UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________
`
`
`
`WENDT CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`IQASR, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________________________
`
`IPR2017-01080
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,132,432
` ____________________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`Mail Stop "PATENT BOARD"
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`Filed Electronically
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................ iv
`PETITIONER'S LIST OF EXHIBITS ............................................................... vii
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`II.
`SUMMARY OF RELEVANT TECHNOLOGY AND THE
`PRIOR ART "PROBLEM" ALLEGEDLY SOLVED BY THE
`'432 PATENT ................................................................................................. 2
`III. PRIOR ART PATENTABILITY CHALLENGES ..................................10
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................12
`1.
`"magnetic fuzz".......................................................................14
`a.
`"magnetic fuzz" has no plain and ordinary
`meaning in the art of ASR recycling ...........................16
`The file history does not define the term ....................17
`The specification does not objectively or
`consistently define "magnetic fuzz" ............................20
`A broadest reasonable construction of
`"magnetic fuzz" based upon deconstruction
`analysis and the extrinsic evidence is both
`legally improper and unhelpful ...................................29
`All claims are indefinite ...............................................31
`e.
`"ferrous sorting recovery system" ........................................31
`"automobile shredder residue" .............................................32
`"non-ferrous recovery system" .............................................32
`"selected magnetic fuzz" ........................................................32
`"substantially free" .................................................................33
`"recyclable materials" ............................................................33
`"air-locked automobile shredder residue sorting,
`non-ferrous recovery system" ................................................34
`SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION .................................................35
`A.
`Jody Anticipates Claims 1-8, 10-14, 18, 19 And 22 ........................35
`1.
`Legal Standard ........................................................................35
`i
`
`2.
`3.
`4.
`5.
`6.
`7.
`8.
`
`b.
`c.
`
`d.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`

`

`B.
`
`
`
`
`
`Description of the Jody System ..............................................35
`2.
`Claim 1 of the '432 patent is anticipated by Jody ................39
`3.
`Claims 2 and 4 are anticipated ..............................................41
`4.
`Claims 3 and 7 are anticipated by Jody ................................42
`5.
`Claims 5, 6, 11 and 22 are anticipated ..................................42
`6.
`Jody anticipates Claim 8 ........................................................43
`7.
`Jody anticipates Claim 10 ......................................................43
`8.
`Claims 12 and 14 are anticipated ..........................................44
`9.
`10. Claim 13 is anticipated ...........................................................44
`11. Claims 18 and 19 are anticipated ..........................................44
`Jody, In View of The 1998 Handbook, Renders All
`Challenged Claims Obvious .............................................................45
`1.
`The Skill of a POSITA ............................................................46
`2.
`Jody and the 1998 Handbook Disclose All
`Limitations of the Claims and are Properly Combined ......46
`a.
`Claim 1 ...........................................................................47
`i.
`Is Jody missing a "ferrous sorting
`recovery system"? ..............................................47
`Does Jody disclose sorting "magnetic
`fuzz?" ...................................................................48
`iii. Does Jody disclose that sorted materials
`are "substantially free" of recyclables? ...........49
`Claims 2 and 4 are obvious ..........................................49
`Claims 3 and 7 are obvious ..........................................50
`Claims 5, 6, 11 and 22 are obvious ..............................50
`Claim 8 is obvious .........................................................50
`Claim 9 is obvious .........................................................50
`Claim 10 is obvious .......................................................51
`Claims 12 and 14 are obvious ......................................51
`Claim 13 is obvious .......................................................52
`
`b.
`c.
`d.
`e.
`f.
`g.
`h.
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`Claim 15 is obvious .......................................................52
`j.
`Claims 18 and 19 are obvious ......................................52
`k.
`Claim 20 is obvious .......................................................53
`l.
`VI. STANDING AND PROCEDURAL STATEMENTS ...............................54
`VII. MANDATORY NOTICES .........................................................................54
`CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT ..................................................................56
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ............................................................................57
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Cases
`Advanced Ground Info. Sys., Inc. v. Life360, Inc.,
`830 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..................................................................... 15, 29
`Alberta Telecomms. Research Ctr. v. AT&T Corp.,
`Civ. No. 09-3883 (PGS), 2012 U.S. Dist.
`LEXIS 112857 (D.N.J. Aug. 10, 2012) ...............................................................15
`American Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. Signal IP, Inc.,
`IPR2015-01003, Paper No. 11
`(P.T.A.B. Oct. 1, 2015) ........................................................................................14
`Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc.,
`815 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................42
`Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc.,
`445 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................10
`Collins v. Nissan N. Am., Inc.,
`No. 2:11-CV-428-JRG, 2013 U.S. Dist.
`LEXIS 15749 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 5, 2013) ...............................................................14
`Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc.,
`848 F.2d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ............................................................................11
`Eli Lilly & Co. v. Zenith Goldline Pharma, Inc.,
`471 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................35
`Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp.,
`599 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ..................................................................... 14, 32
`Ex parte Miyazaki,
`No. 2007-3300, 89 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1207
`(B.P.A.I. Nov. 19, 2008) ......................................................................................13
`Graham v. John-Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) .................................................................................................45
`Halliburton Energy Servs. v. M-I LLC,
`514 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................24
`Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Mustek Sys.,
`340 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................................53
`In re Cronyn,
`890 F.2d 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ............................................................................10
`iv
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`In re Montgomery,
`677 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................35
`In re Peterson,
`315 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................................49
`Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. AT&T Mobility, LLC,
`No. 12-193-LPS, 2015 U.S. Dist.
`LEXIS 36546 (D. Del. Mar. 24, 2015) ................................................................15
`Intellicall, Inc. v. Phonometrics, Inc.,
`952 F.2d 1384 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ..................................................................... 14, 31
`Internal Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.,
`766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................31
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.,
`766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................13
`Intervet, Inc. v. Merial Ltd.,
`617 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................15
`KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .............................................................................................45
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig. Instruments, Inc.,
`134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014) .........................................................................................13
`Seattle Box Co., Inc. v. Indus. Crating & Packing, Inc.,
`731 F.2d 818 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ....................................................................... 23, 32
`Source Search Techs., LLC v. Lending Tree, LLC,
`No. 04-4420 (DRD), 2008 U.S. Dist.
`LEXIS 52473 (D.N.J. July 8, 2008) .....................................................................11
`Spectralytics, Inc. v. Cordis Corp.,
`576 F. Supp. 2d 1030 (D. Minn. 2008) ................................................................11
`SRI Int'l, Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys., Inc.,
`511 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................10
`Stryker Corp. v. Karl Storz Endoscopy-America, Inc.,
`IPR2015-00677, Paper No. 15 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 2, 2015) .....................................10
`Transclean Corp. v. Bridgewood Servs., Inc.,
`290 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ............................................................................35
`TRW Automotive U.S. LLC v. Magna Elecs. Inc.,
`IPR2014-01347, Paper No. 25 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 6, 2016) .......................................11
`v
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google, Inc.,
`841 F.3d 995 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..............................................................................53
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 100 .......................................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ....................................................................................................1, 35
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ....................................................................................................1, 45
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ........................................................................................................13
`37 CFR § 42.100 (2015) ..........................................................................................12
`Pub. L. No. 112-29,
`125 Stat. 284 (2011) .........................................................................................1, 13
`Other Authorities
`AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY (2000) ..............................................................29
`HANDBOOK OF RECYCLING TECHNIQUES (1998)
`Alfred A. Nijkerk & Wijnand L. Dalmijn,
`The Royal Library of The Hague Cataloguing-in-Publication Data,
`assigned ISBN 90-8029 09-2-0 .................................................................... passim
`Rules
`Fed. R. Evid. 901 .....................................................................................................11
`
`vi
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`PETITIONER'S LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,132,432 to Anderson
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,329,436 to Jody et al.
`
`Declaration of William Close, dated March 22, 2017, attaching a
`true and correct copy of the front and back covers, title page,
`imprint and pages 3-10, 79-133, 155, and 161-209 of HANDBOOK
`OF RECYCLING TECHNIQUES (1998), The Royal Library of The
`Hague Cataloguing-in-Publication Data, assigned ISBN 90-8029
`09-2-0
`
`Declaration of Fred Smith, dated March 21, 2017, and attached
`Exhibits
`
`Selected pages of File Wrapper for U.S. Patent No. 9,132,432,
`obtained from United States Patent and Trademark Office PAIR
`website
`
`U.S. Published Patent Application No. US 2006/0243645 to
`Josephs
`
`AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY (2000), Cover Page,
`Imprint and p. 715 (definition of "fuzz")
`
`Source Search Techs., LLC v. Lending Tree, LLC, No. 04-
`4420 (DRD), 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52473 (D.N.J. July 8,
`2008)
`
`Collins v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., No. 2:11-CV-428-JRG, 2013
`U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15749 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 5, 2013)
`
`Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, No. 12-
`193-LPS, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36546 (D. Del. Mar. 24,
`2015)
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`
`
`1011
`
`Alberta Telecomms. Research Ctr. v. AT&T Corp., Civ. No.
`09-3883 (PGS), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112857 (D.N.J. Aug.
`10, 2012)
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Wendt Corporation ("Wendt") petitions for inter partes review ("IPR") of
`
`Claims 1-15, 18-20 and 22 of U.S. Patent No. 9,132,432 ("the '432 patent"), which
`
`has an earliest possible priority date of October 15, 2011. (Ex. 10011.) Each of
`
`these claims (except for Claims 9, 15 and 20) are anticipated under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1022 by U.S. Patent No. 6,329,436 ("Jody") (Ex. 10023), and each claim is
`
`rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by Jody in view of the HANDBOOK OF
`
`RECYCLING TECHNIQUES (1998), Alfred A. Nijkerk & Wijnand L. Dalmijn, The
`
`Royal Library of The Hague Cataloguing-in-Publication Data, assigned ISBN 90-
`
`8029 09-2-0 ("1998 Handbook") (Ex. 1003, Ex. A4). Neither reference was
`
`
`1 A true and correct copy of the '432 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 1001 and
`
`incorporated herein by reference.
`
`2 All citations to §§ 102 and 103 are to the pre-AIA statute, as the '432 patent was
`
`filed before March 16, 2013. See 35 U.S.C. § 100, note (2012); Pub. L. No. 112-
`
`29, § 3(b), 125 Stat. 284, 285-87 (2011).
`
`3 A true and correct copy of Jody is attached hereto as Exhibit 1002 and
`
`incorporated herein by reference.
`
`4 A true and correct copy of excerpts from the 1998 Handbook is attached as
`
`Exhibit A to the Declaration of William Close, which is attached hereto as Exhibit
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`considered during prosecution of the application that matured into the '432 patent
`
`and the petition is supported by expert testimony of Mr. Fred Smith. (Ex. 1004,5
`
`experience and qualifications at ¶¶ 4-7, 12-15.)
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF RELEVANT TECHNOLOGY
`AND THE PRIOR ART "PROBLEM"
`ALLEGEDLY SOLVED BY THE '432 PATENT
`
`The '432 patent generally concerns separating components found in
`
`automobile shredder residue ("ASR") by removing "recyclable material" from
`
`those that the inventor considers non-recyclable, i.e., "magnetic fuzz."6 The '432
`
`patent describes ASR as being a heterogeneous mixture of materials exiting an
`
`automobile shredder. Claim 1, the only independent claim of the '432 patent,
`
`requires that:
`
`
`1003. The Declaration of William Close and the Exhibit thereto are incorporated
`
`herein by reference. The page numbers cited for the 1998 Handbook are the actual
`
`page numbers of the book, not the page numbers of the exhibit.
`
`5 The Declaration of Fred Smith, which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1004, and the
`
`Exhibits thereto are incorporated herein by reference.
`
`6 As explained below, this is a "coined" term that is not defined in the '432 patent's
`
`intrinsic evidence and is legally indefinite.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`• "a ferrous sorting recovery system" produce automobile
`
`shredder residue ("ASR");
`
`• the ASR be placed into an "automobile shredder residue
`
`sorting, non-ferrous recovery system";
`
`• "magnetic fuzz" be non-magnetically sorted from the ASR by
`
`the non-ferrous recovery system; and
`
`• the sorted magnetic fuzz be "substantially free" of "recyclable
`
`materials."
`
`(Ex. 1001, col. 23, ll. 7-18.)
`
`Figure 4 from the '432 patent,
`
`reproduced right, illustrates the
`
`claimed method, showing scrap
`
`automobiles (26) being introduced
`
`into a shredder (1) that produces
`
`"shredded pieces" (2), with the
`
`"ferrous pieces" thereof being
`
`separated by a sorter (11) and
`
`collected (3) for transport to a
`
`collection point (30). (Id., col. 18,
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`ll. 34-44.) These items comprise the "ferrous recovery" portion (40) of the claimed
`
`system. (Id., col. 18, ll. 43-44.)
`
`The "non-ferrous" recovery portion (41) of the system starts with an ASR
`
`feeder (4). (Id., col. 18, l. 44 - col. 19, l. 21.) The ASR (i.e., everything exiting the
`
`shredder (1) except for the previously collected "ferrous pieces"), may first be
`
`sized (34), and undergo some initial sorting (16). (Id.) It then is separated into
`
`three material fractions (17), with waste going to a landfill (42), traditional
`
`recyclables being sent to the collection point (30), and the rest being sent to a
`
`sorter (5). (Id.) That sorter (5) could be an air-locked ASR
`
`sorting system, an end product waste sorter, a substantially isotropic
`quantization separation system, a wind tunnel sorting system, or the
`like to provide a collection, or even a series of collections of materials
`(9) and perhaps even recovery of recyclable materials of traditional
`end product waste. . . . At least some of the collected materials (9)
`may be recycled (30) or some of the collected materials (9) may be
`shipped to a landfill (42). At least one of the collections of materials
`(9) may be processed in a subsequent sorting system (15) to provide
`recyclable materials (36) [that] may be recycled (30).
`(Id., col. 18, l. 59 - col. 19, l. 13.) None of these use magnetism to sort ASR. (Ex.
`
`1004, ¶ 27.)
`
`The '432 patent's inventor admits that, prior to filing of the patent, recyclers
`
`knew a heterogeneous mixture of materials exit a shredder and that "ferrous
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`pieces," making up approximately 75% of the shredded vehicle's mass, were
`
`typically removed from that material stream, leaving ASR. (Ex. 1001, col. 1, l. 25
`
`- col. 2, l. 15.) The inventor also admits that various systems had by 2011 already
`
`been used to recover recyclable materials from ASR (id., col. 2, ll. 1-7) and that
`
`"air classifiers" and "cyclones" had been used in automobile recycling. (Id., col. 5,
`
`ll. 8-35.) He then wrongfully suggests that neither of these systems had previously
`
`been used to separate recyclable materials found in ASR. The truth is that more
`
`than a decade earlier, automobile recyclers had used air classifiers and cyclones to
`
`separate recyclable materials from ASR. (Ex. 1004, ¶ 28.)
`
`The 1998 Handbook was written by two experts in recycling, describes
`
`various automobile shredders and how "ferrous pieces" exiting the shredder are
`
`typically sorted from the overall material stream (Ex. 1003, Ex. A, pp. 92-108),
`
`explains that separating recyclable materials from ASR is achieved with the use of
`
`various known equipment and then describes that equipment. (Id., pp. 79-131 &
`
`161-209.) Specifically, the 1998 Handbook reports that:
`
`vehicle dismantlers remove . . . those parts that can be sold on the
`second-hand market . . . [, how the resulting hulk is shredded and
`ferrous pieces are sorted from the resulting material stream, and that
`the remaining] materials which constitute the 25% waste generated by
`the shredder: for instance paint, upholstery, plastics, glass and rubber,
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`are generally not dismantled [, and that] disposal of [this] shredder
`waste, or 'fluff', has become a major problem . . . .
`(Id., pp. 179-81.) The 1998 Handbook also explains that recyclable materials were
`
`being separated from "shredder fluff," i.e., ASR, with the aid of various machines,
`
`including vertical, horizontal and inclined air classifiers. (Id., pp. 182-85.)
`
`One described vertical air classifier is reproduced below:
`
`
`(Id., p. 182.) The 1998 Handbook explains that in the above classifier, feed
`
`
`
`material is first agitated and then subjected to air being forced upward through a
`
`column, with heavy materials falling out its bottom and light materials being
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`sucked into a cyclone, separated from the air and collected at its bottom. (Id.) It
`
`also explains that material separation could be enhanced by prescreening the feed
`
`material into the following size ranges: 5 to 8mm, 8 to 13mm (.31 to .51 in.), 13 to
`
`21mm (.51 to .83 in.), and 21 to 33mm (.83 to 1.3 in.). (Id., pp. 182-83.)
`
`The 1998 Handbook also discloses a vertically oriented zig-zag type air
`
`classifier, shown below, teaching that separation takes place each time vertically
`
`forced air contacts the feed material, with separation being enhanced by having the
`
`materials "bounce" off of the various "zigs" and "zags," causing small pieces of
`
`heavier material entangled in lighter materials to dislodge, separate, and thus
`
`become separately collectable. (Id., pp. 183-84.)
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`(Id., p. 183.) For instance, it explains that these classifiers can be used to separate
`
`metals from non-metals found in ASR, with heavy materials, sometimes called a
`
`"heavy fraction," exiting the bottom and light materials, sometimes called a "light
`
`fraction," exiting the system's top. (Id.)
`
`The 1998 Handbook then discloses that horizontal air classifiers, which are
`
`often used in combination with vibratory feeders (i.e., devices that pre-size
`
`materials to be introduced into the classifier's airstream), were used in automobile
`
`shredder recycling systems. (Id., pp. 182-84.) One such classifier, shown below,
`
`supplies a heterogeneous mixture of materials through an "airlock" (meaning the
`
`feeder is closed off from the surrounding environment), with the materials then
`
`falling from a conveyor into a separation chamber. (Id., pp. 183-84.) A blower (4)
`
`creates a horizontal and partially vertical airflow (8a) within the chamber, and that
`
`forced air separates the various materials into a heavy (5), mixed (6), mostly light
`
`(7) and light (3) material fractions. (Id., p. 183.)
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Id.) The system's specific material separation parameters are adjustable by
`
`varying the velocity and/or concentration of the airflow (see Item 8b, which adds a
`
`nozzle to concentrate the air stream (id.)) and/or by prescreening the feed material
`
`into desired size ranges. (Ex. 1004, ¶ 32.) Also, it is common for the various
`
`material fractions (Items 3, 5, 6 and 7) to be collected in containers associated with
`
`each of the outlets and that an airlock, in addition to being used on the feeder,
`
`could be placed on each "material fraction" outlet (Items 3, 5, 6 and 7), allowing
`
`for controlled collection of each and resulting in a "closed" system. (Id.)
`
`The 1998 Handbook also describes inertia separators, electrostatic
`
`separation, and particle sorting, light sensing, and camera implemented separation
`
`systems, more non-magnetic sorting systems then in use to separate recyclable
`
`materials from a heterogeneous feed mixture. (Ex. 1003, Ex. A, pp. 185-204.) In
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`short, a person of ordinary skill in the art ("POSITA") had, prior to 2011, many
`
`types of known equipment to choose from when designing a system to separate
`
`recyclable from non-recyclable materials that may be found in typical ASR. (Ex.
`
`1004, ¶ 35.)
`
`III. PRIOR ART PATENTABILITY CHALLENGES
`
`Whether a document qualifies as a printed publication under § 102 is a legal
`
`conclusion based on underlying factual determinations. Stryker Corp. v. Karl Storz
`
`Endoscopy-America, Inc., IPR2015-00677, Paper No. 15, p. 12 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 2,
`
`2015) (citing SRI Int'l, Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys., Inc., 511 F.3d 1186, 1192 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2008)). "Public accessibility" has been called the touchstone in determining
`
`whether a reference constitutes 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) art. SRI Int'l, 511 F.3d at 1194.
`
`A reference is publicly accessible upon a satisfactory showing that it has been
`
`disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and
`
`ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art, exercising reasonable diligence, can
`
`locate it. Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc., 445 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2006); see also In re Cronyn, 890 F.2d 1158, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ("The statutory
`
`phrase 'printed publication' has been interpreted to mean that before the critical
`
`date the reference must have been sufficiently accessible to the public interested in
`
`the art; dissemination and public accessibility are the keys to the legal
`
`determination whether a prior art reference was 'published.'") (quoting Constant v.
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). As in
`
`court, the proponent must present evidence sufficient to support a finding that the
`
`item is what the proponent claims it to be. Fed. R. Evid. 901(a); TRW Automotive
`
`U.S. LLC v. Magna Elecs. Inc., IPR2014-01347, Paper No. 25, p. 6 (P.T.A.B. Jan.
`
`6, 2016).
`
`Jody issued on December 11, 2001 and is thus 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) prior art.
`
`Spectralytics, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 576 F. Supp. 2d 1030, 1041-42 (D. Minn.
`
`2008). The 1998 Handbook was published in 1998 and includes a copyright notice
`
`and ISBN number. See Source Search Techs., LLC v. Lending Tree, LLC, No. 04-
`
`4420 (DRD), 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52473, at *82-83 n.8 (D.N.J. July 8, 2008)
`
`(finding that because there was no question that the prior art references were
`
`printed publications under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), there was no requirement that
`
`additional evidence, beyond the copyright date, be presented as proof of
`
`publication for books, articles, or trade publications) (Ex. 10087). Mr. William
`
`Close of Wendt meets the definition of a POSITA (Ex. 1004, ¶ 25) because as of
`
`October 2011, Mr. Close had worked as an Applications Engineer with ferrous and
`
`
`7 A true and accurate copy of the case Source Search Techs., LLC v. Lending Tree,
`
`LLC, No. 04-4420 (DRD), 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52473 (D.N.J. July 8, 2008) is
`
`attached hereto as Exhibit 1008 and is incorporated by reference herein.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`non-ferrous metal separation systems in the automobile shredding industry for over
`
`20 years (Ex. 1003, ¶ 2). The 1998 Handbook was publicly available and used by
`
`a POSITA prior to 2010 (id., ¶ 3; Ex. 1004, ¶¶ 25, 29), and thus too is 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(b) prior art. Wendt's specific challenges under this art are:
`
`References
`
`Jody
`
`Jody in combination with the 1998
`
`Handbook
`
`Basis
`
`§ 102
`
`§ 103
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`1-8, 10-14, 18-19 and 22
`
`1-15, 18-20 and 22
`
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`The broadest reasonable construction standard here applies (37 CFR
`
`§ 42.100(b) (2015)), and the following terms require construction: "ferrous sorting
`
`recovery system," "automobile shredder residue," "sorting, non-ferrous recovery
`
`system," "magnetic fuzz," "substantially free" and "recyclable materials" of
`
`independent Claim 1; "selected magnetic fuzz" of dependent Claims 2, 6, 9, 12, 17
`
`and 22; and "air-locked" of dependent Claims 12 and 17. Many of these terms are
`
`construable under the broadest reasonable construction standard. However,
`
`"magnetic fuzz" and several others are not, meaning every claim is indefinite and
`
`invalid.
`
`A patent must "conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out
`
`and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as [the]
`12
`
`
`

`

`
`
`invention." 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.8 "If a claim is amenable to two or
`
`more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring the
`
`applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention
`
`by holding the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
`
`indefinite." Ex parte Miyazaki, No. 2007-3300, 89 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1207, 1211
`
`(B.P.A.I. Nov. 19, 2008) (precedential). Similarly, a claim is "invalid for
`
`indefiniteness if its language, when read in light of the specification and the
`
`prosecution history, 'fail[s] to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the
`
`art about the scope of the invention.'" Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766
`
`F.3d 1364, 1369-71 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig. Instruments,
`
`Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2124 (2014)). As explained below, "magnetic fuzz" fails
`
`both these tests.
`
`If a claim term fails to satisfy the requirements of either Miyazaki or
`
`Nautilus, the Board cannot know, without speculation, what a claim in which the
`
`term is found means or how prior art applies to the claim, meaning an IPR may not
`
`properly be instituted. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. Signal IP, Inc.,
`
`
`8 All citations to § 112 are to the pre-AIA statute, as the '432 patent was filed
`
`before September 16, 2012. See Pub. L. No. 112-29, § 3(b), 125 Stat. 284, 285-87
`
`(2011).
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2015-01003, Paper No. 11, at p. 8 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 1, 2015); Enzo Biochem, Inc.
`
`v. Applera Corp., 599 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“[A] claim cannot be both
`
`indefinite and anticipated. . . . If a claim is indefinite, the claim, by definition,
`
`cannot be construed.”). If the Board agrees, it should now issue an order
`
`identifying "magnetic fuzz" as being indefinite and, on that basis, decline to
`
`institute this IPR.
`
`1.
`
`"magnetic fuzz"
`
`"An inventor is permitted to define the terms of his claims '[s]o long as the
`
`meaning of an expression is made reasonably clear and its use is consistent within
`
`a patent disclosure.'" Collins v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., No. 2:11-CV-428-JRG, 2013
`
`U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15749, at *18 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 5, 2013) (Ex. 10099) (quoting
`
`Intellicall, Inc. v. Phonometrics, Inc., 952 F.2d 1384, 1388 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). For a
`
`term coined by the inventor, "its meaning must be found . . . in the patent and so
`
`the Court looks to the specification to discern the term's meaning." Intellectual
`
`Ventures I, LLC v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, No. 12-193-LPS, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`
`
`9 A true and accurate copy of the case Collins v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., No. 2:11-CV-
`
`428-JRG, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15749 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 5, 2013) is attached
`
`hereto as Exhibit 1009 and is incorporated by reference herein.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`36546, at *98 (D. Del. Mar. 24, 2015) (Ex. 101010); see also Intervet, Inc. v.
`
`Merial Ltd., 617 F.3d 1282, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ("Idiosyncratic language, highly
`
`technical terms, or terms coined by the inventor are best understood by reference to
`
`the specification."). Further, even if two terms separately are well understood in
`
`the art at the relevant time, the combination of those terms may not automatically
`
`be considered understood in the relevant art. See Advanced Ground Info. Sys., Inc.
`
`v. Life360, Inc., 830 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("Even though 'symbol' and
`
`'generator,' separately, are terms of art in computer science, the combination of the
`
`terms ('symbol generator') is a term coined for the purpose of the patents-in-suit.");
`
`see also Alberta Telecomms. Research Ctr. v. AT&T Corp., Civ. No. 09-3883
`
`(PGS), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112857, at *103-04 (D.N.J. Aug. 10, 2012) (court
`
`relying upon specification to explain the meaning of the coined term) (Ex. 101111).
`
`In this case, "magnetic fuzz" was not a well-known term in the ASR recycling arts
`
`
`10 A true and accurate copy of the case Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. AT&T
`
`Mobility, LLC, No. 12-193-LPS, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36546 (D. Del. Mar. 24,
`
`2015) is attached hereto as Exhibit 1010 and is incorporated by reference herein.
`
`11 A true and accurate copy of the case Alberta Telecomms. Research Ctr. v. AT&T
`
`Corp., Civ. No. 09-3883 (PGS), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112857 (D.N.J. Aug. 10,
`
`2012) is attached hereto as Exhibit 1011 and is incorporated by reference herein.
`
`
`
`15
`
`