UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`
`
`NEW NGC, INC. dba NATIONAL GYPSUM COMPANY,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY,
`
`
`
`Patent Owner
`_____________
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-1088
`Patent No. 7,425,236
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 7,425,236
`PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319, 37 C.F.R. § 42
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`US Patent and Trademark Office
`PO Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R § 42.8 .................................... 1
`A.
`Real Party-In-Interest under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ............................. 1
`B.
`Related Matters under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ...................................... 1
`C.
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ................... 1
`D.
`Service Information ............................................................................... 1
`
`II.
`
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ..................... 2
`
`III.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES ..................................................................................... 2
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGES AND RELIEF REQUESTED .................. 2
`
`V.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 2
`
`VI. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND OF THE ’236 PATENT .............................. 4
`A.
`Basics of Gypsum Products ................................................................... 4
`B.
`The ’236 Patent ..................................................................................... 5
`C.
`Enhancing Materials .............................................................................. 6
`D. Accelerators ........................................................................................... 8
`
`VII. PROSECUTION HISTORY OF THE ’236 PATENT .................................... 9
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ..........................................................................10
`A.
`Enhancing Material(s) .........................................................................11
`B.
`Accelerator ..........................................................................................14
`C.
`Set Gypsum Product ............................................................................15
`
`IX. PRIOR ART REFERENCES ........................................................................16
`A. Graux ...................................................................................................16
`B.
`Satterthwaite ........................................................................................17
`C.
`Conroy .................................................................................................19
`D. Kerr ......................................................................................................20
`E.
`Johnstone .............................................................................................21
`
`i
`
`
`

`

`
`
`X.
`
`THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIM OF THE ʼ236 PATENT IS
`UNPATENTABLE ........................................................................................22
`
`2.
`
`XI. GROUND 1: OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIM 2 BY GRAUX IN VIEW
`OF KERR .......................................................................................................22
`A.
`Reasons for Combining Graux and Kerr .............................................22
`B. Mapping of Claim Elements ...............................................................25
`1.
`Claim 2a: A method for producing set gypsum product
`comprising .................................................................................25
`Claim 2b: dissolving one or more enhancing materials in
`water ..........................................................................................26
`Claim 2c: forming a mixture of calcined gypsum, water,
`and accelerator ..........................................................................29
`Claim 2d: inserting the aqueous solution of enhancing
`materials into the mixture, and..................................................30
`Claim 2e: maintaining the mixture under conditions
`sufficient for the calcined gypsum to form an
`interlocking matrix of set gypsum. ...........................................32
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`XII. GROUND 2: OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIM 2 BY
`SATTERTHWAITE IN VIEW OF KERR ...................................................33
`A.
`Reasons for Combining Satterthwaite and Kerr .................................33
`B. Mapping of Claim Elements ...............................................................34
`1.
`Claim 2a: A method for producing set gypsum product
`comprising .................................................................................34
`Claim 2b: dissolving one or more enhancing materials in
`water ..........................................................................................36
`Claim 2c: forming a mixture of calcined gypsum, water,
`and accelerator ..........................................................................39
`Claim 2d: inserting the aqueous solution of enhancing
`materials into the mixture, and..................................................40
`Claim 2e: maintaining the mixture under conditions
`sufficient for the calcined gypsum to form an
`interlocking matrix of set gypsum. ...........................................41
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`XIII. GROUND 3: OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIM 2 BY CONROY IN
`VIEW OF JOHNSTONE ...............................................................................43
`A.
`Reasons for Combining Conroy and Johnstone ..................................43
`B. Mapping of Claim Elements ...............................................................44
`
`ii
`
`
`

`

`
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Claim 2a: A method for producing set gypsum product
`comprising .................................................................................44
`Claim 2b: dissolving one or more enhancing materials in
`water ..........................................................................................45
`Claim 2c: forming a mixture of calcined gypsum, water,
`and accelerator ..........................................................................48
`Claim 2d: inserting the aqueous solution of enhancing
`materials into the mixture, and..................................................48
`Claim 2e: maintaining the mixture under conditions
`sufficient for the calcined gypsum to form an
`interlocking matrix of set gypsum. ...........................................49
`
`XIV. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS ...........................................................50
`
`XV. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................52
`
`XVI. CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT ...........................................................53
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. AIP Acquisition, LLC,
`IPR2014-00247 (Final Decision, May 20, 2015) ............................................... 10
`
`Ex parte Rubin,
`128 USPQ 440 (PTAB, 1959) ............................................................................ 31
`
`In re Gibson,
`29 F.2d 975 (CCPA, 1930) ................................................................................. 31
`
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
`504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 10
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 12
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ........................................................ 10, 12, 13, 14
`
`Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp.,
`190 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .......................................................................... 14
`
`United States Gypsum Company v. New NGC, Inc.,
`Case No. 1:17-cv-00130 (D. Del. Feb. 6, 2017) ................................................... 1
`
`RULES
`
`42.22(a)(1) .................................................................................................................. 2
`
`42.104(b)(1)–(2) ......................................................................................................... 2
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ................................................................................................... 16
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ................................................................................. 17, 19, 20, 21
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ..................................................................................................... 2
`
`iv
`
`
`

`

`
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`37 C.F.R § 42.8 .......................................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R § 42.8 ........................................................................................................ ..1
`
`37 C.F.R § 42.10(b) ................................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R § 42.10(b) ................................................................................................. ..1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 10
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ............................................................................................ ..1O
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 2
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ............................................................................................... ..2
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`

`

`
`
`NGC236-1001
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`Expert Declaration of Gerry Harlos
`
`NGC236-1002
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,632,550 (“the ʼ550 patent”)
`
`NGC236-1003
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,342,284 (“the ʼ284 patent”)
`
`NGC236-1004
`
`Selections from the Prosecution History of the ʼ284 Patent
`
`NGC236-1005
`
`Selections from the Prosecution History of the ʼ550 Patent
`
`NGC236-1006
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,932,001 (“Graux”)
`
`NGC236-1007
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,234,037 (“Satterthwaite”)
`
`NGC236-1008
`
`[RESERVED]
`
`NGC236-1009
`
`ASTM C473-95
`
`NGC236-1010
`
`U.S. Patent No. 2,884,413 (“Kerr”)
`
`NGC236-1011
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,770,468 (“Knauf”)
`
`Thomas Koslowski & Udo Ludwig, The Chemistry and
`Technology of Gypsum, ASTM STP 861, 103 (R. A. Kuntze,
`ed., 1984)
`Lydia M. Luckevick & Richard A. Kuntze, The Relationship
`Between Water Demand and Particle Size Distribution of
`Stucco, in The Chemistry and Technology of Gypsum, ASTM
`STP 861, 84-85 (R.A. Kutze, ed., 1984).
`
`
`
`NGC236-1012
`
`NGC236-1013
`
`vi
`
`
`

`

`
`
`NGC236-1014
`
`ASTM C472-93
`
`NGC236-1015
`
`Robert F. Acker, Physical Testing of Gypsum Board Per
`ASTM C 473, 3-7 (R.A. Kuntze, ed., 1984)
`
`NGC236-1016
`
`L. Amathieu, Improvement of Mechanical Properties of Set
`Plasters, 79 J. of Crystal Growth 169, 176 (1986)
`
`NGC236-1017
`
`U.S. Patent No. 2,985,219
`
`NGC236-1018
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,179,529
`
`NGC236-1019
`
`U.S. Patent No. 2,090,625
`
`NGC236-1020
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,190,787
`
`NGC236-1021
`
`U.S. Patent No. 2,346,999
`
`NGC236-1022
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,573,947
`
`NGC236-1023
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,009,062
`
`NGC236-1024
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,320,677
`
`NGC236-1025
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,534,059
`
`NGC236-1026
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,395,438
`
`NGC236-1027
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,246,063
`
`NGC236-1028
`
`Redacted Complaint
`
`vii
`
`
`

`

`
`
`NGC236-1029
`
`[RESERVED]
`
`NGC236-1030
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,425,236
`
`NGC236-1031
`
`[RESERVED]
`
`NGC236-1032
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,085,929
`
`NGC236-1033
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,965,031 (“Conroy”)
`
`NGC236-1034
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,372,814 (“Johnstone”)
`
`viii
`
`
`

`

`
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R § 42.8
`
`A. Real Party-In-Interest under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`
`The real party in interest for Petitioner is New NGC, Inc. dba National
`
`Gypsum Company.
`
`B. Related Matters under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,425,236 (the “ ʼ236 patent”) is at issue in the following case:
`
`(1) United States Gypsum Company v. New NGC, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-00130 (D.
`
`Del. Feb. 6, 2017). Petitioner is concurrently filing a Petition for IPR challenging
`
`the claims of related U.S. Patent Nos. 6,632,550 (the “ ʼ550 patent”) and 7,964,034
`
`(the “ ʼ034 patent”).
`
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`
`Lead counsel is Ross R. Barton (Reg. No. 51,438) and backup counsel are S.
`
`Benjamin Pleune (Reg. No. 52,421), Lauren E. Burrow (Reg. No. 70,447), Tasneem
`
`D. Delphry (Reg. No. 72,506), Stephen R. Lareau (Reg. No. 63,273), and Adam
`
`Doane (Reg. No. 73,568) all of Alston & Bird LLP, 101 S. Tryon St., Ste. 4000,
`
`Charlotte, NC 28280, 704-444-1000. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R § 42.10(b), Powers of
`
`Attorney are being submitted with this Petition.
`
`D.
`
`Service Information
`
`Petitioner consents to electronic service directed to ross.barton@alston.com,
`
`ben.pleune@alston.com, lauren.burrow@alston.com, stephen.lareau@alston.com,
`
`tasneem.delphry@alston.com, and adam.doane@alston.com.
`
`1
`
`
`

`

`
`
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’236 patent is available for IPR and that Petitioners
`
`are not barred or estopped from requesting an IPR challenging Claim 2 of the ’236
`
`patent on the grounds identified herein.
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES
`
`Petitioner authorizes Deposit Account No. 16-0605 to be charged for the
`
`payment of any fees.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGES AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Pursuant to Rules 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(1)–(2), Petitioner requests
`
`cancellation of claim 2 of the ’236 patent on the following grounds:
`
`Count 1: Claim 2 of the ’236 patent is unpatentable under at least 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) over Graux and Kerr.
`
`Count 2: Claim 2 of the ’236 patent is unpatentable under at least 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) over Satterthwaite and Kerr.
`
`Count 3: Claim 2 of the ʼ236 patent is unpatentable under at least 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) over Conroy and Johnstone
`
`V.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The ’236 patent claims commonplace ingredients in identified combinations
`
`to yield known results. NGC236-1001, ¶ 62. The ʼ236 patent is very broadly
`
`directed to gypsum-containing building products, including “gypsum boards,
`
`reinforced gypsum composite boards, plasters, machinable materials, joint treatment
`
`2
`
`
`

`

`
`
`materials, and acoustical tiles.” NGC236-1030, 1:18-22; see also NGC236-1001, ¶¶
`
`57-58, 60, 61-63. Claim 2 of the ʼ236 patent is the only claim at issue and can be
`
`summarized as follows:
`
`A method for producing a set gypsum product by
`
`(1) dissolving one or more enhancing materials in water,
`
`(2) forming a mixture of calcined gypsum, water, and accelerator,
`
`(3) inserting the aqueous solution of enhancing material(s) into the mixture,
`
`and
`
`(4) maintaining the mixture to allow it to set.
`
`Every single one of these steps was known in the prior art. In fact, the specification
`
`reveals that the inventors only considered one step – the addition of certain
`
`“enhancing materials” – to be new, admitting that the mixture of water, calcined
`
`gypsum, and accelerators was “employed in the prior art” using “conventional
`
`additives . . . in customary amounts.” NGC236-1030, 7:42-54, 8:54-9:5; see also
`
`NGC236-1001, ¶ 52. The use of “enhancing materials” to improve sag resistance,
`
`however, was widely known in the prior art. NGC236-1001, ¶¶ 47, 64. In particular,
`
`the use of “enhancing materials,” including the specific chemicals identified in the
`
`’236 patent’s specification but not claimed in the challenged claim, such as sodium
`
`trimetaphosphate, had been used in the prior art specifically to provide improved
`
`sag resistance. Id. When the claims are viewed against this backdrop, there is
`
`3
`
`
`

`

`
`
`nothing nonobvious or inventive about the claims of the ’236 patent, and the
`
`challenged claim is not patentable.
`
`VI. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND OF THE ’236 PATENT
`
`A. Basics of Gypsum Products
`
`Gypsum-containing products, such as boards, plasters, and acoustical tiles,
`
`have been used in modern building applications for more than a century, and the
`
`basic recipe for the manufacture of gypsum-containing products has been known for
`
`nearly as long. See, e.g., NGC236-1017, 1:13-35; see also NGC236-1001, ¶ 55.
`
`Gypsum is a naturally occurring mineral that, when found in nature in its “raw” or
`
`rock form, has the chemical name “calcium sulfate dihydrate” and the chemical
`
`formula CaSO4•2H2O. NGC236-1001, ¶¶ 33-34. Gypsum can also be synthesized
`
`to have the same chemical name and chemical formula as naturally occurring
`
`gypsum. Id. Gypsum-containing products are often used as building materials in
`
`construction. See, e.g., NGC236-1030, 1:47-53; NGC236-1003, 1:11-16; see also
`
`NGC236-1001, ¶¶ 33-34.
`
`When raw gypsum is heated, much of the water is driven out from the
`
`material, resulting in a different form of gypsum called calcined gypsum or stucco.
`
`NGC236-1030, 2:1-14, 22:44-63; see also NGC236-1001, ¶ 35. Calcined gypsum
`
`contains the hemihydrate form of gypsum and, when subsequently mixed with water,
`
`spontaneously reacts to return to its original crystalline composition: calcium sulfate
`
`4
`
`
`

`

`
`
`dihydrate. Id. The resulting product is often referred to as “set gypsum.” NGC236-
`
`1013, 84-8; see also NGC236-1030, 4:19-34; NGC236-1003, 4:26-41; NGC236-
`
`1001, ¶ 35.
`
`B.
`
`The ’236 Patent
`
`As noted in the ’236 patent, the claimed “set gypsum product” can take many
`
`different forms, such as gypsum boards, plasters, joint compound, and acoustical
`
`tiles. NGC236-1030, 1:18-22; see also NGC236-1001, ¶¶ 34-35. In gypsum boards,
`
`the prior art method of manufacturing a board included mixing water, calcined
`
`gypsum, and one or more additional additives such as accelerators, foams, retarders,
`
`or starches and depositing the mixture between two layers of paper and allowing it
`
`to harden. NGC236-1001, ¶¶ 36-39. The specification of the ’236 patent
`
`acknowledges that the use of these materials in the manufacture of set gypsum
`
`products was well-known in the “prior art.” NGC236-1030, 7:44-54; see also id. at
`
`8:65-9:5, 9:6-19, 9:45-55, 10:66-11:4, 11:15-22, 11:27-33, 11:66-12:5; NGC236-
`
`1001, ¶ 60. According to the ’236 patent, what the inventors (incorrectly) believed
`
`to be missing in the prior art was the use of certain “enhancing materials” that, when
`
`added in sufficient amounts, would yield a product that had increased resistance to
`
`sag. Id. Importantly, however, Claim 2 only recites the addition of an “enhancing
`
`material,” and contains no limitations regarding sag resistance or the chemicals that
`
`may constitute “enhancing materials.” Compare NGC236-1020, Claim 2 with
`
`5
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Claims 1 & 4; see also NGC236-1001, ¶ 63. The use of enhancing materials in set
`
`gypsum products was, in fact, known in the prior art.
`
`C. Enhancing Materials
`
`The specification of the ’236 patent describes enhancing materials as additives
`
`that improve one or more of the following attributes: strength, sag resistance, or
`
`maintenance of original dimensions (i.e. resistance to shrinkage when drying). See
`
`NGC236-1001, ¶¶ 40-43, 46. According to the specification, the preferred
`
`“enhancing material” was a condensed phosphate called sodium trimetaphosphate
`
`(“STMP”). NGC236-1030, 7:55-65. In the challenged claim of the ’236 patent,
`
`however, the “enhancing material” is not limited in any way to particular chemicals,
`
`such as generic condensed phosphates or phosphoric acids, or specific chemicals like
`
`STMP. Instead, Claim 2 of the ’236 patent stands in stark contrast with the other
`
`claims of the ’236 patent and merely recites “enhancing materials,” the proper
`
`construction of which is critical to resolution of this Petition and addressed below in
`
`the claim construction section of this Petition.
`
`Since the 1930s, the use of “enhancing materials” to improve these attributes
`
`has been known in the art. NGC236-1001, ¶¶ 45, 64. U.S. Patent No. 2,090,625,
`
`which was filed in 1936, discloses treating gypsum with additives such as
`
`orthophosphoric acid, monosodium orthophosphate or sodium metaphosphate, and
`
`silica. NGC236-1019, 5:45-52; see also NGC236-1001, ¶ 45. The resulting
`
`6
`
`
`

`

`
`
`gypsum-containing product showed increased strength when these additives were
`
`introduced into the manufacturing process. See NGC236-1019, 6:30-35, 6:65-75,
`
`8:55-65; NGC236-1001, ¶ 45. Satterthwaite, which is discussed below in detail,
`
`discloses the use of STMP – which the ’236 patent identifies as the “preferred”
`
`enhancing material claimed in the patents – to improve gypsum-containing products
`
`by “increas[ing] wet strength, increas[ing] density and increas[ing] resistance to
`
`warp or sag.” NGC236-1007, 1:60-63; see infra at ¶ IX(B); see also NGC236-1001,
`
`¶ 48. Graux, which is also discussed below in detail, discloses the manufacture of
`
`set-gypsum containing products using STMP as an additive to enhance the finished
`
`product. NGC236-1006, 9:29-30; see also NGC236-1001, ¶ 49. Quite simply, the
`
`use of enhancing materials, including but not limited to STMP, to improve resistance
`
`to sag had been known in the industry for more than 30 years before the earliest
`
`priority date of the ’236 patent. NGC236-1001, ¶ 48.
`
`Boric acid is another common additive known in the art since at least as early
`
`as 1963 to increase the sag resistance of set gypsum products and is still used today
`
`for at least this purpose. NGC236-1020, 1:48-50; see also NGC236-1001, ¶ 47.
`
`Indeed, the list of materials disclosed in the ʼ236 patent as being included in set
`
`gypsum products includes boric acid and further discloses that boric acid
`
`significantly increases sag resistance and compressive strength of set gypsum
`
`products. NGC236-1030, Table 2; NGC236-1003, Table 2; see also NGC236-1001,
`
`7
`
`
`

`

`
`
`¶ 47. Accordingly, a person having ordinary skill in the art (“PHOSITA”) would
`
`have understood that boric acid is often included in the manufacturing process of set
`
`gypsum products to increase at least sag resistance and strength. NGC236-1001, ¶
`
`47. Furthermore, Conroy discloses that boric acid is a “hardener[]/accelerator[].”
`
`NGC236-1033, 4:23-54. As Mr. Harlos opines, a PHOSITA, at the time of the ʼ236
`
`patent, would understand that a hardener, such as boric acid, is used to describe a
`
`material added to set gypsum products to increase at least the compressive strength
`
`and impart additional flexibility to the board. NGC236-1001, ¶ 126.
`
`D. Accelerators
`
`Claim 2 of the ’236 patent also recites the use of “accelerators” in the
`
`manufacturing method, but does not ascribe any particular benefit to the use of
`
`“accelerators” in the final set gypsum product. Accelerators have been known since
`
`at least the late 1960s, and have further been known to “shorten[] the setting time of
`
`plaster by providing seed crystals.” NGC236-1022, 2:14-16; see also NGC236-
`
`1001, ¶¶ 52-55. The use of an accelerator in manufacturing provides the additional
`
`advantage of increasing the strength of the resulting product. NGC236-1001, ¶ 53.
`
`The specification of the ’236 patent confirms that accelerators and other additives
`
`were known in the prior art, noting that “[o]ther conventional additives can be
`
`employed in the practice of the invention in customary amounts to impart desirable
`
`properties and to facilitate manufacturing, such as, for example, aqueous foam, set
`
`8
`
`
`

`

`
`
`accelerators . . . .” NGC236-1030, 8:65-9:5 (emphasis added); NGC236-1003, 9:18-
`
`25; see also NGC236-1001, ¶ 52. As with the claimed “enhancing materials,” the
`
`use of accelerators was well-known for decades before the earliest priority date of
`
`the ’236 patent.
`
`VII. PROSECUTION HISTORY OF THE ’236 PATENT
`
`In the family of patents that includes the ’236 patent, only two applications
`
`were substantively examined: U.S. Application No. 09/138,355 (that ultimately
`
`issued as U.S. Patent No. 6,342,284 (“the ’284 patent”) and U.S. Application No.
`
`09/249,814 (that ultimately issued as the ’550 patent). NGC236-1001, ¶ 65. The
`
`examination of these two applications was similar, and the pending claims in both
`
`applications were rejected as obvious over U.S. Patent No. 3,770,468 (“Knauf”) and
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,126,599 (“Sugahara”). NGC236-1004; NGC236-1005; see also
`
`NGC236-1001, ¶ 65. In the examination of both of these applications, the applicant
`
`made similar arguments and amendments to distinguish its alleged invention,
`
`including the factually incorrect argument that the cited references do not disclose
`
`the “condensed phosphoric acids, and/or the condensed phosphates as described and
`
`claimed by applicants,” despite the fact that the prior art references specifically
`
`disclose STMP, which is indisputably a condensed phosphate. NGC236-1004, 9;
`
`NGC236-1005, 7; see also NGC236-1001, ¶ 66. The examiner appears to have been
`
`misled by applicant’s arguments, and allowed the claims to issue.
`
`9
`
`
`

`

`
`
`In any event, none of the references that form the basis for the Counts –
`
`Graux, Satterthwaite, Kerr, Conroy and Johnstone – were considered by the
`
`examiner during the examination of the application that issued as the ’236 patent or
`
`its priority applications. NGC236-1001, ¶ 67.
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`In an IPR, claim terms are given their broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`(“BRI”) in light of the specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under the BRI standard,
`
`claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood
`
`by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re
`
`Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Because the ’236
`
`patent will expire soon after institution, however, Petitioner also addresses the
`
`meaning of the claim terms under the Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2005) standard. Cisco Sys., Inc. v. AIP Acquisition, LLC, IPR2014-00247 at *7-
`
`*8 (Final Decision, May 20, 2015); see also NGC236-1001, ¶ 70.
`
`Claim 2 of the ’236 patent, which is the only claim at issue here, is reproduced
`
`below:
`
`2. A method for producing set gypsum product comprising
`
`dissolving one or more enhancing materials in water, forming a mixture
`
`of calcined gypsum, water, and accelerator, inserting the aqueous
`
`solution of enhancing materials into the mixture, and maintaining the
`
`10
`
`
`

`

`
`
`mixture under conditions sufficient for the calcined gypsum to form an
`
`interlocking matrix of set gypsum.
`
`NGC236-1030, claim 2.
`
`A. Enhancing Material(s)
`
`
`
`The term “enhancing materials” appears in the challenged claim of the ’236
`
`patent, throughout the specification of the ’236 patent, and throughout the family of
`
`patents related to the ’236 patent. Unlike the challenged claims in other patents that
`
`are subject to co-pending IPR Petitions, such as the Petitions challenging the
`
`patentability of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,632,550 and 7,964,034 (the “’550 patent” and the
`
`“’034 patent”), the “enhancing materials” in the challenged claim of the ’236 patent
`
`are not followed by a Markush group reciting specific chemicals or classes of
`
`chemicals. Thus, resolution of the proper construction for the term “enhancing
`
`materials,” as it appears on its own in the challenged claim, is necessary to determine
`
`whether at least Count 3 of this Petition renders the asserted claim unpatentable.
`
`
`
`The specification of the ʼ236 patent is clear that an “enhancing material”
`
`improves at least one of three properties in a set gypsum product: strength, resistance
`
`to permanent deformation (e.g., sag resistance), and dimensional stability (e.g., non-
`
`shrinkage during drying of set gypsum). NGC236-1030, 1:26-34; see also NGC236-
`
`1001, ¶ 71. The specification is explicit, however, that an “enhancing material” does
`
`not have to improve all three properties. NGC236-1030, 25:66-26:6; see also
`
`11
`
`
`

`

`
`
`NGC236-1001, ¶ 71.
`
`In addition, the specification suggests that there was a need in the art for
`
`gypsum-containing products to have greater dimensional stability, resistance to sag,
`
`and strength and that “[e]ach embodiment of the invention meets one or more of
`
`these needs NGC236-1030, 3:52-56 (emphasis added); see also NGC236-1001, ¶
`
`74. Thus, the proper construction for the term “enhancing material” is, under the
`
`BRI standard, an “additive that improves at least one of resistance to permanent
`
`deformation, strength, and dimensional stability in set gypsum-containing products.”
`
`NGC236-1001, ¶ 74.
`
`Application of the Phillips standard does not change the proper construction
`
`of this term. Under either the Phillips or BRI standards, a PHOSITA would
`
`recognize that the term “enhancing material,” when considered in view of the claims,
`
`the specification, and the plain and ordinary meaning to one of skill in the art, would
`
`be understood by a PHOSITA as an “additive that improves at least one of resistance
`
`to permanent deformation, strength, and dimensional stability in set gypsum-
`
`containing products.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313; Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn,
`
`Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (observing that claim constructions
`
`during IPR must not be “unreasonable under general claim construction principles”
`
`and “must be consistent with the one that those skilled in the art would reach”)
`
`12
`
`
`

`

`
`
`(emphasis in original). For those reasons, Petitioner’s proposed claim construction
`
`for this term should be adopted.
`
`Any argument that the term “enhancing materials” is narrower than
`
`Petitioner’s proposed claim construction or that Patent Owner acted as its own
`
`lexicographer must fail. First, a construction of “enhancing materials” that is limited
`
`to a list of particular chemicals or chemical classes cannot be correct in view of the
`
`language of the claims themselves. Claim 2 of the ’236 patent simply recites
`
`“enhancing materials,” whereas unchallenged Claim 1 of the ’236 patent recites that
`
`the scope of the claims is limited to “enhancing materials” that have been “selected
`
`from the group consisting of phosphoric acid; condensed phosphoric acids, each of
`
`which comprises two or more phosphoric acid units; salts or ions of condensed
`
`phosphate, each of which comprises two or more phosphate units; and monobasic
`
`salts or monovalent ions of orthophosphates.” NGC236-1030, Claim 1. Claim 3 of
`
`the ’236 patent contains a similar Markush group, and Claim 4 of the ’236 patent
`
`simply recites a “trimetaphosphate salt” but no “enhancing materials.” The use of
`
`additional language to narrow the scope of the acceptable “enhancing materials” that
`
`fall within the scope of the claim (but not to narrow the definition of “enhancing
`
`materials” in general) in the unchallenged claims of the ’236 patent gives rise to a
`
`presumption that the term “enhancing materials” in Claim 2 is broader. Phillips, 415
`
`F.3d at 1314-1315. A PHOSITA would understand that, under either the BRI or
`
`13
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Phillips standard, the term “enhancing material” must include more than just a few
`
`specific chemicals because to construe those terms as being coextensive with one
`
`another would render the claim language redundant. Moreover, the specification is
`
`insufficient to allow Patent Owner to argue that it acted as its own lexicographer
`
`because the Federal Circuit requires that the term be “so clearly redefine[d] . . . so
`
`as to put a reasonable competitor or one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that
`
`the patentee intended to so redefine that claim term.” Process Control Corp. v.
`
`HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (emphasis added). Patent
`
`Owner did not “clearly redefine” the term “enhancing materials” as being limited to
`
`the specific chemicals listed in various locations in the ’550 patent but instead lists
`
`specific chemicals as examples of materials that may improve one or more of sag
`
`resistance, strength, and/or dimensional stability. For those reasons, any effort by
`
`Patent Owner to narrowly construe the term “enhancing materials” to avoid the prior
`
`art should be rejected by the Board.
`
`B. Accelerator
`
`The specification of the ʼ236 patent does not provide a definition of the term
`
`“accelerator.” However, t