UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ASPHALT PRODUCTS UNLIMITED, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BLACKLIDGE EMULSIONS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01241, IPR2017-01242
`Patents 7,503,724 and 7,918,624
`____________
`
`June 15, 2018
`____________
`
`PATENT OWNER SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ASPHALT PRODUCTS UNLIMITED, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BLACKLIDGE EMULSIONS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01241, IPR2017-01242
`Patents 7,503,724 and 7,918,624
`____________
`
`June 15, 2018
`____________
`
`PATENT OWNER SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01241, IPR2017-01242
`U.S. Patent Nos. 7,503,724 and 7,918,624
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
`II. LEGAL STANDARD ....................................................................................... 3
`III. ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................... 4
`A. APU Failed to Show That Pasquier Discloses a Cured Coating With
`the Claimed Penetration Values and Softening Points ..................................... 4
`B. APU Failed to Show That Pasquier Discloses Heating the Asphalt
`Pavement Material .............................................................................................13
`IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01241, IPR2017-01242
`U.S. Patent Nos. 7,503,724 and 7,918,624
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`In re Robertson
` 169 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ................................................................................ 3
`
`Nidec Motor Corp.v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd
` 851 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .............................................................................. 4
`
`SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu
` 138 S.Ct. 1348 (2018) ............................................................................................ 1
`
`Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co.
` 593 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ..........................................................................4, 7
`
`Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California
` 814 F.2d 628 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ..........................................................................3, 14
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01241, IPR2017-01242
`U.S. Patent Nos. 7,503,724 and 7,918,624
`
`On April 27, 2018, the Board entered an Order “institut[ing] on all of the
`
`challenged claims and all of the grounds presented in the Petitions,” in accord with
`
`the Supreme Court’s decision in SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S.Ct. 1348 (2018).
`
`(IPR2017-01241, Paper 46 (Apr. 27, 2018); IPR2017-01242, Paper 48 (Apr. 27,
`
`2018).) The parties subsequently stipulated that “Patent Owner may submit a
`
`Supplemental Response to Petition addressing the grounds instituted by the Board’s
`
`April 27, 2018, Order limited to 5,000 words by Due Date 3 (June 15, 2018).”
`
`(IPR2017-01241, Paper 49 (May 4, 2018); IPR2017-01242, Paper 51 (May 4,
`
`2018).) Patent Owner hereby submits its Supplemental Response to Petition.
`
`Because its arguments are the same for both IPR2017-01241 regarding U.S. Patent
`
`7,503,724 (“the ’724 patent”) and IPR2017-01242 regarding U.S. Patent 7,918,624
`
`(“the ’624 patent”), Patent Owner submits identical briefing in both proceedings,
`
`with dual citations where needed.
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Board previously denied institution of Petitioner’s anticipation grounds1
`
`because “Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of establishing
`
`that Pasquier anticipates any of these claims.” (IPR2017-01241, Paper 23 at 11 (Oct.
`
`
`1 Petitioner asserts that Pasquier anticipates claims 1-5, 12, 23, 24, and 28 of the ’724
`patent and claims 1-5, 12, 14-18, and 25 of the ’624 patent. IPR2017-01241, Pet. at
`6; IPR2017-01242, Pet. at 6.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01241, IPR2017-01242
`U.S. Patent Nos. 7,503,724 and 7,918,624
`
`24, 2017); IPR2017-01241, Paper 23 at 11 (Oct. 24, 2017).) The Board determined
`
`that “Petitioner has, at most, demonstrated merely a probability that Pasquier’s
`
`asphalt emulsion, when cured, exhibits [the claimed penetration values and softening
`
`points.” (IPR2017-01241, Paper 23 at 14; IPR2017-01241, Paper 23 at 14.) Since
`
`that denial, Petitioner has provided no new evidence that would compel a different
`
`decision.
`
`For at least the same reasons relied on by the Board in the institution decisions,
`
`APU’s primary reference, Pasquier, does not anticipate the independent claims,
`
`consisting of claims 1 and 23 of the ’724 patent and claims 1, 14, and 25 of the ’624
`
`patent.2 Namely, Pasquier fails to expressly or inherently disclose a cured coating
`
`with the claimed penetration values and softening points. Petitioner admitted that
`
`Pasquier lacked such an express disclosure. (IPR2017-01241, Pet. at 30; IPR2017-
`
`01242, Pet. at 29.) And Petitioner implicitly admitted the possibility that Pasquier’s
`
`cured tack coating might not meet the claimed penetration values and softening
`
`points, precluding a finding of inherency. (See IPR2017-01241, Paper 23 at 14-15;
`
`IPR2017-01241, Paper 23 at 14-15.)
`
`
`2 The arguments set forth herein apply with equal force to Patent Owner’s proposed
`amended claims. Additional arguments specific to the amended claims will be
`advanced in contemporaneous briefing in reply to Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent
`Owner’s Motion to Amend.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01241, IPR2017-01242
`U.S. Patent Nos. 7,503,724 and 7,918,624
`
`In addition, Pasquier neither expressly nor inherently describes the step of
`
`heating the asphalt pavement material as recited in claim 1 of the ’724 patent and
`
`claim 1 of the ’624 patent. Petitioner argued that Pasquier also inherently disclosed
`
`this limitation but resorted to other references for its disclosure. (IPR2017-01241,
`
`Pet. at 39-40; IPR2017-01242, Pet. at 38-39.) Petitioner failed to explain how this
`
`other reference demonstrated that this limitation was inherently present in Pasquier.
`
`The Board should find that Pasquier fails to anticipate the challenged claims
`
`of the ’724 and ’624 patents.
`
`
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARD
`A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim
`
`is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.”
`
`Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
`
`“To establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence ‘must make clear that the missing
`
`descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference ….”’
`
`In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999). “Inherency, however, may not
`
`be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may
`
`result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient…. Inherent anticipation
`
`requires that the missing descriptive material is necessarily present, not merely
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01241, IPR2017-01242
`U.S. Patent Nos. 7,503,724 and 7,918,624
`
`probably or possibly present, in the prior art.” Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson
`
`and Co., 593 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (internal quotes and cites omitted).
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`A. APU Failed to Show That Pasquier Discloses a Cured Coating
`With the Claimed Penetration Values and Softening Points
`
`Pasquier does not expressly describe or necessarily require a “coating” or
`
`“bonding layer” having “a penetration value less than about 20 dmm [or less than
`
`about 40 dmm] and a softening point greater than about 140°F. (60°C.)” when
`
`“cured.” (See IPR2017-01241, Ex. 1001 (claims 1 and 23); IPR2017-01242, Ex.
`
`1001 (claims 1, 14, and 25.) Pasquier merely describes a “residual coat, after the
`
`emulsion break” (Ex. 1003, p. 5:7-8) and nowhere even mentions the term cured.
`
`Moreover, Pasquier acknowledges the use of road construction techniques that apply
`
`a tack coat and a subsequent overlay without waiting for the emulsion to cure. For
`
`example, Pasquier describes the “use of a spray paver that spreads the emulsion just
`
`before the coating.” (Ex. 1003 at 3:43). Case law is clear that anticipation will not
`
`lie where the asserted reference lacks limitations—even where a skilled artisan
`
`would immediately envision what is missing. See Nidec Motor Corp.v. Zhongshan
`
`Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd, 851 F.3d 1270, 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (reversing
`
`Board’s finding of anticipation). Thus, no basis exists to conclude that Pasquier
`
`necessarily requires the cured coating of the challenged independent claims.
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01241, IPR2017-01242
`U.S. Patent Nos. 7,503,724 and 7,918,624
`
`Because Pasquier does not expressly or inherently disclose a cured coating or
`
`bonding layer, it cannot anticipate the challenged claims.
`
`Petitioner admitted that Pasquier lacked an express disclosure of the claimed
`
`penetration values and softening points. (IPR2017-01241, Pet. at 30; IPR2017-
`
`01242, Pet. at 29.) Thus, to carry its burden to show anticipation, Petitioner must
`
`demonstrate inherency.
`
`Pasquier does not inherently discloses a coating or bonding layer having a
`
`penetration value less than about 20 dmm (or less than about 40 dmm) and a
`
`softening point greater than about 140°F, as required by the challenged independent
`
`claims. APU relies on its expert Dr. James to argue that a “10/20 paving grade
`
`asphalt as discussed in Pasquier inherently had a softening point greater than about
`
`140°F.” (Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 142-143.) APU and Dr. James attempt to bolster their
`
`arguments with numerous references that, at best, suggest that some (or “typical”)
`
`asphalts (not cured coatings) with a penetration value less than 20 dmm have
`
`softening points greater than about 140°F. (See, e.g., Petition at 31-35; Ex. 1002, ¶¶
`
`142-149.) But Pasquier nowhere requires the use of paving-grade asphalt or
`
`discloses any embodiments necessarily made using paving-grade asphalts or even
`
`typical asphalts. Indeed, Pasquier explicitly provides that “all road or industrial
`
`bitumen types can be used” (Ex. 1003, 8:20-22 (emphasis added)), leaving the
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01241, IPR2017-01242
`U.S. Patent Nos. 7,503,724 and 7,918,624
`
`choice of 10/20 asphalt to the reader. Furthermore, APU’s own reference, the Shell
`
`Bitumen Handbook, describes numerous asphalts in the 10-20-dmm penetration
`
`range with softening points well below 60° C. (See Ex. 1008 at 28 (Fig. 2.3,
`
`reproduced below with annotations added to show softening points).) Pasquier does
`
`not detail the specific penetration values within his 10-20 dmm range of the asphalts
`
`in his embodiments and does not provide their softening points. The selection of
`
`specific asphalts (including their specific penetration values and softening points) is
`
`left to the reader.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01241, IPR2017-01242
`U.S. Patent Nos. 7,503,724 and 7,918,624
`
`(Ex. 1008, p. 28, Fig. 2.3 (annotations added).) The probability or possibility that a
`
`reader might select an asphalt with the claimed penetration values and softening
`
`points to make Pasquier’s emulsion cannot establish anticipation. See Therasense,
`
`593 F.3d at 1332.
`
`The patents-at-issue recognized the criticality of the penetration value and
`
`softening point of the cured tack coat, and that these rheological properties are not
`
`inevitably the same as the asphalt used to make the emulsion. Put simply, input
`
`properties do not equal output properties. Such an assumption could easily lead to
`
`hundreds of thousands of dollars in wasted resources due to pavement failures. As
`
`claimed, controlling the cured tack coat properties—as opposed to the input asphalt
`
`properties—permits provision of trackless tack coats in ways others had not found
`
`possible. APU’s suggestions that the patents’ inventive concept is simply making
`
`an emulsion using a hard asphalt (see, e.g., Petition at 1-2, 37) are misleading; the
`
`patents nowhere suggest that “prior to November 2005, tack coat emulsions were
`
`only formed using soft or medium asphalts.”3 (Pet. at 1 (emphasis in original).) The
`
`
`3 The specification and claims provide that the emulsion of the invention is
`formulated according to a method that produces a cured tack coat having a
`penetration value less than about 40 dmm (or even lower in the claims) and a
`softening point above about 140° F (or even higher in the claims). (See, e.g. Ex.
`1001, 9:54-59; id at col. 10 (showing table of tack coat properties). The Examples
`section refers to an “example of the method” used to form a tack coat by applying
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01241, IPR2017-01242
`U.S. Patent Nos. 7,503,724 and 7,918,624
`
`patents-at-issue instead explain the usual prior-art practice of formulating emulsions
`
`using soft or medium emulsions, using the word “typically” three times in the portion
`
`of text Petitioner cites and nowhere stating that this was the exclusive practice.
`
`Indeed, Pasquier recognized the problems of making emulsions using hard asphalts
`
`and, in light of his own work, asserted that “the sole use of a hard bitumen …does
`
`not permit achieving the intended purpose.” (Ex. 1003, 4:63-5:3.) According to
`
`Pasquier, “a hard or very hard bituminous emulsion… may fulfill a part of the
`
`objective…but the residual layer is very fragile.” (Ex. 1003, 5:5-8.) Pasquier
`
`requires that his emulsion include “an additive suitable for limiting the immediate
`
`stickiness of the bitumen and/or strengthen its consistency at a temperature below
`
`70 ° C.” (Ex. 1003, 5:20-21.) In contrast, the patents-at-issue provide reliable and
`
`repeatable methods of providing a trackless tack coat without the use of Paquier’s
`
`required additives.
`
`
`“the emulsion of the invention using a 13 dmm pen asphalt” (Ex. 1001, 12:38-40),
`which can only refer to the method and emulsion of the invention, previously
`described, that must be formulated to provide a tack coat with the required
`penetration and softening point values. The Example section makes clear that its
`purpose is to examine the effect of certain parameters—such as the penetration value
`and quantity of asphalt used to make the emulsion—on bond strength, compared
`with conventional emulsions. (See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 12:50-53, 13:64-65.) The
`Examples section is not simply an unnecessary regurgitation of the method of
`making a trackless tack coat.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01241, IPR2017-01242
`U.S. Patent Nos. 7,503,724 and 7,918,624
`
`Rather than support Petitioner’s arguments that the penetration value and
`
`softening point of a cured tack coat are the same as those of an asphalt used to make
`
`the tack coat emulsion used, Petitioner’s references demonstrate the opposite. The
`
`Handbook acknowledges that although oftentimes practitioners assume that “the
`
`bitumen produced when an emulsion breaks is the same as the bitumen that was used
`
`to produce the emulsion…there are exceptions.” (Ex. 1008 at 110.) BAEM offers
`
`nothing more definitive; it simply provides that some unidentified “desirable
`
`characteristics in the base asphalt cement should show up in the residual asphalt after
`
`emulsification and coalescence.” (Ex. 1009 at 37 (emphasis added).) BAEM does
`
`not identify the properties it deems desirable or the circumstance under which they
`
`will show up in the residual asphalt, indicating that this is also an assumption subject
`
`to numerous exceptions.
`
`Petitioner tacitly agrees with these references, stating only that the “tack coat
`
`residue will generally exhibit similar properties as the asphalt subject to variances
`
`caused by additives.” (See, e.g., IPR2017-01241, Pet. at 35 (emphasis added).) And
`
`Dr. James’s own experiments demonstrate the degree to which emulsion ingredients
`
`can alter the properties of the residual asphalt relative to those of the base asphalt
`
`used to manufacture the emulsion. None of Petitioner’s references teaches or
`
`suggests monitoring the penetration value and softening point properties of the cured
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01241, IPR2017-01242
`U.S. Patent Nos. 7,503,724 and 7,918,624
`
`tack coat to determine the variance caused by additives or recognizes these
`
`properties’ importance for providing a trackless tack coat without including
`
`unnecessary additives, as the patents demand.
`
`Petitioner’s PRI testing does little to show that Pasquier’s emulsion
`
`formulations inherently produce a residual tack coat exhibiting the claimed
`
`penetration and softening point values. (See, e.g., IPR2017-01241, Pet. at 36.) Dr.
`
`James directed PRI to perform tests that involved selecting ingredients, methods,
`
`and parameters not described or not a necessary part of the emulsion formulations
`
`that Pasquier described. (See Ex. 1002, ¶111.) For example, Dr. James and PRI
`
`formulated their emulsion using an emulsifier they chose, not one that Pasquier
`
`specified. While Pasquier only specifically describes using Emulsamine L60, a
`
`tallow diamine commercialized by CECA that is a blend of fatty amines, Dr. James
`
`instead “decided to utilize a traditional tallow diamine emulsifier manufactured by
`
`AkzoNobel as Redicote E-9 in place of Emulsamine L60.” (Ex. 1002, ¶119.) Dr.
`
`James and PRI formulated their emulsion using a different amount of hydrochloric
`
`acid (HCl) than Pasquier specified. Although Pasquier’s formulations call for using
`
`2 parts (2 kg) of HCl, Dr. James chose to add additional HCl to achieve a pH of 1.5-
`
`2.0. Dr. James acknowledged that the pH of the emulsion influences the emulsion
`
`properties but believed it was acceptable for him to adjust the HCl quantities
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01241, IPR2017-01242
`U.S. Patent Nos. 7,503,724 and 7,918,624
`
`Pasquier had prescribed. (See Ex. 1002, ¶119.) Dr. James and PRI formulated their
`
`emulsion using asphalts that Pasquier did not specify. They chose to use a PG 67-
`
`22 asphalt from Marathon Asphalt, Garyville, Louisiana blended with a 0-pen
`
`asphalt from Marathon Asphalt, Catlettsburg, Kentucky. In targeting a penetration
`
`value for the blended base asphalt, rather than look to Pasquier’s 10/20 penetration
`
`grade, Dr. James instructed PRI to target a base asphalt penetration of 10-15 dmm
`
`that, not surprisingly, ended up at 10 dmm. (See Ex. 1013 at 16.) Like the emulsifier
`
`product and HCl quantity, the asphalt blend and penetration value used in the PRI
`
`emulsion formulation was not a necessary result of Pasquier’s formulation, but a
`
`choice made by Dr. James and PRI. There is no basis to conclude that Dr. James’s
`
`experimental results demonstrate necessary or inherent properties of Pasquier’s
`
`formulation. They are, instead, the possible or probable result of Dr. James’s and
`
`PRI’s choices and are insufficient to establish inherency.
`
`Patent Owner’s testing confirms that Pasquier’s emulsion formulations do not
`
`inherently produce a residual tack coat exhibiting the claimed penetration and
`
`softening point values. Patent Owner’s expert, William O’Leary, blended an
`
`emulsion designated Run #3 that replicated Pasquier’s example set forth in his Table
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01241, IPR2017-01242
`U.S. Patent Nos. 7,503,724 and 7,918,624
`
`1, except with PEG 600 added to the aqueous phase rather than the asphaltic phase.4
`
`(Compare Ex. 1001 (Table 1), with Ex. 2077 at 16-17.) The 10/20 base asphalt had
`
`a pen value of 11 dmm and softening point of 72° C. (See Ex. 2078, ¶110.) Upon
`
`cure, the emulsion residue had a pen value of 14 dmm and softening point of 68° C.5
`
`(See Ex. 2093, ¶94 (Corrected Table 4); Ex. 2077 at 16-17.) This indicates that
`
`substituting a base asphalt having a pen value as high as 18 dmm or softening point
`
`as low as 63° C into this emulsion would likely result in a cured coating falling
`
`outside the challenged claims. Other experimental emulsions exhibited similar
`
`results. (See Ex. 2093, ¶94 (Corrected Table 4); Ex. 2077.) Petitioner’s replies
`
`neither disputed these results nor provided additional experimental evidence in
`
`rebuttal.
`
`As the Board previously found, “Petitioner has, at most, demonstrated merely
`
`a probability that Pasquier’s asphalt emsulsion, when cured, exhibits” the claimed
`
`penetration values and softening points. (See IPR2017-01241, Paper 23 at 14-15;
`
`IPR2017-01241, Paper 23 at 14-15.) Patent Owner’s experimental evidence
`
`
`4 The challenged claims all require that the “stabilizer” be part of the aqueous phase.
`Pasquier’s example added PEG 600, the additive Petitioner alleges to be a stabilizer,
`to the asphaltic phase.
`5 Some of the pen values and softening points reported in Mr. O’Leary’s declaration
`at Table 3 were incorrectly transcribed from BETA’s experimental results.
`(Compare Ex. 2078, ¶105, with Ex. 2077.) Mr. O’Leary provided a corrected table
`in his most recent declaration. (See Ex. 2093, ¶94 (Corrected Table 4).)
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01241, IPR2017-01242
`U.S. Patent Nos. 7,503,724 and 7,918,624
`
`confirms that conclusion. Furthermore, Petitioner’s “inherency analysis is premised
`
`on certain assumed properties and conditions that are typical or normal rather than
`
`necessarily present.” (Id.) Pasquier does not anticipate the challenged claims.
`
`B. APU Failed to Show That Pasquier Discloses Heating the Asphalt
`Pavement Material
`
`Pasquier also neither expressly nor inherently describes the step of heating the
`
`
`
`asphalt pavement material. Claim 1 of the ’724 patent6 calls for:
`
`heating the asphalt pavement material to provide a heated pavement
`material to a temperature sufficient to soften the coating an amount
`effective to form a bonding surface on the exposed coating; and
`applying the heated asphalt pavement material….
`
`(IPR2017-01241, Ex. 1001, 14:28-32.) That hot-mix asphalt can be applied at
`
`elevated temperatures when constructing a roadway may be true does not make it
`
`relevant to the anticipation analysis. Pasquier never describes heating an asphalt
`
`pavement material or softening the coating in an amount effective to form a bonding
`
`surface or suggests that his emulsions can only be used with hot-mix asphalt. Neither
`
`Petitioner nor Dr. James make such an argument. (See IPR2017-01241, Pet. at 39-
`
`40); IPR2017-01242, Pet. at 38-39 (same).) Instead, they resort to “numerous other
`
`references” to argue that hot-mix asphalt can be applied at elevated temperatures
`
`
`6 Claims 15 and 31 of the ’724 patent and claim 1 of the ’624 patent include similar
`limitations.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01241, IPR2017-01242
`U.S. Patent Nos. 7,503,724 and 7,918,624
`
`when constructing a roadway. (See id.) Because Pasquier does not expressly or
`
`inherently describe this limitation, it cannot anticipate the challenged claims. See
`
`Verdegaal Bros., 814 F.2d at 631.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the Board should find that Pasquier fails to
`
`
`
`anticipate the challenged claims.
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/John F. Triggs/ _
`John F. Triggs (Reg. No. 47143)
`Ryan D. Levy (Reg. No. 58618)
`Seth R. Ogden (Reg. No. 65168)
`William E. Sekyi (Reg. No. 45831)
`Patterson Intellectual Property Law, P.C.
`1600 Division Street, Suite 500
`Nashville, TN 37203
`jft@iplawgroup.com
`rdl@iplawgroup.com
`sro@iplawgroup.com
`wes@iplawgroup.com
`Tel.: (615) 242-2400
`Fax: (615) 242-2221
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that this Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`contains 2,889 words in the applicable sections according to 37 C.F.R. § 42.24 and
`
`is in compliance with the stipulated 5,000 word requirement.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ John F. Triggs
`John F. Triggs
`Registration No. 47,143
`PATTERSON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, P.C.
`1600 Division Street, Suite 500
`Nashville, TN 37203
`Telephone: (615) 516-2163
`Facsimile: (615) 242-2221
`jft@iplawgroup.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01241, IPR2017-01242
`U.S. Patent Nos. 7,503,724 and 7,918,624
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)(4), this is to certify that I caused a true and
`
`correct copy of the Patent Owner’s Supplemental Response to Petition to be served
`
`electronically via the secure web portal PTAB E2E to the Patent Trial & Appeal
`
`Board and via email to the following counsel of record on this 15th day of June 2018:
`
`(rwaddell@joneswalker.com)
`
`(mleachman@joneswalker.com)
`
`Robert Waddell
`Jones Walker LLP
`600 Jefferson Street
`Suite 1600
`Lafayette, Louisiana 70502
`P: (337) 593-7600
`F: (337) 593-7601
`
`Michael K. Leachman
`Jones Walker LLP
`8555 United Plaza Boulevard
`Suite 500
`Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70809
`P: (225) 248-2420
`F: (225) 248-3120
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/John F. Triggs/ _
`By:
`John F. Triggs (Reg. No. 47143)
`Ryan D. Levy (Reg. No. 58618)
`Seth R. Ogden (Reg. No. 65168)
`William E. Sekyi (Reg. No. 45831)
`Patterson Intellectual Property Law, P.C.
`1600 Division Street, Suite 500
`Nashville, TN 37203
`jft@iplawgroup.com
`rdl@iplawgroup.com
`sro@iplawgroup.com
`wes@iplawgroup.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01241, IPR2017-01242
`U.S. Patent Nos. 7,503,724 and 7,918,624
`
`
`Tel.: (615) 242-2400
`Fax: (615) 242-2221
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
