UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00201
`Attorney Docket No: 41577-0004IP1
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GUANGDONG ALISON HI-TECH CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ASPEN AEROGELS, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`Case IPR2017-00201
`Patent 7,399,439
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER ASPEN AEROGELS, INC.’S
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00201
`Attorney Docket No: 41577-0004IP1
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`
` 
`
` 
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`THE ’439 PATENT ......................................................................................... 2 
`  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 10 
`“A process for continuously casting solvent filled gel sheet material”
`A. 
`(claims 1, 3, 7, 15, 19, 21) ................................................................... 11 
`“Gel sheet” (claims 1, 3, 7, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21) ................................... 13 
`B. 
`“Catalyzed sol” (claims 1, 3, 7, 15, 19, 21) ........................................ 15 
`C. 
`“Rolling the formed gel sheet” (claim 19) .......................................... 16 
`D. 
`  PETITIONER’S INVALIDITY GROUNDS SHOULD BE REJECTED .... 17 
`A.  Ground 1: Claims 1-4, 6-9, 15, 16, and 18 are not obvious over
`Nakanishi in view of Ramamurthi ...................................................... 18 
`Nakanishi fails to disclose several elements of the Ground 1
`1. 
`independent claims .................................................................... 18 
`A POSITA would have had no motivation to combine
`Ramamurthi with Nakanishi ..................................................... 32 
`B.  Grounds 2-4: Claims 19-21 are not obvious over Nakanishi in view of
`any of Ramamurthi, Roberts, or Andersen .......................................... 33 
`1. 
`Ramamurthi ............................................................................... 34 
`2. 
`Roberts and Andersen ............................................................... 40 
`C.  Ground 5: Claims 1-4, 6-9, 15, 16, and 18-21 are not obvious over
`Ramamurthi in view of Nakanishi ...................................................... 45 
`D.  Ground 6: Claims 1-4, 6-9, 15, 16, 18, and 21 are not obvious over
`Sonoda in view of Yada ...................................................................... 48 
`Neither Sonoda nor Yada discloses “continuously casting
`1. 
`solvent filled gel sheet material” or “continuously combining a
`sol and a gel inducing agent” .................................................... 48 
`Neither Sonoda nor Yada discloses “dispensing the catalyzed
`sol onto a moving element consisting essentially of one moving
`conveyor belt, as a single molding surface for said sol” .......... 52 
`Ground 7: Claims 1-4, 6-9, 15, 16, and 18-21 are not obvious over
`Ramamurthi in view of Yada .............................................................. 59 
`Neither Ramamurthi nor Yada discloses “continuously casting
`1. 
`solvent filled gel sheet material” or “continuously combining a
`sol and a gel inducing agent” .................................................... 59 
`
`2. 
`
`2. 
`
`E. 
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`Neither Ramamurthi nor Yada discloses “dispensing the
`catalyzed sol onto a moving element consisting essentially of
`one moving conveyor belt, as a single molding surface” ......... 60 
`Claims 19-21 are not obvious over Ramamurthi in view of
`Yada .......................................................................................... 61 
`The Yada-based Grounds 6-7 further fail because the silica-based
`systems of Sonoda and Ramamurthi are fundamentally incompatible
`with Yada’s acrylic polymerization method ....................................... 61 
`PETITIONER’S GROUNDS ARE REDUNDANT ..................................... 64 
`  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 66 
`
`F. 
`
` 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00201
`Attorney Docket No: 41577-0004IP1
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00201
`Attorney Docket No: 41577-0004IP1
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`
`AA 2001
`
`Aspen’s 6th Supplemental Response to Nano 1st Set of
`Interrogatory No. 43 (Oct. 3, 2016)
`
`AA 2002
`
`Press Release: Aspen Aerogels Receives Title III Funding to Build
`High Technology Manufacturing Facility in Rhode Island
`(ASPEN0040124-ASPEN0040126) (Sept. 17, 2004)
`
`AA 2003
`
`Frank ’075 – U.S. Pat. No. 5,789,075
`
`AA 2004
`
`Fricke, et al., Optimization of Monolithic Silica Aerogel Insulants
`(ASPEN0040127-40131), April 18, 1991
`
`AA 2005
`
`RESERVED
`
`AA 2006
`
`RESERVED
`
`AA 2007
`
`RESERVED
`
`AA 2008
`
`Brinker & Scherer, Sol-Gel Science: The Physics and Chemistry of
`Sol-Gel Processing (Academic Press, Inc. 1990)
`
`AA 2009
`
`RESERVED
`
`AA 2010
`
`RESERVED
`
`AA 2011
`
`Declaration by Dr. George L. Gould and Appendices A & B
`
`AA 2012
`
`Wikipedia: “Sol-Gel” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sol-gel
`
`AA 2013
`
`Order No. 35: Construing Certain Terms of the Asserted Claims of
`the Patents at Issue (Markman Claim Construction), In the Matter
`of Certain Composite Aerogel Insulation Materials and Methods
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2017-00201
`Attorney Docket No: 41577-0004IP1
`
`for Manufacturing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1003, USITC (Jan.
`31, 2017)
`
`AA 2014
`
`RESERVED
`
`AA 2015
`
`AA 2016
`
`McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Chemistry (2d.), definitions of “gel,”
`“solution,” and “suspension”
`
`BASCO Viscosity Charts & Conversion Tables, available at
`http://bascousa.com/images/advisors/407%20condensed.pdf
`
`AA 2017
`
`Stedman’s Medical Dictionary (27th ed.), definition of “precursor”
`
`AA 2018
`
`Portion of ‘439 Patent Prosecution History, ASPEN0000647 (Apr.
`3, 2007 Resp. at 13)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00201
`Attorney Docket No: 41577-0004IP1
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The ’439 patent relates to a process for manufacturing a little-known but
`
`important substance known as aerogel—a near perfect insulator that has myriad
`
`commercial applications. Before the ’439 patent, aerogel had limited practical
`
`applicability primarily due to limitations on the size of aerogel sheets that could be
`
`produced. The ’439 patent overcame that problem, providing a process that
`
`allowed the manufacture of arbitrarily long aerogel sheets. Commercially
`
`implementing this groundbreaking process caused Patent Owner’s revenue to
`
`increase more than 1,000-fold. (Ex. 2001, 12-13.) And because this previously
`
`unavailable ability was considered important to national security, the U.S.
`
`Government set aside funds to help pay for the factory that uses this inventive
`
`process to produce aerogel sheets. (Ex. 2002.) It was truly a pioneering invention.
`
`Ignoring that reality, Petitioner uses hindsight to cobble together references
`
`in a failed effort to meet its burden. However, none of the combinations asserted
`
`in the Petition renders obvious the inventions at issue. For example, the cited art—
`
`regardless of how it is combined—fails to disclose or suggest a process for
`
`continuously casting solvent filled gel sheet material, much less one that does so
`
`by continuously combining a sol and a gel inducing agent to form a catalyzed sol,
`
`or by continuously forming a gel sheet by dispensing catalyzed sol onto a moving
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`element at a predetermined rate effective to allow gelation to occur on the moving
`
`Case IPR2017-00201
`Attorney Docket No: 41577-0004IP1
`
`element, as required by the challenged claims.
`
`The Encyclopedia Britannica graphic (Ex. 1021) illustrating a “tape-casting”
`
`process at page 5 of the Petition is ironically representative of the deficiencies of
`
`Petitioner’s asserted grounds (ironic because Petitioner bothers to include it in the
`
`Petition but, knowing that it is irrelevant, declines to include it in any of the
`
`asserted grounds). Among other failures, the depicted tape-casting process (a)
`
`does not relate to sol-gels in general or aerogels in particular, (b) does not dispense
`
`a catalyzed sol onto a moving element as a continuous sheet or a predetermined
`
`rate effective to allow gelation to occur on the moving element, and (c) does not
`
`dry or roll a gel sheet so formed.
`
`For these and other reasons set forth below, the Board should decline to
`
`institute IPR.
`
` THE ’439 PATENT
`Aerogel is a very light material that has incredible insulating properties.
`
`Due to its ethereal appearance (shown below), aerogel is sometimes referred to as
`
`“frozen smoke” or “solid smoke.” It was first created in the 1930s, but had limited
`
`commercial applicability for 70 or so years until the ’439 patent.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2017-00201
`Attorney Docket No: 41577-0004IP1
`
`
`
`To form an aerogel, a low-viscosity colloidal suspension comprising gel
`
`precursor material and a solvent (together known as a sol) is induced or catalyzed
`
`to turn into a gel. Such gels have a liquid phase interspersed within a solid phase
`
`having a three-dimensional porous lattice structure. The liquid portion of the gel is
`
`then extracted from the pores of the solid gel structure—usually under extreme
`
`conditions such as very high temperature and pressure—without appreciably
`
`degrading the three-dimensional lattice structure. This leaves behind an aerogel,
`
`i.e., a solid three-dimensional lattice structure filled predominantly with air (rather
`
`than the extracted liquid). (’439, 1:19-22.)
`
`Aerogels have excellent insulating performance. (See, e.g., ’439, 1:32
`
`(describing aerogels as “the best solid thermal insulators”); Ramamurthi, Ex. 1006,
`
`1:33-38 (stating that aerogels are “extremely valuable” for “insulation”).) Heat
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`transfer by conduction is reduced because aerogels are almost entirely air, and heat
`
`Case IPR2017-00201
`Attorney Docket No: 41577-0004IP1
`
`transfer by convection is reduced because the incredibly small pores within the
`
`lattice structure inhibits it. (’439, 1:35-40.) Heat transfer by radiation also can be
`
`reduced by including opacifiers or other opaque components in the aerogel. (Id.)
`
`Aerogels by themselves are fragile and brittle, and will generally fall apart if
`
`flexed or bent. For example, the gel sheets disclosed in the ’439 patent are
`
`ordinarily stiff, inflexible and fragile—absent fiber reinforcement. (See, e.g., ’439,
`
`1:24 (noting the “fragile cells of the material”), 5:26-29 (“these gel materials are
`
`normally stiff and inflexible when they are composed of a ceramic or cross-linked
`
`polymer matrix material with intercalated solvent (gel solvent) in the absence of
`
`fiber reinforcement”); Frank ’075 (Ex. 2003), 1:63-67 (noting the “great brittleness
`
`of prior art aerogels”). These mechanical properties traditionally have impeded the
`
`use of aerogels as insulators in many real-world scenarios. In the decades since
`
`aerogels were first discovered in the 1930s, researchers have been looking for ways
`
`to make aerogels suitable for real-world applications by combining them with
`
`other, more durable materials. Aspen, the Patent Owner, ultimately solved this
`
`problem with its pioneering composite aerogels that combine aerogels with certain
`
`fibrous materials, and its processes for manufacturing them. Aspen’s composite
`
`aerogel blankets are used in a variety of insulating applications ranging from
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`NASA projects, to deep ocean oil pipes, to commercial and residential building
`
`Case IPR2017-00201
`Attorney Docket No: 41577-0004IP1
`
`insulation.
`
`The ’439 patent, titled “Methods to produce gel sheets,” is directed to novel
`
`methods for manufacturing composite aerogel insulation materials in arbitrarily
`
`long sheets or rolls. Before the’439 patent, sheets of aerogel were formed via a
`
`process known as “batch casting.” (’439, 1:66-2:2.) The patent explains, “Batch
`
`casting is defined here as catalyzing one entire volume of sol to induce gelation
`
`simultaneously throughout that volume.” (’439, 2:2-4.) In batch casting, the gel
`
`precursor and solvent, together known as “sol,” are placed into a mold along with
`
`the batting and catalyzed to form a gel essentially simultaneously throughout the
`
`entire volume of the mold. The liquid portion of the gel can then be removed via
`
`prior art methods, leaving behind the aerogel composite in the mold.
`
`Batch casting suffered a number of shortcomings. For example, the size of
`
`the mold limited the size of the resulting aerogel sheet. As a result, sheets of
`
`aerogel having any desired arbitrary length—e.g., several hundred feet—could not
`
`feasibly be produced. The size of the sheets described in Ramamurthi (issued in
`
`1994) is just 12x12 inches. (Ex. 1006, 12:36-49.) And, in 1991, almost six
`
`decades after the invention of aerogels, researchers noted that “monolithic aerogel
`
`tiles of sizes up to 40x40x2 cm3… are available in small quantities.” Ex. 2004
`
`(Fricke) (emphasis added). Notably, the relatively small-sized aerogel tiles
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`described in Fricke represented the state of the art approximately 60 years after
`
`Case IPR2017-00201
`Attorney Docket No: 41577-0004IP1
`
`scientists began working with aerogel. Consequently, because of this
`
`manufacturing limitation, several potential applications for aerogel such as
`
`insulating pipelines went unrealized.
`
`Another drawback of batch casting was that gelation of the entire sheet
`
`occurred all at once. Such simultaneous gelation resulted from the fact that the
`
`entire volume of sol in a batch cast needed to be simultaneously combined with the
`
`catalyst so that the entire volume of sol would have the same gelation profile. As a
`
`result, due to the low mechanical strength of gels, the gel could not be bent or
`
`rolled into multiple layers without cracking or breaking. And because a batch-
`
`casted gel sheet could not be rolled into multiple layers, it was further size limited
`
`in that it could not be longer than the size of the dryer into which the gel sheet
`
`must be placed and treated as the final step in the aerogel manufacturing process.
`
`Consequently, the longest aerogel sheet that could be produced using a batch
`
`casting technique was about 16 feet. Ex. 2011, ¶¶ 5, 34 (Decl. of Dr. George L.
`
`Gould).
`
`In comparison to batch casting, the ’439 patent’s continuous process allows
`
`for much longer gel sheets (e.g., 200 feet or longer) and improved manufacturing
`
`efficiencies. (’439, 3:61-4:4.) As disclosed in the patent, Patent Owner’s novel
`
`method for manufacturing aerogels involves allowing an aerogel material to be
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`created “continuously or semi-continuously” (’439, 3:55-56) using a conveyer belt
`
`Case IPR2017-00201
`Attorney Docket No: 41577-0004IP1
`
`as shown below in annotated Figure 2 of the patent:
`
`
`
`As shown above, a roll of fibrous batting (27) is unrolled at one end of the
`
`conveyor belt (28). (’439, 9:40-55.) Liquid sol (21) and a gel-inducing agent, or
`
`“catalyst” (22), are mixed together by mixer (24) to form a low-viscosity
`
`“catalyzed sol,” which is flowed onto the fibrous batting sheet (27). As the liquid-
`
`impregnated batting moves along the conveyor belt (28), the catalyst (22) in the
`
`mixture causes the liquid sol (21) to gradually transition into a solid gel structure
`
`as it moves along the conveyor belt (28), with the batting fibers interspersed within
`
`and around the gel structure. At the far end of the belt (28), the fiber-reinforced
`
`gel sheet, which has now sufficiently strengthened to be rolled but not allowed to
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`become so stiff that it would crack while being rolled, is wound into a roll (29).
`
`Case IPR2017-00201
`Attorney Docket No: 41577-0004IP1
`
`The strength (and as a result, degree of stiffness) of the sheet at the point it reaches
`
`the rolling assembly (29) is controlled by various variables, including the speed of
`
`the conveyor belt, the length of the conveyor, and the chemical composition of the
`
`catalyzed sol.
`
`Optional additional processing steps may then be performed, such as aging
`
`(setting the sheet aside for a time to allow the gel to further strengthen). The sheet
`
`can then be dried to extract the liquid phase of the gel, leaving behind a composite
`
`aerogel insulation material in a roll form. Unlike in the prior art processes, “[v]ery
`
`long continuous sheets of fiber-reinforced, flexible gel material are readily
`
`fashioned using the methods of this invention because … the combined casting and
`
`rolling process[] allows a single molding surface to be continuously re-utilized
`
`within a small production area.” (’439, 3:61-66.)
`
`The ’439 patent explains that, due to the nature of aerogels, several variables
`
`must be taken into account for the method to work properly. For one, “all
`
`components are fed into the apparatus at the appropriate rate.” (’439, 3:56-57.)
`
`Also, the catalyzed sol must be dispensed “at a predetermined rate effective to
`
`allow gelation to occu[r] on the moving element.” (’439, 2:36-38.) And, because
`
`the catalyzed sol that is dispensed onto the conveyor is of “low viscosity,” and
`
`because “gel formation” occurs on the conveyor (’439, 2:32-34), the speed and
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`length of the conveyor belt are important. (See, e.g., ’439, 10:45-49 (describing an
`
`Case IPR2017-00201
`Attorney Docket No: 41577-0004IP1
`
`embodiment “where sol is dispensed onto a convey[o]r belt and allowed to gel as
`
`the convey[o]r belt travels a specific distance (corresponding to a specified
`
`residence time)”).) Winding the gel into a roll occurs at a post-gelation “residence
`
`time,” which includes sufficient time for full gelation and an optimized amount of
`
`aging such that the gel is sufficiently firm to avoid seeping (or breaking), while
`
`remaining sufficiently flexible to be rolled. (’439, 10:45-49.) In other words,
`
`unlike batch casting in which gelation of the entire sheet occurred simultaneously,
`
`in the process claimed in the ’439 patent, the continuous gel sheet undergoes
`
`gradual gelation as it moves along the conveyor belt (18). (See ’439, 2:36-38.) At
`
`the point each portion of the gel sheet reaches the rolling assembly (29), that
`
`portion of the gel is both sufficiently strong enough to be rolled while remaining
`
`sufficiently flexible to enable the continuous sheet to be rolled into multiple layers
`
`without cracking or breaking. (See ’439, 5:57-61, 10:45-49, 11:46-54.) As
`
`explained above, if the continuous sheet were allowed to completely gel all at
`
`once—such as occurs with batch casting—it would tend to crack or break if rolling
`
`it into multiple layers were attempted. (See, e.g., Ex. 2008, “Sol-Gel Science” at
`
`493-94 (discussing how to avoid cracking and fracturing of sol-gels due to their
`
`brittle nature).
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`Petitioner challenges the validity of 14 claims including independent claims
`
`Case IPR2017-00201
`Attorney Docket No: 41577-0004IP1
`
`1, 3, 7, 15, 19, and 21. All six independent claims recite a “process for
`
`continuously casting solvent filled gel sheet material.” That alone is sufficient to
`
`distinguish the challenged claims from the asserted art as none of the art relates to
`
`such a process. Moreover, five of the six independent claims (1, 3, 7, 19, 21)
`
`require both “continuously combining a sol and a gel inducing agent to form a
`
`catalyzed sol,” and “forming a gel sheet by dispensing catalyzed sol onto a moving
`
`element … at a predetermined rate effective to allow gelation to occur on the
`
`moving element.” Those limitations also are not disclosed in the prior art
`
`regardless of how they are combined. The sixth independent claim (15) requires
`
`“continuously forming a gel sheet by dispensing catalyzed sol onto a moving
`
`element,” and is patentable over the cited art for that additional reason.
`
` CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`For purposes of this IPR, Patent Owner proposes the following claim
`
`constructions. All other claim terms are to be given their “broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.100(b).1
`
`
`
` 1
`
` The claim construction order of the Administrative Law Judge at the International
`
`Trade Commission is attached as Ex. 2013.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2017-00201
`Attorney Docket No: 41577-0004IP1
`
`A.
`
`“A process for continuously casting solvent filled gel sheet
`material” (claims 1, 3, 7, 15, 19, 21)
`This language appears in the preamble of each challenged independent claim
`
`and should be interpreted as limiting, and to mean “a process that can continue
`
`indefinitely to produce solvent filled gel sheets of any arbitrary length.” Several
`
`reasons compel this conclusion.
`
`First, the preamble language is limiting because the terms “give meaning to
`
`the claim and properly define the invention.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1479
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1994); Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d
`
`1251, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“The effect preamble language should be given can
`
`be resolved only on review of the entirety of the patent to gain an understanding of
`
`what the inventors actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim.”).
`
`Here, the preamble, including the language “a process for continuously casting
`
`solvent filled gel sheet material,” was intended by the inventors to be encompassed
`
`by the claims. The patent’s title indicates what the inventors invented, namely,
`
`“Methods to produce gel sheets.” And in its first sentence, the patent states that
`
`the “present invention provides various methods for producing gel sheets in
`
`continuous fashion.” (’439, Abstract (emphasis added).) In addition, the language
`
`of the claims themselves indicate that the process is run “continuously” and that
`
`the process “form[s] a gel sheet.” The specification likewise states that
`
`“dispensing the catalyzed sol at a predetermined rate effective to allow gelation to
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`occu[r] on the moving element” results in a “formed gel sheet.” (’439, 2:33-38
`
`Case IPR2017-00201
`Attorney Docket No: 41577-0004IP1
`
`(also explaining that the catalyst “induces gel formation and form[s] a gel sheet on
`
`a moving element”)); see Corning Glass Works, 868 F.2d at 1257 (the preamble
`
`phrase “an optical waveguide” limited claims to optical fibers, because “[t]he
`
`invention is restricted to those fibers that work as waveguides as defined in the
`
`specification, which is not true with respect to fibers constructed with the
`
`limitations of the [body of the claim] only”). The specification consistently
`
`reiterates that it regards continuously producing gel sheets as what the inventors
`
`invented, and that limitation, accordingly, is part of the claims. (See, e.g., ’439,
`
`1:14-15 (“[The] invention relates to the preparation of solvent filled gel sheets in a
`
`continuous fashion.”).
`
`Second, the term “a process for continuously casting solvent filled gel sheet
`
`material” means “a process that can continue indefinitely to produce solvent filled
`
`gel sheets of any arbitrary length.” In that regard, the patent defines “casting” as
`
`“deposition” of the catalyzed sol onto a conveyor. ’439, 10:13-16 (“diagram for
`
`mixing a sol and a catalyst in a mixing zone prior to casting (deposition) at a
`
`controlled rate onto a conveyor apparatus in a continuous fashion” (emphasis
`
`added)). And the patent specifically distinguishes non-continuous batch-casting
`
`based on the ’439 patent’s continuous casting: “The invention describes continuous
`
`… sol-gel casting methods that are greatly improved over conventional batch sol-
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`gel casting methods.” (’439, 2:25-27.) The patent explains that its method allows
`
`Case IPR2017-00201
`Attorney Docket No: 41577-0004IP1
`
`the casting to continue indefinitely and to produce solvent filled gel sheet of any
`
`arbitrary length. The patent describes its methods “for producing gel sheets in a
`
`continuous fashion.” (’439, Abstract (emphasis added); 2:49-57 (“Even more
`
`specifically, the methods describe the formation of monolithic gel sheets or fiber-
`
`reinforced gel composite … in a continuous or semi-continuous fashion.”
`
`(emphasis added)).) The patent explains: “Very long continuous sheets of fiber-
`
`reinforced, flexible gel material are readily fashioned using the methods of this
`
`invention ….” (’439, 3:61-63.) No limit is placed on length of the continuous
`
`sheet, instead describing that, under the proper belt speed, “such that the gelation
`
`front within the mixed sol (defined as the fixed position along the conveyor table at
`
`which the sol is no longer free flowing, taking on a rubbery quality) appears
`
`halfway along the length of the table,” the flexible gel composite can be “rolled
`
`into a plurality of layers,” such as indicated by the rolling assembly 29 in Fig. 2.
`
`(’439, 3:39, 11:46-50.) Thus, with the proper adjustments, the process can
`
`continue indefinitely to make arbitrarily long sheets.
`
`B.
`“Gel sheet” (claims 1, 3, 7, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21)
`The term “gel sheet” appears in the preamble and body of these claims, e.g.,
`
`reciting a step of “forming a gel sheet ….” (’439, Claim 1.) It should be
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`interpreted to mean “a gel sheet suitable for manufacturing aerogel products.”
`
`Case IPR2017-00201
`Attorney Docket No: 41577-0004IP1
`
`Several reasons support this construction.
`
`The patent explains that the gel sheets are limited to those used to produce
`
`aerogel products. According to the patent, gel sheets produced according to its
`
`methods “are used in manufacturing aerogel blankets used in a variety of
`
`applications including thermal and acoustic insulation.” (’439, Abstract.) The
`
`specification further explains, “This invention relates to the preparation of solvent
`
`filled gel sheets in a continuous fashion. Such gel sheets are used in manufacturing
`
`aerogel blankets, aerogel composites, aerogel monoliths and other aerogel based
`
`products.” (’439, 1:14-17 (emphasis added).) In other words, the sole purpose of
`
`the gel sheets produced by the claims is to create aerogel products. See ’439,
`
`Abstract (“[s]uch gel sheets are used in manufacturing aerogel blankets”).
`
`Accordingly, the “gel sheets,” which are “form[ed]” according to the “process” the
`
`claims, are “gel sheets suitable for manufacturing aerogel products.”
`
`Petitioner’s proposed construction of “gel sheet”—“a solid material in the
`
`form of a relatively thin piece, plate, slab or layer” (Petition, 10)—is completely
`
`divorced from the ‘439 patent, the art-recognized definition of “gel,” and reality.
`
`With regard to the latter, Petitioner’s proposed definition would literally
`
`encompass every “solid material” known to man that can be formed into a “piece,
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`plate, slab, or layer” including linoleum tiles, glass windows, ceramic dinner
`
`Case IPR2017-00201
`Attorney Docket No: 41577-0004IP1
`
`plates, and plastic Frisbees.
`
`Ironically, Petitioner's definition at the same time would actually exclude
`
`sheets made of gel, which is not simply a “solid material” but rather “a two-phase
`
`colloidal system consisting of a solid and a liquid in more solid form than a sol.”
`
`Ex. 2015. As such, Petitioner’s proposed BRI of “gel sheet” must be disregarded.
`
`C.
`“Catalyzed sol” (claims 1, 3, 7, 15, 19, 21)
`The term “catalyzed sol” means “a low-viscosity mixture of sol and gel-
`
`inducing agent before it has formed into a gel.” The patent explains at the outset
`
`that catalyzed sol is a low-viscosity mixture of a sol and a gel-inducing catalyst,
`
`which are mixed together and dispensed on a conveyor belt, and then form into a
`
`gel while being conveyed along. Specifically, the patent states that “the invention
`
`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
`
`“dispensing the catalyzed sol at a predetermined rate effective to allow gelation to
`
`occu[r] on the moving element.” (’439, 2:30-38, 4:41 (referring to the “low
`
`viscosity, catalyzed sol mixture”).) The patent further explains that, referring to
`
`Fig. 1, “11 is a stable sol precursor solution, 12 is a catalyst to induce gelation of
`
`the sol …, 14 is a static mixer, 15 is the position in the fluid mixing system
`
`wherein the sol has been mixed thoroughly with catalyst, 18 indicates … [conveyor
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`apparatus] surfaces along the length of which gelation occurs prior to the rolling
`
`Case IPR2017-00201
`Attorney Docket No: 41577-0004IP1
`
`assembly indicated by 19.” Id., 9:28-39. Accordingly, a POSITA would have
`
`understood that, because gelation does not occur until the mixture is moving
`
`“along the length” of the conveyor, the catalyzed sol is dispensed onto the moving
`
`element not as a gel, but rather as a low-viscosity mixture of sol and gel-inducing
`
`agent.
`
`To the extent Petitioner’s proposed BRI of “sol”—“any sol-gel precursor
`
`materials in the form of a colloidal solution or suspension that are catalyzed to
`
`induce gelation” (Petition, 11)—suggests that the claim recitation of “dispensing
`
`catalyzed sol” covers dispensing a high-viscosity material or a material that has
`
`already gelled, Petitioner is incorrect. As explained above, the ‘439 specification
`
`and claims consistently make clear that claim 1 is limited to a process in which an
`
`ungelled, low-viscosity catalyzed sol is dispensed onto a moving element that
`
`moves at a predetermined rate effective to allow gelation to occur to the catalyzed
`
`sol on the moving element. Consequently, any BRI that would cover a process that
`
`dispenses already gelled material onto the moving element would be non-sensical
`
`within the context of the ‘439 patent, and thus must be rejected.
`
`D.
`“Rolling the formed gel sheet” (claim 19)
`The term “rolling the formed gel sheet” means “rolling the sheet into a roll
`
`having at least two overlapping layers.” The patent explains that gel sheets formed
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`according to the method it describes can be “rolled into a plurality of layers.”
`
`Case IPR2017-00201
`Attorney Docket No: 41577-0004IP1
`
`(’439, 3:39.) According to the patent, “this is a novel and effective way of
`
`producing gel sheets for efficient drying operations” in spite of the possible
`
`adhesion of gel sheet layers to each other in wet form or especially upon drying.
`
`(’439, 3:39-40.) The patent depicts and describes the “rolling assembly” with a
`
`continuous sheet rolling up into multiple layers. For example, an annotated portion
`
`of Figure 2 depicts the rolling assembly (29) (’439, 9:54-55):
`
`
`
`Thus, “rolling the formed gel sheet” means “rolling the sheet into a roll having at
`
`least two overlapping layers.”
`
` PETITIONER’S INVALIDITY GROUNDS SHOULD BE REJECTED
`Petitioner does not allege that any single reference is anticipatory. Instead,
`
`Petitioner relies on a highly redundant patchwork of prior art combinations in an
`
`attempt to establish that the ’439 patent would have been obvious. Each of the
`
`Grounds Petitioner puts forth fails.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2017-00201
`Attorney Docket No: 41577-0004IP1
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-4, 6-9, 15, 16, and 18 are not obvious over
`Nakanishi in view of Ramamurthi
`1.
`Nakanishi fails to disclose several elements of the Ground 1
`independent claims
`The Ground 1 independent claims (1, 3, 7, and 15) recite several limitations
`
`not found in Nakanishi. For example, Petitioner has failed to establish that
`
`Nakanishi discloses either (a) “dispensing a catalyzed sol onto a moving element,”
`
`(b) “allow[ing] gelation to occur to the catalyzed sol on the moving element,” (c)
`
`“dispensing … onto a moving element … at a predetermined rate effective to
`
`gelation to occur … on the moving element,” (d) “forming a gel sheet,” or (e) “[a]
`
`process for continuously casting solvent filled gel sheet material,” as required by
`
`the claims.
`
`(a)
`“dispensing a catalyzed sol onto a moving element”
`Petitioner argues that Nakanishi’s disclosure of “dispensing the silicone gel
`
`material” corresponds to the claimed “dispensing a catalyzed sol onto a moving
`
`element.” Petition, 20-22. Petitioner is wrong for several reasons.
`
`First, Nakanishi does not describe dispensing “a catalyzed sol,” i.e., “a low-
`
`viscosity mixture of sol and gel-inducing agent before it has formed into a gel.”
`
`As the patent explains, and the claims recite, the invention starts with a catalyzed
`
`sol and (after dispensin