UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`________________
`
`ALBAAD MASSUOT YITZHAK, LTD. AND ALBAAD USA, INC.,
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`EDGEWELL PERSONAL CARE BRANDS, LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,432,075
`
`Filed: Nov. 8, 2000
`
`Issued: Aug. 13, 2002
`
`Title: Applicator for Tampons
`
`________________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2017- 00694
`
`________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,432,075
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,432,075
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
` I. INTRODUCTION.………………….…………………………………………………….1
`
`II. FORMALITIES……………………. ........................................................................... …..1
`
`A. Real Parties-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))..........................................................1
`
`B. Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) .....................................................................1
`
`C. Designation of Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)) and Power of Attorney (37 C.F.R. §
`42.10(b))…… ...............................................................................................................2
`
`D.
`
`Proof of Service (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e) and 42.105(a)), Service Information (37
`C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)), and Payment of Fees (37 C.F.R. § 42.103) ................................2
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW (37 C.F.R. § 42.104) ................. 3
`
`A. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)) .............................................................3
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Claims Being Challenged (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)) and Statement of
`Precise Relief Requested ..............................................................................................3
`
`C.
`
`Threshold for Inter Partes Review (37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c)) ........................................4
`
`IV. THE ‘075 PATENT……………….. ................................................................................... 4
`
`A. Overview of the ‘075 Patent and Claims ......................................................................4
`
`B.
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History ............................................................................8
`
`C.
`
`Effective Filing Date of the ’075 Patent .....................................................................12
`
`D.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art .............................................................................12
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION………… ............................................................................. 12
`
`A.
`
`“Diametrically Gradually Reduced” (claims 1, 5, 6) .................................................13
`
`B.
`
`“inflection point” and “located substantially at the inflection point”; “second
`inflection point” (claims 1, 2, 5, 6) .............................................................................14
`
`C.
`
`“a first portion for fitting [accommodating] the tampon therein” (claims 1, 5, 6) ....14
`
`D.
`
`“a second portion… having a smaller [reduced] diameter than that of [relative to]
`said first portion” (claims 1, 5, 6) ...............................................................................15
`
`E.
`
`“said curved face portion has two curvature radii” (claim 3)……………………….16
`
`i
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,432,075
`
`VI.
`
`‘075 PATENT CLAIMS 1-6 ARE UNPATENTABLE .................................................. 16
`
`A.
`
`Introduction .................................................................................................................16
`
`B. Ground 1: Claims 1-5 Were Anticipated By U.S. Patent No. D250,663 (“Koch”) (Ex.
`1004)……… ...............................................................................................................23
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Koch Anticipated Claim 1 ................................................................................ 24
`
`Koch Anticipated Claim 2: “An applicator for a tampon as set forth in claim 1,
`wherein the root ends of said valves are located substantially at the inflection
`point” ................................................................................................................ 31
`
`Koch Anticipated Claim 3: “An applicator for a tampon as set forth in claim 1,
`wherein said curved face portion has two curvature radii, and one curvature
`radius at the leading ends of said curved face portions is smaller than the other
`curvature radius at the root ends of said valves.”............................................. 33
`
`Koch Anticipated Claim 4: “An applicator for a tampon as set forth in claim 3,
`wherein an axial length of said valves having a smaller curvature radius is one
`half or less than the axial length of the outer face from the inflection point to
`the leading end of said curved face portion.” ................................................... 35
`
`5.
`
`Koch Anticipated Claim 5 ................................................................................ 37
`
`C. Ground 2: Claim 6 Would Have Been Obvious Over Koch (Ex. 1004) ....................40
`
`D. Ground 3: Claims 1-3 and 6 Were Anticipated By U.S. Patent No. 5,807,372
`(“Balzar”) (Ex. 1005) ..................................................................................................41
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Balzar Anticipated Claim 1 .............................................................................. 42
`
`Balzar Anticipated Claim 2 .............................................................................. 49
`
`Balzar Anticipated Claim 3 .............................................................................. 49
`
`Balzar Anticipated Claim 6 .............................................................................. 50
`
`E. Ground 4: Claims 4 and 5 Would Have Been Obvious Over Balzar (Ex. 1005) in
`View of Koch (Ex. 1004) ............................................................................................51
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 4 Would Have Been Obvious Over Balzar in View of Koch ................ 51
`
`Claim 5 Would Have Been Obvious Over Balzar in View of Koch .............. 522
`
`F. Ground 5: Claims 1-3 and 6 Were Anticipated By U.S. Patent No. 3,628,533
`(“Loyer”) (Ex. 1006) ..................................................................................................53
`
`1.
`
`Loyer Anticipated Claim 1 ............................................................................... 55
`
`ii
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,432,075
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Loyer Anticipated Claim 2 ............................................................................. 599
`
`Loyer Anticipated Claim 3 ............................................................................... 60
`
`Loyer Anticipated Claim 6 ............................................................................. 611
`
`G. Ground 6: Claims 4 and 5 Would Have Been Obvious Over Loyer (Ex. 1006) in
`View of Koch (Ex. 1004) ..........................................................................................611
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 4 Would Have Been Obvious Over Loyer in View of Koch .............. 611
`
`Claim 5 Would Have Been Obvious Over Loyer in View of Koch .............. 622
`
`H. Ground 7: Claims 1-3 and 6 Were Anticipated By U.S. Patent No. 3,895,634
`(“Berger”) (Ex. 1007) ...............................................................................................633
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Berger Anticipated Claim 1 ........................................................................... 644
`
`Berger Anticipated Claim 2 ........................................................................... 677
`
`Berger Anticipated Claim 3 ........................................................................... 677
`
`Berger Anticipated Claim 6 ........................................................................... 688
`
`I.
`
`Ground 8: Claims 4 and 5 Would Have Been Obvious Over Berger (Ex. 1007) in
`View of Koch (Ex. 1004) ..........................................................................................688
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 4 Would Have Been Obvious Over Berger in View of Koch ............. 688
`
`Claim 5 Would Have Been Obvious Over Berger in View of Koch ............. 699
`
`VII. STATEMENT OF NON-REDUNDANCY ................................................................... 699
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION……………………… .......................................................................... 7474
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,432,075
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cited Cases
`
`Brown, v. 3M,
`
`265 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ................................................................................................ 29
`
`Ex parte LeMay
`
`2008 Pat. App. LEXIS 6774 (BPAI, Sep. 24, 2008) ....................................... 20, 24, 51, 62, 68
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Pragmatus AV, LLC,
`
`582 Fed. Appx. 864 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ....................................................................................... 13
`
`Hotchkiss v. Greenwood,
`
`52 U.S. 248 (1850) ................................................................................................................... 22
`
`In re Aslanian,
`
`590 F.2d 911 (CCPA 1979) ...................................................................................................... 24
`
`In re Geisler,
`
`116 F.3d 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ................................................................................................ 20
`
`International Business Machines Corp. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC,
`
`IPR2014-01385 .................................................................................................................. 12, 13
`
`KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`
`127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)………………………………………………………………..51. 62, 68
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`
`134 S.Ct. 2120 (2014) .................................................................................................. 13, 14, 15
`
`Peters v. Active Mfg,
`
`129 U.S. 530 (1889) ................................................................................................................. 29
`
`Polaroid Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co.,
`
`789 F.2d 1556, 1573, 229 USPQ 561 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ............................................................ 29
`
`Richie v. Vast Res, Inc.,
`563 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ................................................................................................. 22
`
`Upsher-Smith Labs., Inc. v. Pamlab, L.L.C.,
`
`412 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ................................................................................................ 29
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ...................................................................................................................... 3, 4
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ...................................................................................................................... 3, 4
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) .......................................................................................................................... 4
`
`iv
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,432,075
`
`Rules
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) ....................................................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103 .......................................................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 .......................................................................................................................... 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)...................................................................................................................... 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ..................................................................................................................... 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.105(a)...................................................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c)...................................................................................................................... 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a)........................................................................................................................ 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e).......................................................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ..................................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ..................................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ..................................................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ..................................................................................................................... 2
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,432,075
`
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Ex. No.
`
`Description
`
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 6,432,075, “the ‘075 patent”, issued August 13, 2002,
`
`from U.S. App. No. 09/708,843, filed November 8, 2000
`
`1002
`
`Prosecution History for U.S. App. No. 09/708,843, issued as the ‘075
`
`patent (excerpts)
`
`1003
`
`Joint Proposed Claim Construction Statement in the litigation of, inter
`
`alia, the ‘075 Patent, Exhibit A, dated Dec. 20, 2016
`
`1004 U.S. Patent No. D250,663 to Koch et al., issued Dec. 26, 1978 (“Koch”)
`
`1005 U.S. Patent No. 5,807,372 to Balzar, issued Sep. 15, 1998 (“Balzar”)
`
`1006 U.S. Patent No. 3,628,533 to Loyer, issued Dec. 21, 1971 (“Loyer”)
`
`1007 U.S. Patent No. 3,895,634 to Berger et al., issued July 22, 1975
`
`(“Berger”)
`
`1008 U.S. Patent No. 4,428,370 to Keely, issued Jan. 31, 1984 (“Keely”)
`
`1009
`
`PLAINTIFF EDGEWELL PERSONAL CARE BRANDS, LLC’S
`
`INITIAL INFRINGEMENT CLAIM CHARTS, in Edgewell Personal
`
`Care Brands, LLC v. Albaad Massuot Yitzhak, Ltd. et al., No. 1:15-cv-
`
`01188-RGA (D. Del.).
`
`1010 U.S. Patent No. 2,178,840 to Lorenian, issued Nov. 7, 1939
`
`vi
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,432,075
`
`Ex. No.
`
`Description
`
`1011 U.S. Patent No. 3,433,225 to Voss et al., issued Mar. 18, 1969
`
`1012
`
`o.b. tampon (photo)
`
`1013 Rely, Soft Petal tampons (photos), ALBAAS0002806-
`
`ALBAAD0002808
`
`1014
`
`International Publication No. WO 98/06365 to Achter et al., published
`
`Feb. 19, 1998 from an application filed July 9, 1997
`
`1015 U.S. Patent No. 3,674,026 to Werner et al., issued July 4, 1972
`
`1016 U.S. Patent No. 3,699,962 to Hanke, issued Oct. 24, 1972
`
`1017 U.S. Patent No. 4,543,086 to Johnson, issued Sep. 25, 1985
`
`1018 U.S. Patent No. 4,857,044 to Lennon, issued Aug. 15, 1989
`
`1019 U.S. Patent No. 5,087,239 to Beastall et al., issued Feb. 11, 1992
`
`1020 U.S. Patent No. 5,389,067 to Rejai, issued Feb. 14, 1995
`
`1021 U.S. Patent No. 5,681,894 to Williams et al., issued Oct. 28, 1997
`
`1022 U.S. Patent No. 5,964,741 to Moder et al., issued Oct. 12, 1999
`
`1023
`
`EDGEWELL PERSONAL CARE BRANDS, LLC’S OBJECTIONS
`
`AND RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS’ SECOND SET OF
`
`INTERROGATORIES (excerpts)
`
`vii
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,432,075
`
`Ex. No.
`
`Description
`
`1024
`
`Expert Declaration of Raymond J. Hull, Jr. in Support of Inter Partes
`
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,432,075
`
`viii
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,432,075
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Albaad Massuot Yitzhak, Ltd. and Albaad USA, Inc., (collectively
`
`“Albaad”) petition for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,432,075 (“the ‘075 patent”; Ex. 1001), assigned to Edgewell Personal Care
`
`Brands, LLC (“Patent Owner” or “PO”).
`
`II.
`
`FORMALITIES
`
`A. Real Parties-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`
`The real parties-in-interest are Albaad Massuot Yitzhak, Ltd. and Albaad
`
`USA, Inc.
`
`B. Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`
`The ‘075 patent (Ex. 1001) issued from U.S. App. No. 09/708,843, filed
`
`Nov. 8, 2000, which claims priority from Japanese App. No. 11-329621,
`
`published Nov. 19, 1999. (Ex. 1001).
`
`Patent Litigation: On December 21, 2015, Patent Owner filed a complaint
`
`alleging infringement of the ‘075 patent, and U.S. Patent Nos. 9,192,522 and
`
`9,107,775 (the ’822 and ‘775 patents respectively), Case No. 1:2015-cv-01188-
`
`RGA (D. Del). On August 8, 2016, the Patent Owner filed an amended complaint
`
`alleging infringement of the ‘075, ‘522, ‘775 and added U.S. Patent No. 8,551,034
`
`(“the ‘034 patent”).
`
`On September 6, 2016, Patent Owner filed a Second Amended Complaint
`
`1
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,432,075
`
`alleging infringement of the ‘075, ‘522 and ‘034 patents. Claims concerning the
`
`‘775 patent were dropped.
`
`Other IPRs: In addition to this Petition, Petitioner is simultaneously filing a
`
`petition for IPR of the ‘522 patent.
`
`C. Designation of Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3))
`
`and Power of Attorney (37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b))
`
`Lead Counsel: David A. Loewenstein (Reg. No. 35,591) tel. 646-878-0806.
`
`Backup Counsel: Guy Yonay (Reg. No. 52,388); tel. 646-878-0808.
`
`Both are at Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer Baratz LLP, 1500 Broadway, 12th Fl.,
`
`New York, NY, 10036; fax 646-878-0801.
`
`A Power of Attorney accompanies this Petition under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b).
`
`D.
`
`Proof of Service (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e) and 42.105(a)),
`
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)), and
`
`Payment of Fees (37 C.F.R. § 42.103)
`
`This Petition is being served simultaneously with its filing on the
`
`correspondence address for the counsel of record for the ’075 patent and for the
`
`related litigation as stated in the attached Certificate of Service. Petitioner consents
`
`to
`
`service
`
`by
`
`e-mail
`
`only
`
`to DLoewenstein@pearlcohen.com
`
`and
`
`GYonay@pearlcohen.com. The Director is authorized to charge the fee of $23,000
`
`2
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,432,075
`
`under 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) and any additional fee required for this Petition to
`
`Deposit Account 50-3355.
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`(37 C.F.R. § 42.104)
`
`A. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a))
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ‘075 patent is available for IPR and that
`
`Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting IPR challenging the identified
`
`claims on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Claims Being Challenged (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b))
`
`and Statement of Precise Relief Requested
`
`Petitioner requests that the Board institute IPR of claims 1-6 (“the
`
`challenged claims”) of the ‘075 patent and find the claims unpatentable based on
`
`Grounds 1-8:
`
`Ground
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Statute (Pre-AIA)
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`Claims 1-5
`
`Claim 6
`
`Koch
`
`Koch
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`Claims 1-3, 6
`
`Balzar
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
`
`Claims 4, 5
`
`Balzar in view of Koch
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`Claims 1-3, 6
`
`Loyer
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
`
`Claims 4, 5
`
`Loyer in view of Koch
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`3
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,432,075
`
`Ground
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Statute (Pre-AIA)
`
`7
`
`8
`
`Claims 1-3, 6
`
`Berger
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
`
`Claims 4, 5
`
`Berger in view of Koch
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`C. Threshold for Inter Partes Review (37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c))
`
`This Petition demonstrates “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would
`
`prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” and that
`
`claims 1-6 are invalid, as explained below. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`IV. THE ‘075 PATENT
`
`A. Overview of the ‘075 Patent and Claims
`
`The ‘075 patent is directed to an “Applicator for Tampons.” The applicator
`
`comprises: an outer cylinder (element 1 below), and an inner cylinder (or “push-
`
`out member”) (element 2). A tampon (element 3) is fitted in a forward (or
`
`“leading”) portion of the outer cylinder (element 1). The inner cylinder (element 2)
`
`is movably inserted into a smaller diameter portion (element 8) of the outer
`
`cylinder (element 1). A push portion (element 11) of the inner cylinder (element 2)
`
`is diverged to push the tampon (element 3) from its rear end and also to prevent the
`
`inner cylinder (element 2) from being withdrawn from the rear end (element 9) of
`
`the outer cylinder (element 1). A plurality of valves (element 17) is provided an the
`
`side of a “leading end” of the outer cylinder (element 1), the valves (element 17)
`
`“being converged to have a curved face portion to be diametrically gradually
`
`4
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,432,075
`
`reduced toward the leading end of” the outer cylinder (element 1). (See Ex. 1001,
`
`“Summary of the Invention,” Ex. 1024, ¶ 31).
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, Fig 1.
`
`The alleged innovation is of the ‘075 patent is two-fold: (i) a ratio A/B of at
`
`most 0.8, when an inflection point for the boundary between the maximum
`
`diameter portion of the large diameter portion [element 7] and the curved face
`
`portion is designated by Z, a radius of the outer face at the inflection point
`
`[element Z] is designated by A, and the axial length from the inflection point
`
`[element Z] to the leading end of the curved face portion is designated by B; and
`
`(ii) a ratio L/W within a range of 1.0 to 2.0, when the width size of root ends of the
`
`valves is designated by W and the length of the valves is designated by L. (Id.).
`
`(Ex. 1024, ¶ 32). See Ex. 1001, “Summary of the Invention,” Figures 2A, 2B, 3:
`
`5
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,432,075
`
`
`
`
`
`In independent claim 5, each valve (element 17) has “a root end,” “a curved
`
`face portion to be diametrically gradually reduced,” “a leading end,” “a first
`
`inflection point at the root end of said valve,” “a second inflection point adjacent to
`
`the leading end of said valves,” and “a curvature radius for said first inflection
`
`point” that is “larger than a curvature radius for said second inflection point.” (Ex.
`
`1001, claim 5). This limitation is not found in claim 1. (Ex. 1024, ¶ 34).
`
`6
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,432,075
`
`In independent claim 6, the outer cylinder is made of a thermoplastic resin.
`
`(Ex. 1001, claim 6). This limitation is not found in claim 1. (Ex. 1024, ¶ 35).
`
`Otherwise, claims 5 and 6 recite similar inventions to that of claim 1, which
`
`is representative of the claimed invention (Ex. 1001, col. 7, ll. 24-44):
`
`1. An applicator for a tampon, comprising:
`
`[a] an outer cylinder including forward and rearward
`
`ends,
`
`[b] a first portion for fitting the tampon therein formed
`
`on a side of the forward end, and
`
`[c] a second portion formed on a side of the rearward end
`
`and having a smaller diameter than that of said first
`
`portion,
`
`[d] a push-out member movably inserted into said second
`
`portion of said outer cylinder, and
`
`[e] a plurality of valves provided with the forward end of
`
`said outer cylinder,
`
`[f] each valve being converged to have a curved face
`
`portion to be diametrically gradually reduced and define
`
`a leading end,
`
`[g] wherein a ratio of a radius of an outer face at an
`
`inflection point of a boundary between a maximum
`
`diameter portion of said first diameter portion and said
`
`curved face portion to an axial length of the outer face
`
`from the inflection point to the leading end of said curved
`
`face portion is at most 0.8; and
`
`7
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,432,075
`
`[h] wherein a ratio of a length of said valves to a width of
`
`root ends of said valves is 1.0 to 2.0.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History
`
`The application that issued as the ‘075 patent was filed on November 8,
`
`2000, and assigned Serial No. 09/ 708,843 (“the ‘843 application”). (Ex. 1001).
`
`The ‘843 application was filed originally with 4 claims. (Ex. 1002, pages 25-
`
`26).
`
`A non-final Office Action mailed on July 13, 2001 rejected claims 1-4 under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b), as being anticipated by Keely (U.S. Patent No. 4,428,370, Ex.
`
`1008). According to the Examiner, “Keely discloses an outer cylinder 12, with a
`
`large diameter portion and a small diameter portion, as claimed. The valves are 14.
`
`The push out member is 38. As the claim is best understood by the Examiner
`
`Keely discloses a shape that satisfies the claimed limitations.” (Ex. 1002, page
`
`36). The relevant figure from Keely is Fig 1 (Ex. 1008):
`
`
`
`The same Office Action also rejected claims 1-4 under the judicially-created
`
`doctrine of obviousness-type double-patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1,
`
`2 and 4 of co-pending Application No.09/710,576. (Ex. 1002, page 37).
`
`By Amendment dated October 4, 2001, Applicant amended pending claims
`
`8
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,432,075
`
`1-4 as follows:
`
`1. (Amended) An applicator for a tampon, comprising:
`
`an outer cylinder including [a large diameter portion for
`
`fitting a tampon therein] forward and rearward ends, a
`
`first portion for fitting the tampon therein formed on a
`
`side of the forward end, and a second portion formed on
`
`a side of the rearward end and having a smaller diameter
`
`than that of said first portion,
`
`[a small diameter portion provided on the side of a rear
`
`end of said cylinder and having a smaller diameter than
`
`that of said larger diameter portion and a plurality of
`
`valves provided on the side of a leading end of said outer
`
`cylinder, said valves being converged to have a curved
`
`face portion to be diametrically gradually reduced toward
`
`the leading end of said outer cylinder; and],
`
`a push-out member movably inserted into said [small
`
`diameter] second portion of said outer cylinder, and
`
`a plurality of valves provided with the forward end of
`
`said outer cylinder, each valve being converged to have a
`
`curved face portion to be diametrically gradually reduced
`
`and define a leading [edge] end,
`
`[wherein a ratio A/B is at most 0.8, when an inflection
`
`point for the boundary between the maximum diameter
`
`portion of said large diameter portion and said curved
`
`face portion is designated by Z, a radius of the outer face
`
`9
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,432,075
`
`at said infection point Z is designated A, and the axial
`
`length from said inflection point Z to the leading end of
`
`said curved face portion is designated by B, and
`
`wherein a ratio L/W is within a range of 1.0 to 2.0, when
`
`the width size of root ends of said valves is designated by
`
`W and the length of said valves is designated by L.].
`
`wherein a ratio of a radius of an outer face at an
`
`inflection point of a boundary between a maximum
`
`diameter portion of said first diameter portion and said
`
`curved face portion to an axial length of the outer face
`
`from the inflection point to the leading end of said curved
`
`face portion is at most 0.8; and
`
`wherein a ratio of a length of said valves to a width of
`
`root ends of said valves is 1.0 to 2.0.
`
`2. (Amended) An applicator for a tampon as set forth in
`
`claim 1, wherein [the] said root ends of said valves are
`
`located substantially at the [same position of said]
`
`inflection point [Z].
`
`3. (Amended) An applicator for a tampon as set forth in
`
`claim 1, wherein said curved face portion has two
`
`[curvatures] curvature radii, and [a] one curvature radius
`
`at the leading [end portions of said valves is larger than at
`
`the root ends of said valves] ends of said curved face
`
`portions is smaller than the other curvature radius at the
`
`root ends of said valves.
`
`10
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,432,075
`
`4. An applicator for a tampon as set forth in claim 3,
`
`wherein an axial length [Y of the valve portions having a
`
`larger curvature is one half or less than the axial length B
`
`from said inflection point Z to the leading end of said
`
`curved face potion] of said valves having a smaller
`
`curvature radius is one half or less than the axial length
`
`of the outer face from the inflection point to the leading
`
`end of said curved face portion.
`
`(Ex. 1002, pages 49- 51). Applicant also added new claims 5-7. New claims 5 and
`
`6 correspond to issued claims 5 and 6; new claim 7 was directed to a method of
`
`fabricating an applicator for a tampon. (Id., pages 43-45, compare Ex. 1001).
`
`With respect to Keely, Applicant stated:
`
`[T]his reference fails to disclose that the ratio of a radius
`
`of an outer face at an inflection point of a boundary
`
`between a maximum diameter portion of a first diameter
`
`portion and a curved face portion to an axial length of an
`
`outer face from the inflection point to the leading end of
`
`the curved face portion is at most 0.8, as well as that a
`
`ratio of a length of the valves to a width of root ends is
`
`1.0 to 2.0
`
`(Ex. 1002, pages 47-48).
`
`On January 22, 2002, Applicant filed a Terminal Disclaimer over
`
`Application No. 09/710,576. (Ex. 1002, pages 52-54). By Office Action mailed
`
`11
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,432,075
`
`February 27, 2002, the Examiner indicated that claims 1-6 were allowed, and the
`
`application was in condition for allowance except for the resolution of claim 7.
`
`(Id., pages 55-57). On April 2, 2002, Applicant filed an amendment cancelling
`
`claim 7. (Id., pages 59-60). A Notice of Allowability was mailed on April 30,
`
`2002. (Id., pages 60-61).
`
`C. Effective Filing Date of the ’075 Patent
`
`The earliest filing date of the ‘075 patent, the date of Japanese Application
`
`No. 11-329621, Nov. 19, 1999, is being used for this Petition. (Ex. 1001; Ex.
`
`1024, ¶ 70).
`
`D.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had at least a
`
`bachelor’s degree in engineering, and would have had at least four years of
`
`experience designing and building prototype tampons and tampon applicators.
`
`(Ex. 1024, ¶ 57).
`
`
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`A claim is to be given its “broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`specification” in IPR. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b), which is typically broader than
`
`the claim interpretation used in the District Court. However, the broadest
`
`interpretation cannot be narrower than one used in District Court. International
`
`12
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,432,075
`
`Business Machines Corp. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC, IPR2014-01385, Paper
`
`64, at *8 (Jan. 15, 2016) (“Facebook, Inc. v. Pragmatus AV, LLC, 582 Fed. Appx.
`
`864, 868-869 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (non-precedential) (‘The broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation of a claim term may be the same as or broader than the construction
`
`of a term under the Phillips standard. But it cannot be narrower.’ [Footnote
`
`omitted]).”).
`
`A.
`
`“Diametrically Gradually Reduced” (claims 1, 5, 6)
`
`The term “diametrically gradually reduced” has no definite meaning. (Ex.
`
`1024, ¶ 58). The claims with this term do not inform a POSITA about the scope of
`
`the claims with reasonable certainty. (Id.; see Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments,
`
`Inc., 134 S.Ct. 2120, 2129 (2014). Nor is there any clarifying disclosure in the
`
`specification. (Ex. 1024, ¶ 58).
`
`The ambiguity of the term means that any diametric reduction in the valves
`
`is covered by this term. That is, any diametric reduction is “gradual[ ].” (Ex. 1024,
`
`¶ 59).
`
`13
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,432,075
`
`B.
`
`“inflection point” and “located substantially at the inflection
`
`point”; “second inflection point” (claims 1, 2, 5, 6)
`
`The term “inflection point” is indefinite, and the claims with this term do not
`
`inform a POSITA about the scope of the claims with reasonable certainty.
`
`Nautilus, 134 S.Ct. at 2129; Ex. 1024, ¶ 60.
`
`In particular, to the extent the claim calls for “a curved face portion to be
`
`diametrically gradually reduced,” it cannot have an inflection point as that term
`
`generally is understood. (Ex. 1024, ¶ 61).
`
`C.
`
`“a first portion for fitting [accommodating] the tampon therein”
`
`(claims 1, 5, 6)
`
`
`
`The term “first portion” is indefinite, and the claims with this term do not
`
`inform a POSITA about the scope of the claims’ scope with reasonable certainty.
`
`Nautilus, 134 S.Ct. at 2129. (Ex. 1024, ¶ 62). Moreover, the term lacks written
`
`descrip