 49
`2.
`Claim 12 ................................................................................... 52
`3.
`Claim 13 ................................................................................... 53
`4.
`Claim 15 ................................................................................... 53
`5.
`Claim 17 ................................................................................... 53
`6.
`Claim 21 ................................................................................... 54
`7.
`Summary of Ground 6 ............................................................. 54
`Grounds 7 and 8: Claims 18 and 19 Are Obvious Over
`Nakanishi in View of Ramamurthi and Either Chew or Leeke. ........ 59
`1.
`Claim 18 is obvious over Nakanishi in view of
`Ramamurthi and Chew or Leeke. ............................................ 59
`Claim 19 is obvious over Nakanishi in view of
`Ramamurthi and either Chew or Leeke. .................................. 61
`Summary of Grounds 7 and 8 .................................................. 62
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`721768570
`
`ii
`
`

`
`
`
`F.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Grounds 9-12: Claims 18 and 19 Are Obvious Over
`Ramamurthi in View of Champagne and Either Chew or Leeke,
`and Sonoda in View of Uchida and Either Chew or Leeke. .............. 64
`G. All Grounds: No Secondary Considerations ...................................... 65
`VII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 66
`
`
`
`721768570
`
`iii
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Cases 
`Alza Corp. v. Mylan Labs., Inc.,
`464 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................ 22
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016) ......................................................................................... 13
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................. 22
`
`Par Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc.,
`773 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................ 66
`
`Sciele Pharma Inc. v. Lupin Ltd.,
`684 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................ 22
`
`Statutes 
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 13
`
`
`
`721768570
`
`iv
`
`

`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,780,890 (“the ’890 patent”) claims only generic, long-
`
`known methods for producing gel sheets. For example, the independent claim
`
`challenged in this petition (claim 11) recites only three limitations: “[1] dispensing
`
`a sol onto a moving element as a continuous sheet; [2] rolling the dispensed sheet
`
`into a plurality of layers; and [3] drying the layers.” Claim 11’s twenty-four-word
`
`body merely
`
`identifies elementary, well-known
`
`techniques and
`
`is
`
`thus
`
`unpatentable.
`
`The claims depending from claim 11 similarly fail to recite inventive subject
`
`matter. Instead, challenged dependent claims 12, 13, 15, 17-19, and 21 simply add
`
`other well-known features to claim 11’s broadly recited steps.
`
`Because the claimed steps of dispensing, rolling, and drying are taught
`
`throughout the prior art, Petitioner Guangdong Alison Hi-Tech Co., Ltd.
`
`(“Alison”) respectfully requests inter partes review of claims 11-13, 15, 17-19, and
`
`21 of the ’890 patent.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)
`As set forth below and pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1), the following
`
`mandatory notices are provided as part of this Petition:
`
`A. Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`Guangdong Alison Hi-Tech Co., Ltd. is the real party-in-interest for
`
`Petitioner.
`
`721768570
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`Patent Owner Aspen and Petitioner Alison are parties in an investigation
`
`before the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”). See Certain
`
`Composite Aerogel Insulation Materials and Methods for Manufacturing the Same,
`
`Notice of Institution of Investigation, USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1003 (June 2,
`
`2016). Claims 11-13, 15, 17-19, and 21 of the ’890 patent are asserted in that
`
`investigation.
`
`C. Lead and Back-up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3) and 42.10(a), Alison provides the
`
`following designation of counsel:
`
`Lead Counsel
`Joseph A. Mahoney (Reg. No. 38,956)
`jmahoney@mayerbrown.com
`Postal and Hand Delivery Address:
`Mayer Brown LLP
`71 South Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Telephone: (312) 701-8979
`Facsimile: (312) 706-8530
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Gary M. Hnath (pro hac vice admission
`to be sought)
`ghnath@mayerbrown.com
`Bryan Nese (Reg. No. 66,023)
`bnese@mayerbrown.com
`Postal and Hand Delivery Address:
`Mayer Brown LLP
`1999 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20006-1101
`Telephone: (202) 263-3040
`Facsimile: (202) 263-3300
`
`
`
`Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)
`
`D.
`Please address all correspondence to the lead counsel at the address shown
`
`above. Alison also consents to electronic service by email to
`
`721768570
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`jmahoney@mayerbrown.com, ghnath@mayerbrown.com,
`
`bnese@mayerbrown.com, and AlisonIPRs@mayerbrown.com.
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104
`A. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a))
`Alison certifies that the ’890 patent is available for inter partes review and
`
`that Alison is not barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review
`
`challenging the claims on the grounds identified here.
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b))
`1.
`The prior art available as of the ’890 patent’s priority date can be grouped as
`
`Summary of the Prior Art
`
`follows:
`
`a. Conveyor Prior Art: Forming continuous gel sheets by dispensing
`
`material onto a moving element (e.g., conveyor) —
`
`a. U.S. Pat. No. 4,950,148 (“Nakanishi,” Ex. 1005);
`
`b. U.S. Pat. No. 6,187, 250 (“Champagne,” Ex. 1007); and
`
`c. U.S. Pat. No. 6,123,882 (“Uchida,” Ex. 1022).
`
`b. Rolling and Drying Prior Art: Rolling and drying the sheets —
`
`a. U.S. Pat. No. 5,306,555 (“Ramamurthi,” Ex. 1006);
`
`b. U.S. Pat. No. 3,042,573 (“Roberts,” Ex. 1011);
`
`c. U.S. Pat. No. 5,665,442 (“Andersen,” Ex. 1008); and
`
`721768570
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`d. Japanese Pat. No. H08-34678 (“Sonoda,” Exs. 1020, 1021).
`
`c. Spacer Prior Art: Placing a spacer between sheets —
`
`a. U.S. Pat. No. 6,106,722 (“Chew,” Ex. 1009); and
`
`b. U.S. Pat. No. 4,496,461 (“Leeke,” Ex. 1010).
`
`Nakanishi, Ramamurthi, Roberts, Andersen, Champagne, Sonoda, Uchida,
`
`Chew, and Leeke are each prior art to the ’890 patent under at least pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`2. Motivation to Combine
`In addition to the specific motivations discussed here and in Dr. Scherer’s
`
`declaration, the following general principles would have motivated a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) to have combined the references cited here.
`
`A POSA would have been motivated to combine the Conveyor Prior Art
`
`with the Rolling and Drying Prior Art. For instance, when a long, continuous gel
`
`sheet reaches the end of the conveyor belt, rolling the sheet is logical and
`
`particularly advantageous because of its simple equipment, ease of use, efficient
`
`use of space, and the ease of transport of the resulting rolls. Rolling an elongated
`
`product would be an obvious procedure to a POSA manufacturing continuous gel
`
`sheets on a mass scale. E.g., Ex. 1018, ¶¶ 23-24, 100.
`
`Also, although art such as Ramamurthi teaches the batch production of fiber
`
`reinforced gel sheets that are rolled and then supercritically dried, a POSA could
`
`721768570
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`
`easily scale up such production using a continuous process such as those described,
`
`for example, by Nakanishi, Champagne, and Uchida. E.g., Ex. 1018, ¶¶ 86-90,
`
`139-42, 164-69, 194-95.
`
`Moreover, it would be obvious to roll and dry a gel sheet made continuously.
`
`Id. at ¶ 25. For example, a POSA would understand that a continuous gel sheet of
`
`the prior art that is formed on a conveyor (as taught by Nakanishi, Champagne, and
`
`Uchida) would need to go somewhere as it reached the end of the moving
`
`conveyor. Id. at ¶ 23. In other words, a POSA would not let the sheet simply pile
`
`up on the floor; that would be messy and labor intensive. Because the gel sheet is
`
`generally flat and flexible, the most logical solution is to roll the sheet as it leaves
`
`the conveyor to allow for easy storage and transportation. Id. at ¶ 24.
`
`Drying is another obvious step after a gel sheet is formed from a liquid sol.
`
`Separation of the sheets is important to unrolling and, ultimately, using them. E.g.,
`
`id. at ¶¶ 25, 96-99, 102, 105, 138, 163, 203.
`
`Further, a POSA would have been motivated to employ a spacer, as taught
`
`by Chew or Leeke, that permits the fluid to be dried from a roller material. Id. at
`
`¶¶ 222-26, 229-32. A POSA faced with an issue of handling or drying rolled gel
`
`sheets would have been motivated to look to references relating to filtration
`
`systems (such as Chew) and chromatography (such as Leeke), and would apply
`
`those solutions and principles to gel manufacturing, as Dr. Scherer explains. E.g.,
`
`721768570
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`id. at ¶¶ 222-26, 229-32. For example, a POSA would want to keep separate
`
`freshly made and possibly wet, sticky gel sheets so they would not adhere to each
`
`other and require additional process steps. Id. at ¶ 226. Absent unrolling the sheet,
`
`using a spacer layer of some sort is a logical, obvious way to ensure separation
`
`while allowing drying. Id.
`
`As Dr. Scherer explains, a POSA would have applied these principles of
`
`dispensing onto a moving element, rolling, and drying to the preparation of gel
`
`sheets. Id. at ¶ 24. Indeed, references such as Nakanishi and Ramamurthi show the
`
`application of a moving element and rolling, respectively, applied to the
`
`preparation of gel sheets. Id. Moreover, the tape-casting methods discussed by Dr.
`
`Scherer shows the use of a moving element, rolling, and drying. See id. at ¶¶ 23-
`
`24; Ex. 1027, p. 532; Ex. 1028. For example, the Britannica reference shows
`
`continuous casting onto a moving element, rolling using a take-up reel, and drying:
`
`721768570
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Ex. 102
`
`
`
`28; see Ex.. 1018, ¶ 224. Accorddingly, a P
`
`
`
`
`
`OSA woulld have fo
`
`
`
`und it obvvious
`
`to have
`
`
`
`applied thhe conceptss of a movving elemeent and rollling to the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`gel sheeets, as recitted by the challengedd claims. EEx. 1018, ¶
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AAt bottom,, the ’8900 patent’s
`
`
`
`claims mmerely commbine knowwn steps
`
`
`
`
`
`in a
`
`logical,
`
`
`
`predictablle way. Nuumerous pprior art reeferences t
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`each the mmanufacturre of
`
`
`
`
`
`preparatioon of
`
` 24.
`
`
`
`processinng is
`
`
`
`d look to bbasic
`
`
`
`non-conntinuous bbatches off gel sheeets. But bbecause thhis batch
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`generallly unsuitabble to indu
`
`
`
`
`
`strial scalee manufactturing, a POOSA woul
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`process engineerinng to scalee up.
`
`
`
`
`
`721768570
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`Summary of Challenges
`
`3.
`Alison respectfully requests that the Board find claims 11-13, 15, 17-19, and
`
`21 of the ’890 patent (“the challenged claims”) unpatentable based on the
`
`following grounds:
`
`Ground
`
`Challenged Claims Basis for Unpatentability
`
`Ground 1
`
`11-13, 15, 17, 21
`
`Ground 2
`
`Ground 3
`
`11, 13, 17, 21
`
`11, 13, 17, 21
`
`Ground 4
`
`11-13, 15, 17, 21
`
`Ground 5
`
`11-13, 15, 17, 21
`
`Obvious Over Nakanishi
`Ramamurthi
`
`in view of
`
`Obvious Over Nakanishi in view of Roberts
`
`Obvious Over Nakanishi
`Andersen
`
`in view of
`
`Obvious Over Ramamurthi in view of
`Nakanishi
`
`Obvious Over Ramamurthi in view of
`Champagne
`
`11-13, 15, 17, 21
`
`Obvious Over Sonoda in view of Uchida
`
`Obvious Over Nakanishi
`Ramamurthi and Chew
`
`in view of
`
`Obvious Over Nakanishi
`Ramamurthi and Leeke
`
`in view of
`
`Obvious Over Ramamurthi in view of
`Champagne and Chew
`
`Obvious Over Ramamurthi in view of
`Champagne and Leeke
`
`Obvious Over Sonoda in view of Uchida
`and Chew
`
`Ground 6
`
`Ground 7
`
`18, 19
`
`Ground 8
`
`18, 19
`
`Ground 9
`
`18, 19
`
`Ground 10
`
`18, 19
`
`Ground 11
`
`18, 19
`
`721768570
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`Ground
`
`Challenged Claims Basis for Unpatentability
`
`Ground 12
`
`18, 19
`
`Obvious Over Sonoda in view of Uchida
`and Leeke
`
`
`In other words, Alison asserts the following bases for invalidity:
`
` Claims 11, 13, 17, and 21 are obvious under § 103 based on Nakanishi
`
`in view of any of Ramamurthi, Roberts, and Andersen;
`
` Claims 12 and 15 are obvious under § 103 based on Nakanishi in view
`
`of Ramamurthi;
`
` Claims 11-13, 15, 17, and 21 are obvious under § 103 based on
`
`Ramamurthi in view of either of Nakanishi or Champagne;
`
` Claims 11-13, 17, and 21 are obvious under § 103 based on Sonoda in
`
`view of Uchida; and
`
` Claims 18 and 19 are obvious under § 103 based on Nakanishi in view
`
`of Ramamurthi, or Ramamurthi in view of Champagne, or Sonoda in
`
`view of Uchida, and further in view of either Chew or Leeke.
`
`IV. U.S. PATENT NO. 7,780,890
`A. Brief Description of the Challenged Patent
`The ’890 patent, entitled “Advanced Gel Sheet Production,” was filed as
`
`U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 11/762,654 on June 13, 2007.
`
`721768570
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`The ’890 patent is directed to methods for producing gel sheets in a
`
`continuous manner. It “describes methods for continuously combining a low
`
`viscosity solution of a sol and an agent (heat catalyst or chemical catalyst) that
`
`induces gel formation and forming a gel sheet on a moving element such as a
`
`conveyor belt with edges that defines the volume of the formed gel sheet by
`
`dispensing the catalyzed sol at a predetermined rate effective to allow gelation to
`
`occur on the moving element.” Ex. 1001, 2:35-41.
`
`The patent further discloses that fiber-reinforced gel composites can be
`
`formed where “fibrous batting or mat material is introduced onto the moving
`
`element for combination with the catalyzed sol prior to gelation.” Id. at 2:52-62.
`
`The patent introduces a spacer layer element by “infusing a predetermined
`
`amount of catalyzed sol in a rolled fiber-preform co-rolled with an impermeable
`
`spacer layer, geling [sic] the infused roll, followed by un-rolling the gel composite
`
`article, removing the impermeable layer, and re-rolling of the incompletely cured
`
`body flexible gel composite with a porous spacer layer.” Id. at 3:28-34.
`
`The challenged claims are much broader than what the specification
`
`describes. For example, claim 11 recites a process for preparing any gel sheets
`
`formed of any type of sol and then rolling and drying the sheets by any means.
`
`Moreover, the challenged dependent claims (12, 13, 15, 17-19, and 21) do no more
`
`than add conventional, long-known aspects of aerogel production.
`
`721768570
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`B.
`Prosecution History
`During the prosecution of the ’890 patent and its related patents (i.e., U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,989,123 (“’123 patent”) and 7,399,439 (“’439 patent”)), the examiner
`
`overlooked significant prior art in allowing the claims of the ’890 patent. Of the
`
`’439, ’123, and ’890 patents, which all share the same specification, the ’890
`
`patent was the last allowed. Yet the examiner failed to apply the same scrutiny to
`
`the claimed subject matter she had previously rejected during the prosecution of
`
`the ’439 patent.
`
`In fact, the only rejections to the claims during prosecution of the ’890
`
`patent were obviousness-type double-patenting rejections over the ’123 and ’439
`
`patents. No substantive prior art examination was performed during the ’890
`
`prosecution. See Ex. 1002, ASPEN000982-84. Thus, the examiner erred in
`
`allowing the challenged claims based on the prior art of record. Further, there was
`
`other prior art she was unaware of, as addressed here.
`
`The ’890, ’439, and ’123 patents claim priority to the same application, Ser.
`
`No. 10/876,103 filed on June 23, 2004. This application, which was ultimately
`
`granted as the ’439 patent, was the subject of multiple office actions and
`
`amendments. A review of the prosecution history of the ’439 patent reveals that the
`
`examiner allowed those claims only because Aspen effectively limited them to a
`
`single moving conveyor belt. All of the ’439 patent’s claims have this limitation.
`
`721768570
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
`Though this limitation didn’t make the claims patentable, the ’890 patent lacks the
`
`limitation that caused the examiner to allow the claims of the parent patent.
`
`There is no explanation for the examiner’s failure to apply the same prior art
`
`rejections to the ’890 patent’s broad claims. As shown here, this art teaches all
`
`limitations of the challenged claims and renders each of them unpatentable.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`C.
`A POSA at the time of the alleged invention of the ’890 patent would have
`
`been a person with substantial working knowledge of gels and aerogels, composite
`
`materials and their methods of production. Ex. 1018, ¶ 41. This person would have
`
`gained this knowledge through undergraduate studies in chemical, mechanical,
`
`aerospace, or other related engineering or materials science. Id. In addition, this
`
`person would have five or more years of experience (or equivalent) working in
`
`testing environments, including the use of a variety of gels and composites. Id.
`
`Alternatively, this person would have gained this knowledge by attaining a
`
`Master’s degree or higher in chemical, mechanical, aerospace, or other related
`
`engineering, or materials science, with advanced studies providing some or all of
`
`the knowledge that would otherwise be obtained from the work experience
`
`described above. Id.
`
`721768570
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`
`D. Claim Construction
`In IPR proceedings, claims of an unexpired patent are given their broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and claim language
`
`should be read in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`
`136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142 (2016).
`
`“a moving element”
`
`1.
`Nothing in the patent’s specification limits “a moving element”; indeed,
`
`Figures 1 and 3 of the patent show multiple conveyor belts as the “moving
`
`element.” The prosecution history also does not limit this term.
`
`Further, in the course of the pending ITC Investigation involving the ’890
`
`patent (337-TA-1003), Patent Owner Aspen argued that “a moving element” as
`
`used in claim 11 means “at least one moving element.” Ex. 1023, pp. 11-17. Aspen
`
`further argued that “‘[a] moving element’ has its plain meaning—an element that
`
`moves—and is not limited to one moving conveyor belt or a single molding
`
`surface for the sol.” Id. at 12, 16.
`
`Accordingly, without conceding that Aspen’s proposed construction is
`
`proper under the Phillips standard, but instead giving the term its broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation for purposes of this proceeding, “a moving element”
`
`should cover at least “an element that moves.”
`
`721768570
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`
`“fibrous batting material”
`
`2.
`During the ITC Investigation, Aspen also argued that “fibrous batting” as
`
`used in claim 13 means “fibrous material, or material consisting of or characterized
`
`by fibers.” Ex. 1023, p. 50. As discussed in that brief, “[t]his construction is
`
`consistent with the patents’ disclosure that ‘[b]atting preferably refers to layers or
`
`sheets of a fibrous material.’” Id. (quoting Ex. 1001, 8:67-9:1) (emphasis
`
`removed).
`
`Accordingly, “fibrous batting material” should cover at least “material
`
`consisting of or characterized by fibers.”
`
`V. RELEVANT PRIOR ART
`A. Technology Background
`Methods for producing gel sheets, including for use in manufacturing
`
`aerogel-based products, were known long before the ’890 patent’s priority date.
`
`Indeed, gel-forming techniques were well-known to those skilled in the art, and the
`
`blending of a precursor material with a sol was commonly used in the aerogel
`
`manufacturing field. Ex. 1018, ¶ 21. The ’890 patent references an example of a
`
`publication reciting the well-known gel-forming techniques: Chapters 2 and 3 of
`
`Dr. Scherer’s book, Sol-Gel Science, published in 1990. Ex. 1001, 2:4-15.
`
`Gel sheet production was also well-known, including use of the batch-
`
`casting method. Ex. 1018, ¶ 21. While the ’890 patent describes that its rolling,
`
`continuous process has advantages over the batch-casting method, moving from a
`14
`
`721768570
`
`

`
`
`
`batch-casting process to a continuous process would have been obvious to a POSA
`
`who wanted to engage in large-scale manufacturing of gel sheets. Id.
`
`B. Description of the Prior Art
`Each of the following prior art references shows aspects of the challenged
`
`claims. Each of the references relates to the production of material from precursor
`
`solutions and are therefore all in the same field of endeavor. Further, as explained
`
`throughout this petition, the references themselves describe compatible techniques,
`
`similar motivations, and solutions to similar problems.
`
`Further, the prior art, as well as the ’890 patent, applies well-known steps
`
`(such as dispensing onto a moving conveyor, rolling, and drying) to gel sheets. But
`
`these steps can equally be used in other methods of manufacturing continuous
`
`sheets, and a POSA would logically have looked to a variety of continuous
`
`processes when seeking to produce a gel product efficiently and in a way suitable
`
`for large-scale production. Ex. 1018, ¶ 22.
`
`1.
`
`“Conveyor Prior Art”
`(a) Nakanishi (Ex. 1005)
`Nakanishi issued on August 21, 1990, and is thus prior art to the ’890 patent
`
`under at least § 102(b). Nakanishi was not considered by the examiner during
`
`prosecution of the ’890 patent or any of its related patents.
`
`Nakanishi discloses an apparatus for manufacturing a silicone gel sheet
`
`where silicone gel material (i.e., catalyzed sol) is dispensed from a nozzle onto a
`15
`
`721768570
`
`

`
`
`
`movable means. Ex. 1005, Fig. 1; 2:47-68, 3:1-19. In particular, Nakanishi
`
`describes “an apparatus capable of automatically processing silicone gel material
`
`with high viscosity without manual operation and thus manufacturing a silicone gel
`
`sheet with the specified thickness.” Id. at 1:35-41.
`
`Nakanishi feeds silicone gel material from a hopper to a screw conveyor and
`
`then dispenses it onto a conveyor belt. Id. at 2:65-68. The dispensed silicone gel
`
`material “is formed in thin layers on the movable receiving means [] as a thin
`
`sheet-formed strip.” Id. at 3:15-17.
`
`(b) Champagne (Ex. 1007)
`Champagne issued on February 13, 2001, and is prior art to the ’890 patent
`
`under at least § 102(b).
`
`Champagne describes an apparatus and method for the continuous casting of
`
`gels. Ex. 1007, 1:8-11. It discloses “an apparatus for the continuous casting of a gel
`
`by introducing the gel reaction mixture [i.e., catalyzed sol] into a molding space.”
`
`Id. at 2:46-51. Champagne also discloses “a means for cutting and stacking the
`
`produced gels on a continuous basis.” Id. at 15:40-45.
`
`The solutions that are “introduced into the molding space between the two
`
`belts for gel formation” (id. at 6:36-37) may “comprise premixed variable
`
`composition feedstock sources and gelation initiation components” (id. at 4:28-30).
`
`See also id. at 6:28-30, 9:25-31, 10:27-29.
`
`721768570
`
`16
`
`

`
`
`
`(c)