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. IPR2017-01088
`U.S. Patent No. 7,425,236
`____________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`US Patent and Trademark Office
`PO Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY’S
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2017-01088
`U.S. Patent No. 7,425,236
`
`
`Page
`
`I.
`II.
`
`D.
`
`Summary Of Arguments .................................................................................. 3
`Responsive Overview Of The Relevant Technology ...................................... 6
`A. Gypsum And Set Gypsum ..................................................................... 7
`B.
`“Sag” In Set Gypsum Used For Gypsum Board ................................... 8
`C.
`Petitioner’s Central Premise Is False – Crosslinking Starch
`Has Nothing To Do With Adding STMP To Gypsum Slurries ............ 9
`There is No Evidence That STMP Was Used or Was Known
`To Be Effective To Improve The Properties of Set Gypsum
`Products ............................................................................................... 11
`Prior Art Use of Boric Acid ................................................................ 12
`E.
`III. Overview Of The ’236 Patent And Its Prosecution History .......................... 12
`A.
`The Patented Technology And Methods ............................................. 13
`B.
`The Claimed “Enhancing Materials” .................................................. 14
`C.
`The Disclosed And Established Benefits Of The “Enhancing
`Materials” ............................................................................................ 17
`The Prosecution History Of The ’236 Patent ...................................... 17
`D.
`The Claims of the ’236 patent ............................................................. 18
`E.
`IV. The Petition Fails To Meet The Requirements For Instituting An
`Inter Partes Review ....................................................................................... 18
`A.
`The Board Should Not Institute On Horizontally Redundant
`Grounds ............................................................................................... 18
`The Petition Advances Flawed Claim Constructions That Should Be
`Rejected ......................................................................................................... 20
`The Phillips Claim Construction Standard ......................................... 20
`A.
`B. Many Federal Circuit Cases Confirm the Importance of the
`Specification to a Proper Analysis Under Phillips .............................. 22
`Response To Petitioner’s Proposed Claim Constructions .................. 26
`
`V.
`
`C.
`
`i
`
`

`

`Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2017-01088
`U.S. Patent No. 7,425,236
`
`“Accelerator” ............................................................................ 26
`1.
`“Set gypsum product” ............................................................... 28
`2.
`“Enhancing materials” .............................................................. 29
`3.
`VI. Petitioner Has Not Met Its Burden To Show A Reasonable
`Likelihood Of Success On Its Asserted Obviousness Grounds .................... 38
`A.
`Legal Standards ................................................................................... 38
`B.
`Level Of Ordinary Skill In The Art ..................................................... 40
`C. Overview of Asserted Prior Art .......................................................... 40
`1.
`Graux (U.S. Patent No. 5,932,001) ........................................... 41
`2.
`Satterthwaite (U.S. Patent No. 3,234,037) ................................ 43
`3.
`Kerr (U.S. Patent No. 2,884,413).............................................. 46
`4.
`Conroy (U.S. Patent No. 4,956,031) ......................................... 47
`5.
`Johnstone (U.S. Patent No. 4,372,814) ..................................... 48
`Petitioner Fails To Meet Its Burden on Ground 1 Claiming
`Obviousness Based Upon Graux + Kerr ............................................. 49
`1.
`One Skilled In The Art Would Not Have Been
`Motivated to Use or to Combine Graux and Kerr .................... 50
`The Proposed Combination of Ground 1 Does Not
`Disclose Or Suggest All Elements Of Claim 2 ......................... 52
`2a: A method for producing a set gypsum product
`comprising ................................................................................. 52
`2b: dissolving one or more enhancing materials in water ........ 52
`2c: forming a mixture of calcined gypsum, water and
`accelerator ................................................................................. 53
`2d: inserting the aqueous solution of enhancing material
`into the mixture, and ................................................................. 54
`2e: maintaining the mixture under conditions sufficient for
`the calcined gypsum to form an interlocking matrix of set
`gypsum. ..................................................................................... 54
`Petitioner Fails To Meet Its Burden on Ground 2 Claiming
`Obviousness Based Upon Satterthwaite + Kerr .................................. 55
`ii
`
`D.
`
`2.
`
`E.
`
`

`

`1.
`
`2.
`
`One Skilled In The Art Would Not Have Been
`Motivated to Use or to Combine Satterthwaite and Kerr
` ................................................................................................... 55
`The Proposed Combination of Ground 2 Does Not
`Disclose Or Suggest All Elements Of Claim 2 ......................... 57
`2a: A method for producing a set gypsum product
`comprising ................................................................................. 57
`2b: dissolving one or more enhancing materials in water ........ 58
`2c: forming a mixture of calcined gypsum, water and
`accelerator ................................................................................. 60
`2d: inserting the aqueous solution of enhancing material
`into the mixture, and ................................................................. 60
`2e: maintaining the mixture under conditions sufficient for
`the calcined gypsum to form an interlocking matrix of set
`gypsum. ..................................................................................... 61
`Petitioner Fails To Meet Its Burden on Ground 3 Claiming
`Obviousness Based Upon Conroy and Johnstone ............................... 62
`VII. Secondary Considerations ............................................................................. 63
`VIII. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 64
`
`
`F.
`
`Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2017-01088
`U.S. Patent No. 7,425,236
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2017-01088
`U.S. Patent No. 7,425,236
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`Cases
`Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc., In re,
`696 F.3d 1142 (Fed. Cir. 2012)............................................................................ 32
`Activevideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..................................................................... 39, 49
`ADT Corp. v. Lydall Inc.,
`159 F.3d 534 (Fed. Cir. 1998).............................................................................. 35
`Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00276, Paper 64 (PTAB Aug. 15, 2016) .............................................. 39
`Bigio, In re,
`381 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 40
`Black & Decker, Inc. v. Positec USA, Inc., RW,
`646 Fed. App’x. 1019 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................... 20
`Clay, In re,
`966 F.2d 656 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ............................................................................. 40
`Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Corp. v. Velan, Inc.,
`438 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2006)..................................................................... 22, 35
`EMC Corp. v. PersonalWeb Techs., LLC,
`IPR2013-00087, Paper 25 (June 5, 2013) ............................................................ 19
`Felix v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc.,
`562 F.3d 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2009)............................................................................ 24
`Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ................................................................................................. 38
`Hologic, Inc. v. SensoRx, Inc.,
`639 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2011)............................................................................ 37
`Honeywell Int’l v. Universal Avionics Sys. Corp.,
`488 F.3d 982 (Fed. Cir. 2007)....................................................................... 22, 25
`Icon Health and Fitness, Inc., In re,
`496 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 40
`Intri-Plex Techs., Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Rencol Ltd.,
`IPR2014-00309, Paper 83 (PTAB Mar. 23, 2014) .............................................. 39
`Irdeto Access, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp.,
`383 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2004)............................................................................ 25
`Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Blue Sky Medical Group,
`iv
`
`

`

`Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2017-01088
`U.S. Patent No. 7,425,236
`
`554 F. 3d 1010 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .................................................................... 24, 25
`Klein, In re,
`647 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 40
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ...................................................................................... 38, 39
`Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp.,
`733 F.2d 881 (Fed. Cir. 1984).............................................................................. 32
`Leo Pharm. Prods., Ltd. v. Rea,
`726 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013)............................................................................ 12
`Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co.,
`CBM2012-00003, Paper 7 (PTAB Oct. 25, 2012) ................................... 4, 18, 19
`Medrad, Inc. v. MRI Devices Corp.,
`401 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005)............................................................................ 21
`NuVasive, Inc., In re,
`842 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016)............................................................................ 39
`Nystrom v. Trex,
`424 F.3d 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..................................................................... 23, 35
`Personal Web Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`848 F.3d 987 (Fed. Cir. 2017).............................................................................. 39
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)............................................................... 21, 24, 26
`Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`182 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 1999)............................................................................ 26
`Power Integrations, Inc. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc.,
`711 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2013)............................................................................ 36
`Rambus, In re,
`694 F.3d 42 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................ 20
`Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni,
`158 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir. 1998)............................................................................ 32
`Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,
`655 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2011)............................................................................ 38
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996).............................................................................. 26
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ........................................................................................................ 17
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................... 17, 38, 39
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) .................................................................................................3, 6
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ..................................................................................................... 4
`v
`
`

`

`Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2017-01088
`U.S. Patent No. 7,425,236
`
`
`
`Other Authorities
`MPEP § 2141.01(A) ............................................................................................... 40
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 108 ........................................................................................................ 20
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b) .................................................................................................. 20
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 20
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(b) ............................................................................................3, 6
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) ................................................................................................. 3
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2017-01088
`U.S. Patent No. 7,425,236
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`1
`
`EXHIBIT NO. TITLE
`1001
`Expert Declaration of Gerry Harlos
`1002
`U.S. Patent No. 6,632,550 (“the ʼ550 patent”)
`1003
`U.S. Patent No. 6,342,284 (“the ’284 patent”)
`1004
`Selections from the Prosecution History of the ʼ284 Patent
`1005
`Selections from the Prosecution History of the ʼ550 Patent
`1006
`U.S. Patent No. 5,932,001 (“Graux”)
`1007
`U.S. Patent No. 3,234,037 (“Satterthwaite”)
`1008
`[reserved]
`1009
`ASTM C473-95
`1010
`U.S. Patent No. 2,884,413 (“Kerr”)
`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)
`ASTM C472-93
`Robert F. Acker, Physical Testing of Gypsum Board Per ASTM
`C 473, 3-7 (R.A. Kuntze, ed., 1984)
`L. Amathieu, Improvement of Mechanical Properties of Set
`Plasters, 79 J. of Crystal Growth 169, 176 (1986)
`U.S. Patent No. 2,985,219
`U.S. Patent No. 3,179,529
`U.S. Patent No. 2,090,625
`U.S. Patent No. 3,190,787
`U.S. Patent No. 2,346,999
`U.S. Patent No. 3,573,947
`U.S. Patent No. 4,009,062
`U.S. Patent No. 5,320,677
`U.S. Patent No. 5,534,059
`U.S. Patent No. 5,395,438
`U.S. Patent No. 3,246,063
`
`1016
`1017
`1018
`1019
`1020
`1021
`1022
`1023
`1024
`1025
`1026
`1027
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`1015
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2017-01088
`U.S. Patent No. 7,425,236
`
`
`EXHIBIT NO. TITLE
`1028
`Redacted Complaint
`1029
`[reserved]
`1030
`U.S. Patent No. 7,425,236
`1031
`[reserved]
`1032
`U.S. Patent No. 5,085,929
`1033
`U.S. Patent No. 4,965,031 (“Conroy”)
`1034
`U.S. Patent No. 4,372,814 (“Johnstone”)
`2001
`Declaration of Robert Bruce
`2002
`EP 603,727
`2003
`’034 file history excerpt
`2004
`Transaction history for Hjelmeland
`2005
`U.S. Patent No. 7,425,236 File History
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2017-01088
`U.S. Patent No. 7,425,236
`
`Patent Owner United States Gypsum Company (“USG”) submits this
`
`preliminary response to the corrected Petition for Inter Partes Review (“Petition”)
`
`regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,425,236 (“the ’236 patent”). (Paper 7.) The ’236 patent
`
`claims novel methods involving the use of sodium trimetaphosphate (“STMP”) and
`
`other phosphate/phosphoric acid “enhancing materials” to manufacture set gypsum
`
`products, which provide benefits to the finished product, such as improved resistance
`
`to permanent deformation known as “sag,” among others. Petitioner asserts that
`
`claim 2 of the ’236 patent is obvious under three separate grounds—Graux and Kerr
`
`(Ground 1), Satterthwaite and Kerr (Ground 2), and Conroy and Johnstone (Ground
`
`3). (Pet. at 2.)
`
`The Board has discretion to “deny some or all grounds for unpatentability for
`
`some or all of the challenged claims.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(b); see 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating a reasonable likelihood that it would
`
`prevail in showing unpatentability on the asserted grounds. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c).
`
`Petitioner falls far short of satisfying its burden to prove that inter partes review is
`
`warranted under the asserted invalidity grounds. USG respectfully requests that the
`
`Board deny all three grounds for the reasons set forth herein.
`
`I.
`
`
`Summary Of Arguments
`
`The Petition fails for each of the following reasons.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2017-01088
`U.S. Patent No. 7,425,236
`
`First, the Petition is procedurally improper because it proposes horizontally
`
`redundant grounds of invalidity without identifying how one ground improves on
`
`the other, violating Board precedent requiring identification of differences in the
`
`proposed findings of invalidity. Accordingly, the Board should exercise its
`
`discretion and deny the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) and the redundancy
`
`principles established in Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Progressive Casualty
`
`Insurance Co., CBM2012-00003, Paper 7 (PTAB Oct. 25, 2012).
`
`Second, none of the asserted references address the problems solved by the
`
`invention of claim 2, or even similar problems; and none disclose or suggest
`
`anything remotely similar to solution formed according to the claimed method.
`
`Petitioner and its expert, Mr. Harlos, present select excerpts from the references out
`
`of their full context, misrepresenting their actual teachings, and failing to
`
`acknowledge other portions of the references demonstrating that they do not disclose
`
`(expressly or inherently) the particular element or step of the claimed method for
`
`which they are cited.
`
`Third, Petitioner simply fails to show that the challenged method claim 2 of
`
`the ’236 patent is obvious in view of any of the cited references, separately or taken
`
`together in Petitioner’s combinations. Petitioner’s references do not disclose or
`
`suggest that STMP or any other claimed “enhancing material” should be added to a
`
`4
`
`

`

`Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2017-01088
`U.S. Patent No. 7,425,236
`
`gypsum slurry in the manufacture of set gypsum products, as required by method
`
`claim 2 of the ’236 patent. Regarding Grounds 1 and 2, Petitioner’s and Harlos’
`
`contentions to the contrary rely on a few passages from each reference lifted out of
`
`their proper context while failing to address the disclosures of the asserted references
`
`as a whole, and are unsupported by competent data, facts and documents. Regarding
`
`Ground 3, their contentions fail because they unreasonably purport to expand the
`
`scope of the claim term “enhancing materials” as it is used in the ’236 patent, in
`
`order to insert the alleged prior art use of boric acid into that claim term.
`
`Further, Petitioner and Harlos do not and cannot show that one skilled in the
`
`art (“PHOSITA”) would have been motivated to utilize any of the cited references,
`
`let alone to combine them, to solve the problems addressed by the challenged method
`
`claim. Similarly, Petitioner lacks any evidence that the claimed method was the
`
`predictable result of any known use of the claimed enhancing materials in set
`
`gypsum products. Rather, Petitioner’s references either provide no such guidance or
`
`lead away from the claimed use of STMP and similar claimed enhancing materials.
`
`Therefore, Petitioner fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that the challenged
`
`method claim of the ’236 patent would have been obvious at the time of the invention
`
`from the cited references.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2017-01088
`U.S. Patent No. 7,425,236
`
`Fourth, even if there was reason to consider the combinations alleged (there
`
`
`
`is not), the combinations still fail to account for all of the elements of the recited
`
`claims.
`
`Thus, Petitioner cannot demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the
`
`challenged method claim of the ’236 patent is invalid under the theory of any of the
`
`asserted grounds. While there are other reasons for denial of the Petition, the
`
`deficiencies addressed herein are sufficient and dispositive. Therefore, USG
`
`respectfully requests that the Board reject the Petition and decline to institute trial
`
`on any of the asserted grounds. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(b); 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`A supporting declaration of USG’s technical expert, Dr. Robert Bruce (Ex.
`
`2001) accompanies this Preliminary Response. It explains and corrects many of
`
`Petitioner’s numerous misstatements and misrepresentations regarding the asserted
`
`references and the knowledge of a PHOSITA.
`
`II. Responsive Overview Of The Relevant Technology
`Petitioner and its expert take many liberties in describing the background of
`
`technology at issue. This Section is intended to clarify the record and to provide
`
`additional relevant background.
`
`6
`
`

`

`A. Gypsum And Set Gypsum
`
`Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2017-01088
`U.S. Patent No. 7,425,236
`
`
`Gypsum is the main constituent in many forms of plaster and wallboard, and
`
`has many other uses (e.g., agricultural improvements, pharmaceutical fillers,
`
`nutritional supplements etc.). (Ex. 2001 ¶ 35.) Gypsum board is produced by mixing
`
`calcined gypsum (calcium sulfate hemihydrate)1 with water and optional additives
`
`to form an aqueous slurry. (Id. ¶ 36.) The water reacts with the calcined gypsum to
`
`convert the calcium sulfate hemihydrate into a crystalline form of calcium sulfate
`
`dihydrate, which is generally referred to as “set gypsum.” (Id.)
`
`The slurry is then deposited between upper and lower cover sheets effectively
`
`sandwiching the gypsum slurry into a gypsum core. (Id. ¶ 37.) During this process,
`
`the gypsum slurry hardens and “sets.” The crystalline calcium sulfate dihydrate
`
`grows as needle-like crystals, which form an interlocking crystalline matrix or
`
`network to give the core and board its physical integrity. The crystals are closely
`
`interwoven, which provides strength to the core. (Id. ¶ 38.)
`
`
`
`1 Heating gypsum (CaSO4•2H2O) to about 300°F drives off water as steam to
`produce calcined gypsum. Calcined gypsum can take several forms, the most
`common being alpha calcium sulfate hemihydrate, beta calcium sulfate hemihydrate,
`water-soluble calcium sulfate anhydrite, or mixtures thereof. (Ex. 2001 ¶ 35.)
`
`7
`
`

`

`Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2017-01088
`U.S. Patent No. 7,425,236
`
`Additives are commonly used in gypsum board to achieve certain desired
`
`
`
`board characteristics. Additives may include foam, accelerators, set retarders, re-
`
`calcination inhibitors, binders, adhesives, dispersing aids, leveling agents,
`
`thickeners, bactericides, fungicides, pH adjusters, colorants, reinforcing materials,
`
`fire retardants, water repellants, fillers, etc. (Id. ¶¶ 39–41, 51–57.) The chemistry
`
`and interactions between the components within the gypsum slurry are complex,
`
`such that slurry formulations should be carefully developed and controlled. (Id.
`
`¶ 40.)
`
`B.
`
`“Sag” In Set Gypsum Used For Gypsum Board
`
`
`
`A unique property of set gypsum, especially problematic when it is used to
`
`make gypsum board, is that under conditions of high humidity, the gypsum board
`
`will change shape over time. (Id. ¶ 49.) This phenomenon is called “sag.” (Id.) It is
`
`the result of the gypsum crystals slowly and irreversibly changing shape as a result
`
`of the force of gravity in the presence of absorbed moisture. (Id.) This sag behavior
`
`takes place faster under conditions of high humidity, with high salt content in the
`
`gypsum, or with lower board weights. (Id.; see also Ex. 1030 at 2:19–30.) Sag can
`
`also occur during transportation and storage and when water-containing surface
`
`treatments are applied to the panels. (Id. ¶ 72.) Among other problems, sagged and
`
`warped panels are unsightly, more easily damaged, and prone to failure as they are
`
`8
`
`

`

`Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2017-01088
`U.S. Patent No. 7,425,236
`
`not supported evenly on all sides and by all fasteners when they are installed in a
`
`building. (Id.; Ex. 1030 at 2:35–45.)
`
`
`
`The sag phenomena of set gypsum products, such as gypsum board, is
`
`different from “creep,” “slump” or “spread” used to describe the undesired
`
`movement of plaster after it has been applied to a surface and is still in a viscous
`
`state before setting. (Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 43–50.) That is the phenomenon addressed in
`
`Graux. (Id. ¶ 46–48). The sag that can occur in gypsum board and similar set gypsum
`
`products also involves a different phenomenon from the warping or sagging of
`
`starch-based mineral wool ceiling tile products, such as discussed in Satterthwaite.
`
`(Id. ¶ 49.) The sag/warp phenomenon in mineral wool ceiling tile is due to the
`
`uneven drying of the tile wherein the adhesive starch fails to bind the tiles together
`
`to keep their shape. (Id.)
`
`C.
`
`Petitioner’s Central Premise Is False – Crosslinking Starch Has
`Nothing To Do With Adding STMP To Gypsum Slurries
`
`The fundamental premise of Petitioner’s challenge in Grounds 1 and 2 is that
`
`the primary references, Graux and Satterthwaite, necessarily disclose using STMP
`
`as an ingredient in a set gypsum product. Petitioner and Mr. Harlos, however, do not
`
`point to any example, description or claim from those two references where STMP
`
`or any other claimed enhancing material is actually added to or otherwise present in
`
`the compositions used to form the products of the references.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2017-01088
`U.S. Patent No. 7,425,236
`
`Both Graux and Satterthwaite, in fact, concern using a variety of different
`
`starches in plaster products (Graux) and mineral wool ceiling tiles (Satterthwaite).
`
`(Id. ¶¶ 102, 117–18.) The references mention STMP as only one of many different
`
`reagents that can crosslink their starches. (Id. ¶¶ 112, 124.) In both references, the
`
`crosslinking is carried out before the starch is added to the mixtures used to make
`
`their products. (Id. ¶¶ 112, 124.) Moreover, Satterthwaite teaches that its starch
`
`crosslinking is followed by washing and drying the starches, which removed all
`
`excess STMP from the crosslinked starches. (Id. ¶ 124–25.) Graux refers to another
`
`reference for its description of crosslinking starch, which also confirms the
`
`conventional washing and drying steps. (Id. ¶ 112–13.)
`
`Thus, there is no evidence whatsoever that either of Petitioner’s primary
`
`references in Grounds 1 and 2 disclose or suggest using STMP or any other claimed
`
`enhancing material in a gypsum mixture or to make a set gypsum product. This
`
`fundamental deficiency in Petitioner’s contentions, and the several other deficiencies
`
`in the cited references discussed below, is not remedied by Petitioner’s reliance on
`
`its secondary Kerr reference. The lack of key elements in Petitioner’s references,
`
`taken alone or together, that are required in claim 2 of the ’236 patent is fatal to each
`
`of Grounds 1 and 2.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2017-01088
`U.S. Patent No. 7,425,236
`
`There is No Evidence That STMP Was Used or Was Known To Be
`Effective To Improve The Properties of Set Gypsum Products
`
`D.
`
`Attempting to fill the glaring holes in the references, Petitioner and Mr. Harlos
`
`assert, again without any competent support, that the use of STMP to increase sag
`
`resistance in set gypsum products was well-known in the art (Pet. at 6–7; Ex. 1001
`
`¶¶ 45, 48.) Petitioner instead cites to a reference (not used in either asserted ground)
`
`for treating raw mineral gypsum to temperatures well in excess of those relevant to
`
`the set gypsum of the ’236 patent (1800ºF–2300ºF) (Ex. 1019 at 1:1–5, 1:41–51,
`
`5:54–6:20, 10:41–47), and Graux and Satterthwaite, which concern crosslinked
`
`starches. (Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 112, 124.)
`
`Petitioner and Mr. Harlos offer no references or other evidence showing the
`
`use of STMP or any other claimed enhancing material in a set gypsum product to
`
`provide sag resistance or the other benefits disclosed in the patent. The state of the
`
`art at the time of the invention was quite the opposite: the common belief was that
`
`phosphates, such as STMP, were set retarders that slow the rate of formation of set
`
`gypsum and decrease the strength of the set gypsum. (Ex. 1030 at 4:41–46; Ex. 2001
`
`¶ 68.)
`
`As explained further below, the references upon which Petitioner relies
`
`actually show STMP and other phosphate materials used only as starch crosslinkers.
`
`That using the claimed “enhancing materials” to increase sag resistance and improve
`
`11
`
`

`

`Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2017-01088
`U.S. Patent No. 7,425,236
`
`other properties of set gypsum products escaped the industry, despite decades of
`
`research and development in the vast global market for set-gypsum products,
`
`strongly suggests nonobviousness of the claimed invention. See Leo Pharm. Prods.,
`
`Ltd. v. Rea, 726 F.3d 1346, 1356–59 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (emphasizing time lapse as
`
`indicating nonobviousness).
`
`E.
`
`Prior Art Use of Boric Acid
`
`In Ground 3, Petitioner relies on two prior art references, Conroy and
`
`Johnstone, to allegedly show prior art use of boric acid as an additive to gypsum
`
`slurry to make set gypsum products. Boric acid is a known additive for gypsum
`
`boards. In large amounts, boric acid had the detrimental effect of making gypsum
`
`panels brittle. (Ex. 2001 ¶56.) The ’236 patent specification demonstrates that
`
`STMP and similar phosphoric acid and condensed phosphate compounds as
`
`described and claimed in the patent substantially improve upon the known additives,
`
`including boric acid, for combatting sag. (Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 80–81.)
`
`III. Overview Of The ’236 Patent And Its Prosecution History
`The ’236 patent relates back to a series of prior applications, including an
`
`original application filed August 21, 1997. (Ex. 1030.) The Petition acknowledges
`
`that August 21, 1997 is the effective filing date of the ‘236 patent. (Pet. at 22.)
`
`12
`
`

`

`A.
`
`The Patented Technology And Methods
`
`Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2017-01088
`U.S. Patent No. 7,425,236
`
`
`The patented technology relates to methods and compositions for making set
`
`gypsum products having increased resistance to sag and other improved properties.
`
`The specification explains that set gypsum containing products, such as wallboard
`
`for interior walls and ceilings, could be made more resistant to encountered stresses
`
`if the strength of their component set gypsum crystal structures were increased. (Ex.
`
`1030 at 2:15–18.) It notes efforts in the industry to make lower density, lighter
`
`weight products, and explains that in such products “there is a need to increase the
`
`strength of the set gypsum above normal levels just to maintain overall product
`
`strength at the levels of the previously higher density product, because there is less
`
`set gypsum mass to provide strength in the lower density product.” (Id. at 2:19–26.)
`
`The specification also describes a need for gypsum products that are resistant
`
`to permanent deformation and sag over the useful life of the products, especially
`
`under conditions of high humidity and temperature. (Id. at 2:27–30.) Gypsum board
`
`products must also be able to carry loads, such as from insulation or condensation,
`
`without noticeable sag. (Id. at 2:35–45.)
`
`Previous approaches to combating sag include using a heavier (higher density)
`
`panel, a heavier and thicker panel, or additives such as boric acid. (Ex. 2001 ¶ 73).
`
`Heavier or thicker panels are generally more expensive to manufacture and trasport,
`
`13
`
`

`

`Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2017-01088
`U.S. Patent No. 7,425,236
`
`and more difficult to handle and install. (Id.) Boric acid in large amounts has the
`
`detrimental effect of making gypsum panels more brittle. (Id.)
`
`The ’236 patent specification also describes a need for greater dimensional
`
`stability of set gypsum products during their manufacture and use. (Ex. 1030 at 2:49–
`
`51.) Absorption of moisture can cause gypsum boards to undesirably expand when
`
`exposed to high humidity. (Id. at 2:51–5