Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 66
`Entered: October 23, 2018
`
`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 IPR2017-01242
`Patent 7,918,624 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, JAMES A. TARTAL, and
`TIMOTHY J. GOODSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`GOODSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background
`Asphalt Products Unlimited, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a petition
`(Paper 1, “Pet.”) requesting inter partes review of claims 1–25 of U.S.
`Patent No. 7,918,624 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’624 patent”) on the following
`grounds:
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 66
`Entered: October 23, 2018
`
`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 IPR2017-01242
`Patent 7,918,624 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, JAMES A. TARTAL, and
`TIMOTHY J. GOODSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`GOODSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background
`Asphalt Products Unlimited, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a petition
`(Paper 1, “Pet.”) requesting inter partes review of claims 1–25 of U.S.
`Patent No. 7,918,624 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’624 patent”) on the following
`grounds:
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01242
`Patent 7,918,624 B2
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Claims
`Basis
`§ 102 1–5, 12, 14–18, 25
`Pasquier1
`§ 103 1–5, 9, 12–18, 21, 22, 24, 25
`Pasquier and SBH2
`§ 103 6, 19
`Pasquier, SBH, and US DOT 3
`§ 103 7, 8, 10, 20
`Pasquier, SBH, and Durand4
`Pasquier, SBH, US DOT, and Potti5 § 103 11, 236
`
`Pet. 26–66. Petitioner further asserts that three additional prior art
`references described by Petitioner as “optional” to its obviousness
`
`
`1 European Patent App. Pub. No. EP 0 859 030 A1 (Ex. 1003). The original
`French version of this document is in Exhibit 1028. Exhibit 1003 is the
`English translation.
`2 The Shell Bitumen Handbook (5th ed. 2003) (Ex. 1008).
`3 US DOT Specification FP96-2001 (Ex. 1010).
`4 U.S. Patent No. 5,769,567 (Ex. 1011).
`5 Juan José Potti, José Luis Peña, Francisco Guzmán, “Emulsiones
`termoadherentes para riegos de adherencia,” Carreteras: Revista Técnica de
`la Asociación Española de la Carretera, July–Aug. 2003, at 17 (Ex. 1006).
`The original Spanish version of this document is in Exhibit 1017. Exhibit
`1006 is the English translation.
`6 In a table summarizing the grounds at the start of the Petition, Petitioner
`also lists claim 19 in this ground. Pet. 7. However, as we noted in our
`Decision on Institution, the Petition does not reference Potti in its challenge
`to claim 19. See Paper 23, 2–3 n.2. Instead, Petitioner’s challenge to claim
`19 refers to its arguments for claim 6, which are based on Pasquier, SBH,
`and US DOT. See Pet. 58, 65. Petitioner’s summary table does include
`claim 19 in the ground based on the combination of Pasquier, SBH, and US
`DOT. See Pet. 6. Thus, we consider Petitioner’s inclusion of claim 19 in the
`ground that includes Potti in the table on page 7 of the Petition to be a
`typographical error.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01242
`Patent 7,918,624 B2
`challenges reflect the background knowledge of an ordinarily skilled artisan
`at the time of the alleged invention: Corte, 7 BAEM, 8 and Gordillo. 9 See,
`e.g., Pet. 49 (describing Corte, BAEM, and Gordillo as “optional[]”
`references in the obviousness challenge to claim 1). Blacklidge Emulsions,
`Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 10 (“Prelim.
`Resp.”).
`We initially instituted an inter partes review on a subset of the
`asserted grounds. See Paper 23 (“Dec. on Inst.”). Specifically, we
`determined based on the preliminary record that Petitioner had demonstrated
`a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its obviousness challenges, but that
`Petitioner had not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its
`anticipation challenge. Id. at 11–26. Based on those determinations, and in
`accordance with the Board’s practice at that time, we instituted an inter
`partes review only as to the obviousness challenges. Id. at 26.
`Subsequently, pursuant to the holding in SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S.Ct.
`1348, 1355–57 (2018), we modified our institution decision to institute
`review of all grounds presented in the Petition. Paper 48, 2. We also
`authorized supplemental briefing to permit the parties to address the added
`ground. Paper 51.
`
`7 Corte, Jean-Francois, “Development and uses of hard-grade asphalt and of
`high-modulus asphalt mixes in France,” Transportation Research Circular
`503: Perpetual Bituminous Pavements, at 12 (Ex. 1007).
`8 A Basic Asphalt Emulsion Manual, Manual Series No. 19, Third Edition
`(Ex. 1009).
`9 Jaime Gordillo et al., “Comparison of Different Test Methods for the
`Obtention and Characterisation of Residual Binders of Pure and Modified
`Bitumen Emulsions,” Second World Congress on Emulsion, 23–26 Sept.
`1997 (Ex. 1012).
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01242
`Patent 7,918,624 B2
`The briefing in this proceeding includes the Petition, an Amended
`Patent Owner Response (Paper 38, “PO Resp.”), a Patent Owner
`Supplemental Response (Paper 54, “PO Supp. Resp.”), a Petitioner Reply
`(Paper 45, “Reply”), and a Petitioner Supplemental Reply (Paper 57, “Supp.
`Reply”). We held an oral hearing, a transcript of which is included in the
`record. Paper 65 (“Tr.”).
`Patent Owner filed a Contingent Motion to Amend, and the parties
`submitted additional briefing in connection with that motion. We address
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend in Section III. Aside from the Motion to
`Amend, no motions remain pending. During the proceeding, Patent Owner
`filed a Motion to Disqualify Dr. Alan James as Petitioner’s Expert Witness
`and to Strike His Declaration, and we denied that motion. See Paper 15;
`Paper 22.
`The evidentiary record in this proceeding is extensive. In addition to
`the numerous cited prior art references and documents evidencing the state
`of the art during the relevant time frame, the parties have provided the
`testimony of several witnesses. The table below summarizes the witnesses,
`their roles in this proceeding, and the exhibits in which their testimony is
`presented:
`Witness
`Alan James,
`Ph.D.
`
`Role
`Petitioner’s
`technical expert
`
`Exhibit(s)
`Ex. 1002 (declaration of Apr. 3, 2017);
`Ex. 1040 (declaration of July 15, 2017);
`Ex. 1041 (declaration of Aug. 30, 2017);
`Ex. 1093 (declaration of Apr. 17, 2018);
`Ex. 2079 (transcript of deposition of
`Dec. 19, 2017).
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01242
`Patent 7,918,624 B2
`
`Witness
`Laci-Tiarks-
`Martin
`
`R. Steele
`Yeargain, III
`
`Role
`Director of
`Operations at
`PRI Asphalt
`Technologies,
`Inc., which was
`retained by
`Petitioner to
`conduct testing
`Vice President
`of Petitioner
`
`William F.
`O’Leary
`
`Patent Owner’s
`technical expert
`
`Roy B.
`Blacklidge
`
`Inventor of ’624
`patent and
`President of
`Patent Owner
`
`R. Grover
`Allen, Ph.D.
`
`Technical
`Director of
`Patent Owner
`
`Exhibit(s)
`Ex. 1013 (declaration of Mar. 15, 2017).
`
`Ex. 1042 (declaration of Aug. 16, 2017);
`Ex. 1094 (declaration of Apr. 16, 2018).
`Ex. 2010 (declaration of Aug. 18, 2017);
`Ex. 2078 (declaration of Jan. 24, 2018);
`Ex. 2092 (declaration of Feb. 9, 2017
`from IPR2016-01031);
`Ex. 2093 (declaration of June 15, 2018);
`Ex. 1092 (transcript of deposition of
`Mar. 8–9, 2018);
`Ex. 1095 (transcript of deposition of
`June 27, 2018).
`Ex. 2081 (declaration of Sept. 28, 2008
`from file history of U.S. Patent No.
`7,503,724);
`Ex. 1096 (transcript of deposition of
`Apr. 19, 2017 from IPR2016-01031).10
`Ex. 2005 (declaration of July 5, 2017);
`Ex. 2077 (declaration of Jan. 24, 2018);
`Ex. 2094 (declaration of June 15, 2018).
`
`
`10 The parties stipulated that Mr. Blacklidge’s testimony from Case
`IPR2016-01031 would be admissible in this proceeding. See Paper 43, 1.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01242
`Patent 7,918,624 B2
`
`Witness
`Michael
`Jenkins
`
`Ex. 2020 (declaration of Aug. 18, 2017).
`
`Exhibit(s)
`Ex. 2006 (declaration of July 5, 2017).
`
`Role
`Director of
`Technical
`Marketing of
`Patent Owner
`Jarrod Gray Chief Financial
`Officer of
`Patent Owner
`Executive Vice
`President and
`General
`Manager of
`Patent Owner
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. Petitioner bears the burden
`of proving unpatentability of the challenged claims, and the burden of
`persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l
`Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). To prevail, Petitioner
`must prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. See
`35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). This Final Written Decision is
`issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. For the
`reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–25 of the ’624 patent are
`unpatentable. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e).
`B. Related Proceedings
`The parties identify the following inter partes review proceedings as
`related:
`• Colas Solutions, Inc. v. Blacklidge Emulsions, Inc., Case IPR2016-
`01032, relating to the ’624 patent;
`
`Douglas C.
`Fergusson
`
`Ex. 2090 (declaration of Feb. 8, 2017).
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01242
`Patent 7,918,624 B2
`• Colas Solutions, Inc. v. Blacklidge Emulsions, Inc., Case IPR2016-
`01031, relating to U.S. Patent No. 7,503,724 B2 (“the ’724 patent”),
`of which the ’624 patent is a continuation;
`• Asphalt Products Unlimited, Inc. v. Blacklidge Emulsions, Inc.. Case
`IPR2017-01241, relating to the ’724 patent.
`Pet. 3–4; Paper 7, 2. In Case IPR2016-01032, which involved a different
`petitioner and different prior art references, we issued a Final Decision
`determining that no claim of the ’624 patent had been shown to be
`unpatentable. See Colas Solutions, Inc. v. Blacklidge Emulsions, Inc., Case
`IPR2016-01032, slip op. at 32 (PTAB Nov. 2, 2017) (Paper 40). An appeal
`of that decision is pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
`Circuit as Colas Solutions, Inc. v. Blacklidge Emulsions, Inc., Case No.
`18-1359.
`The parties also identify the following four district court proceedings
`as related:
`• Blacklidge Emulsions, Inc. v. Russell Standard Corporation, Case
`Number 1:12-cv-00643, N.D. Ohio;
`• Colas Solutions, Inc. v. Blacklidge Emulsions, Inc., Case Number
`1:16-cv-00548, S.D. Ohio;
`• Blacklidge Emulsions, Inc. v. Phillips Oil Co. of Central Ohio, Inc.,
`Case Number 2:12-cv-00406, S.D. Ohio; and
`• Blacklidge Emulsions, Inc. v. Akzo Nobel Surface Chemistry LLC,
`Case Number 1:17-cv-173, S.D. Miss.
`Pet. 3–4; Paper 7, 2; Paper 9, 2.
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01242
`Patent 7,918,624 B2
`C. The ’624 Patent
`The ’624 patent relates generally to a method of providing an
`adhesive tack coat between pavement layers. Ex. 1001, 1:15–18. The
`method includes applying an asphalt emulsion as the tack coat that, when
`cured, exhibits a relatively hard surface that resists adhering to the tires of
`construction vehicles but still functions as an adhesive layer. Id. at 4:56–5:6.
`Claims 1, 14, and 25 are the independent claims. Claim 1 is directed
`to a method for bonding a layer of asphalt pavement material to a substrate
`layer, claim 14 is for a method of forming a low-tracking tack coating, and
`claim 25 recites a pavement structure that incorporates the bonding layer.
`Id. at 13:63–14:22, 15:1–22, 16:26–37. Claim 1 is illustrative, and is
`reproduced below with labels as added by Petitioner for ease of reference:
`1. A method for bonding a layer of asphalt pavement material
`to a substrate layer, the method comprising:
`[a] providing an emulsion comprising at least a first phase which
`includes an asphalt composition, a second phase comprising
`water, and emulsifying and stabilizing additives, the asphalt
`composition in the emulsion effective for providing a coating
`having a penetration value less than about 40 dmm and a
`softening point greater than about 140 ° F. (60 ° C.) when
`applied to the substrate layer and cured;
`[b] applying the emulsion to an exposed surface of the substrate
`layer in an amount which is sufficient to provide a coating on
`the exposed surface of the substrate layer, the coating and
`emulsion including an amount of the asphalt composition
`effective to bond the asphalt pavement layer to the substrate
`layer;
`[c] providing heated asphalt pavement material to provide the
`asphalt pavement layer, the asphalt pavement material heated
`to a temperature sufficient to soften the coating on the
`substrate layer to form a bonding surface on an exposed
`surface of the coating;
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01242
`Patent 7,918,624 B2
`[d] applying the heated asphalt pavement material to the exposed
`coating surface to form the asphalt pavement layer and to
`soften the exposed coating surface forming a bond between
`the asphalt pavement layer and the substrate layer.
`Id. at 13:63–14:22 (emphasis and labels added); see also Pet. 27, 37–39
`(showing labels for particular elements). The emphasized portion of
`claim 1, which is substantively recited in all claims, identifies characteristics
`of a cured asphalt emulsion and represents one of the central points in
`dispute between the parties.
`The ’624 patent describes the particular asphalt emulsion used to
`make a “low-tracking” tack coat that reduces or avoids the problems
`associated with the tack coat adhering to the wheels of construction vehicles.
`Id. at 4:56–5:17. Such vehicle tracking “reduces the effectiveness of the
`tack coat by displacing a portion of the intended volume from the area
`awaiting a new pavement layer.” Id. at 2:16–18. Additionally,
`“[i]nsufficient adhesion between a new layer of pavement and an existing
`base course . . . can cause pavement separation and cracking during
`construction [and] subsequent failures and premature deterioration of the
`pavement structure.” Id. at 2:19–24.
`The Specification describes two approaches for obtaining such a tack
`coat. In one approach, an emulsion is prepared with a “hard pen” asphalt
`component having a pen value of “from about 5 dmm to about 15 dmm pen,
`with a softening point between about 150° F. (66° C.) and about 160° F.
`(71° C.).” Id. at 7:44, 63–65. The Specification describes asphalt emulsions
`incorporating asphalt compositions defined by the “Performance Grade”
`values of from PG-91 (about 5 pen) to PG-82 (about 40 pen). Id.
`at 9:59–10:1. Beginning with these hard pen asphalts in the emulsion, the
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01242
`Patent 7,918,624 B2
`Specification describes resulting “tack coat properties” including pen values
`from about 1 dmm to about 40 dmm and a minimum softening point of
`140° F. (60° C.). Id. at 10:35–40. The Specification also describes two
`examples of “the emulsion of the invention using a 13 dmm pen asphalt,”
`but does not reveal the pen value or the softening point of the resulting cured
`tack coat. Id. at 12:30–13:55.
`The second approach is to use a softer asphalt in the emulsion “in the
`range of mid or soft pen asphalt” and add “polymeric, waxes, or other
`equivalent additives” to achieve the properties of the “final cured tack coat.”
`Id. at 8:51–63. The Specification describes that “[e]xamples of such
`polymeric additives are EVA, SBS, SB, SBR, SBR latex, polychloroprene,
`isoprene, polybutadiene, acrylic and acrylic copolymers, and other
`equivalent additives that produce the hard pen characteristics of the final
`cured tack coat.” Id. at 8:59–63. The Specification does not, however,
`describe examples of making a cured tack coat exhibiting the claimed pen
`and softening point values using emulsions of mid or soft pen asphalt and
`the specific additives listed.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Interpretation
`“A claim in an unexpired patent that will not expire before a final
`written decision is issued shall be given its broadest reasonable construction
`in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.100(b) (2016); see also Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct.
`2131, 2144–46 (2016) (affirming that USPTO has statutory authority to
`construe claims according to Rule 42.100(b)). When applying that standard,
`we interpret the claim language as it would be understood by one of ordinary
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01242
`Patent 7,918,624 B2
`skill in the art in light of the specification. In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603
`F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Thus, we give claim terms their ordinary
`and customary meaning. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249,
`1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“The ordinary and customary meaning ‘is the
`meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in
`question.’” (citation omitted)). Only terms that are in controversy need to be
`construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed.
`Cir. 1999).
`In our Decision on Institution, we considered Petitioner’s proposal
`that the phrase “a penetration value less than about 40 dmm” means “a
`penetration value less than 47 dmm.” See Pet. 11. We determined that the
`intrinsic and extrinsic evidence of record did not support Petitioner’s
`proposal, and applied the term’s ordinary and customary meaning. See Dec.
`on Inst. 8–10. Similarly, we declined to adopt Petitioner’s proposal that the
`phrase “a softening point greater than about 140 ° F. (60 ° C.)” should be
`construed as “a softening point greater than 57°C,” and we instead applied
`the ordinary and customary meaning of that phrase. See Pet. 11; Dec. on
`Inst. 10–11. The parties’ post-institution briefing does not further address
`the construction of these phrases. See PO Resp. 19; Reply 2. We maintain
`the construction of these phrases set forth in our Decision on Institution for
`the reasons stated therein.
`We determine that no other terms require express construction to
`resolve the disputed issues in this proceeding.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01242
`Patent 7,918,624 B2
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`In determining the level of skill in the art, we consider the educational
`level of the inventor, the type of problems encountered in the art, the prior
`art solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which innovations are
`made, the sophistication of the technology, and the educational level of
`active workers in the field. Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd. v. Apotex, Inc., 501
`F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil
`Co., 713 F2d 693, 696 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
`Petitioner contends, with citation to the testimony of Dr. James, that a
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have “a bachelor’s degree or the
`equivalent in the fields of chemistry, chemical engineering, materials
`science, or an equivalent, as well as having five (5) years of additional
`academic or commercial research in the field of asphalt binders and/or
`asphalt emulsion technology.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 9–12).
`Patent Owner’s expert, Mr. O’Leary, disagrees with Petitioner’s and
`Dr. James’s definition and describes a person of ordinary skill in the art as
`someone with a bachelor of science degree or the equivalent in
`civil or chemical engineering, as well as having approximately 5
`years of practical experience comprising some combination of
`asphalt binder testing and/or characterization, asphalt mixture
`testing and/or characterization, pavement design, and field
`experience such as quality control monitoring of the construction
`of pavement materials. Alternatively, a person having ordinary
`skill in the art may have 10 years of practical experience
`comprising some combination of asphalt binder testing and/or
`characterization, asphalt mixture testing and/or characterization,
`pavement design, and field experience instead of a four year
`college degree.
`Ex. 2078 ¶ 60; see also Ex. 2093 ¶¶ 38–40 (providing additional testimony
`regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art).
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01242
`Patent 7,918,624 B2
`The primary difference in these proposals is that Petitioner’s and Dr.
`James’s proposal requires an academic degree, while Mr. O’Leary’s
`definition allows additional work experience to substitute for an academic
`degree. In this regard, Petitioner acknowledges that its definition would
`exclude the sole named inventor of the ’624 patent from qualifying as a
`person of ordinary skill in the art because Mr. Blacklidge does not have an
`academic degree. Tr. 19:19–20:3. The Federal Circuit has found clear error
`when a court’s determination of the level of skill in the art conflicted with
`the background of the inventors. Daiichi Sankyo, 501 F.3d at 1256–57.
`Petitioner is unable to point us to any cases in which a court or tribunal has
`adopted or upheld a definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art that
`would exclude the inventor of the patent at issue. Tr. 20:4–7.
`Petitioner’s definition would also exclude Mr. O’Leary, even though
`Dr. James considers Mr. O’Leary as “someone who has attained a certain
`level of skill in the field of asphalt emulsions in general.” Ex. 1093 ¶ 12.
`Petitioner argues that an understanding of chemistry is important, and that
`Mr. O’Leary’s inadequate chemistry background detracts from the reliability
`of his opinions. Tr. 20:8–24; see also Ex. 1093 ¶¶ 12–16 (Dr. James
`pointing to alleged errors or gaps in Mr. O’Leary’s chemistry knowledge
`stating that “Mr. O’Leary’s lack of formal education in chemistry impedes
`his ability to provide a reliable opinion on topics involving formulation
`chemistry”). Petitioner’s and Dr. James’s criticisms go to the weight to be
`given Mr. O’Leary’s opinions, but do not persuade us that the level of
`educational attainment for a person of ordinary skill in the art should be set
`above what was obtained by known practitioners in this field such as
`Mr. O’Leary and Mr. Blacklidge.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01242
`Patent 7,918,624 B2
`We adopt Mr. O’Leary’s statement of the level of ordinary skill in the
`art (Ex. 2078 ¶ 60), which is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the
`art we specified in our Final Decision in an earlier proceeding involving the
`’624 patent. See Colas Solutions, Inc. v. Blacklidge Emulsions, Inc., Case
`IPR2016-01032, slip op. at 9–10 (PTAB Nov. 2, 2017) (Paper 40).
`C. The Anticipation Challenge
`Petitioner argues that Pasquier anticipates claims 1–5, 12, 14–18,
`and 25. Pet. 26–48; Supp. Reply 2–9. Patent Owner disputes those
`contentions. See PO Supp. Resp. 4–14.
`1. 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., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628,
`631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Whether a reference discloses the claimed subject
`matter is assessed from the perspective of an ordinarily skilled artisan. See
`Dayco Prods., Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc., 329 F.3d 1358, 1368 (Fed.
`Cir. 2003) (“‘[T]he dispositive question regarding anticipation [i]s whether
`one skilled in the art would reasonably understand or infer from the [prior art
`reference’s] teaching’ that every claim element was disclosed in that single
`reference.”).
`2. Overview of Pasquier
`Pasquier relates to asphalt emulsions used to make a tack coat to
`which tires of road construction equipment do not stick. Ex. 1003, Abstract.
`Pasquier describes that the “purpose of the tack coats is to stick to each other
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01242
`Patent 7,918,624 B2
`the different layers that make up the road.” Id. at 2:20. 11 Pasquier describes
`the goals of its tack coats as follows: “The purpose of the invention is to
`provide a tack coat that sticks the layers perfectly to each other without
`sticking to the wheels of the construction equipment so as to avoid
`bituminous products from being carried onto surrounding roads without
`making the implementation techniques more complicated.” Id. at 2:47–50.
`Pasquier acknowledges that conventionally using hard or very hard
`asphalt (10 to 30 dmm) in an emulsion may achieve a tack coat that is not
`sticky, but remains “very fragile . . . little cohesive because a bitumen with
`this hardness is not very film-forming, and has little adhesion to the
`support.” Id. at 3:5–9. Pasquier addresses this problem by adding
`substances from one of two groups, for example, “group a)” including
`parafins, waxes of petroleum, among others, or “group b)” including
`polyethylene glycol among others. Id. at 3:30–39.
`Pasquier’s tack coat is made from various exemplary emulsions, most
`of which are based on 10/20 hard-pen bitumen. Id. at 4–5, Tables 1–3, 5.
`For example, Table 1 from Pasquier is reproduced below.
`
`
`11 When citing to Pasquier, we refer to the page numbers of the original
`document, which are also shown in the English translation of Pasquier in
`Exhibit 1003. However, when we refer to line numbers, we refer to those
`shown in Exhibit 1003 rather than the line numbers of the original French-
`language version of Pasquier.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01242
`Patent 7,918,624 B2
`
`
`
`Pasquier’s Table 1 reflects an exemplary emulsion for making a
`tack coat that avoids tracking by construction vehicles.
`Id. at 4. Pasquier uses polyethylene glycol—a water-soluble polymer—as a
`viscosity modifier and stabilizing additive that can be added to either the
`asphalt phase or the water phase, with Pasquier specifically noting that the
`addition of polyethylene glycol results in an emulsion that “is much more
`stable than a pure hard bitumen emulsion.” Id. at 5:26–29, 5:34–35.
`Pasquier further notes that its hard-pen emulsion provides a tack coat having
`strengthened consistency at temperatures below 70°C such that the “residual
`layer [is] not affected by temperature up to 70°C.” Id. at 3:11–25.
`3. Analysis
`Each of independent claims 1, 14, and 25 is challenged as anticipated
`by Pasquier. Each of those claims requires an asphalt composition that
`provides a coating or bonding layer having “a penetration value less than
`about 40 dmm and a softening point greater than about 140° F. (60° C.)”
`when cured. Ex. 1001, 14:2–4 (claim 1), id. at 15:8–10 (claim 14), id.
`at 16:36–37 (claim 25).
`Petitioner admits that “Pasquier does not expressly disclose” the
`penetration value and softening point of the “coating” of claim 1. Pet. 29.
`Petitioner relies on inherency for these limitations. Id. at 27. Specifically,
`Petitioner argues that Pasquier inherently teaches those characteristics
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01242
`Patent 7,918,624 B2
`because an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have known that Pasquier’s
`asphalt emulsion would necessarily and inevitably produce a residual tack
`coat having a final residual pen value of less than 20 dmm and a R&B
`softening point greater than about 140° F. (60° C.).” Id. at 30. Regarding
`the “coating” of claim 14 and the “bonding layer” of claim 25, Petitioner
`refers back to its arguments for claim 1. Id. at 46, 48.
`Patent Owner counters that Pasquier does not anticipate claims 1, 14,
`and 25 or their respective dependent claims 2–5, 12, and 15–18 because
`Petitioner has not established that Pasquier inherently describes the
`characteristics of the cured “coating” or “bonding layer.” PO Supp.
`Resp. 5–12. We agree with Patent Owner.
`“[A]nticipation by inherent disclosure is appropriate only when the
`[single prior art] reference discloses prior art that must necessarily include
`the unstated limitation.” Transclean Corp. v. Bridgewood Servs., Inc., 290
`F.3d 1364, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). “Inherency . . . 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.” Cont’l
`Can Co. USA, Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 1991)
`(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Rather, “[t]he inherent
`result must inevitably result from the disclosed steps.” In re Montgomery,
`677 F.3d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`Petitioner’s evidence tends to show that Pasquier’s asphalt emulsion,
`when cured, would likely exhibit a penetration value and softening point
`within the claimed range, but does not establish that it would inevitably have
`those characteristics. In support of its inherency arguments, Petitioner
`points to disclosures in the ’624 patent, SBH, and Corte indicating that hard
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01242
`Patent 7,918,624 B2
`pen asphalts would be expected to have softening points greater than 140° F.
`Pet. 30–32 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:66–3:3; Ex. 1008, 44; Ex. 1007, 16). Yet the
`relied-upon statement in the ’624 patent by its own terms describes what is
`“typical” for hard asphalt compositions, not what pen values and softening
`points are necessarily present after curing. Ex. 1001, 2:66–3:3. The table in
`SBH on which Petitioner relies is titled “[s]pecifications for paving grade
`bitumens with penetrations from 20 to 330 dmm.” Ex. 1008, 44. The table
`does not list specifications for 10/20 pen bitumen, but for 20/30 bitumen, the
`closest grade listed, SBH indicates a softening point of 55–63°C. Id. While
`Petitioner argues that the table shows the well-understood inverse correlation
`between softening point and penetration value (Pet. 31), the values listed in
`the table do not provide strong support for Petitioner’s contention that a
`10/20 pen bitumen, as taught in Pasquier, would inevitably yield a cured
`tack coat having a softening point greater than about 60° C. Indeed, as
`Patent Owner notes, another table in SBH indicates that at least some
`asphalts with penetration values between 10 and 20 dmm have softening
`points below 60° C. PO Supp. Resp. 6 (reproducing SBH’s Figure 2.3 with
`annotations).
`Corte’s table is titled “Typical Hard Asphalt Characteristics (Before
`Aging).” Ex. 1007, 16. That table indicates that a 10/20 grade asphalt
`having a penetration index of +0.5 would typically have a softening point of
`62–72°C. Id. Corte’s table does support that a typical 10/20 grade asphalt
`would have a softening point within the claimed range, but this is yet further
`evidence of what is typical or likely, not what is necessarily present. For
`example, an asphalt having a lower penetration index than the +0.5 reported
`in Corte may have a softening point outside the claimed range. See
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01242
`Patent 7,918,624 B2
`generally Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 19–20 (testimony of Dr. James explaining the
`relationship between penetration value, softening point, and penetration
`index). Pasquier does not specify a particular penetration index for the
`asphalt, instead stating, as Patent Owner points out, that “all road or
`industrial bitumen types can be used.” PO Supp. Resp. 5 (quoting Ex. 1003,
`5:20–22).
`Petitioner also relies on its “testing of select Pasquier formulations”
`resulting in a sample having a penetration value of 10 dmm and a softening
`point of 72°C. Pet. 32 (citing Ex. 1013). According to Petitioner, this
`testing establishes “that Pasquier’s 10/20 pen asphalt material would
`necessarily have a softening point greater than about 140°F (60°C).” This
`testing does not convince us that Pasquier’s formulations would necessarily
`result in a cured tack coat having the claimed rheological properties because,
`as Patent Owner points out, the formulations that were tested departed from
`Pasquier’s examples in some respects. See PO Supp. Resp. 10–11. For
`example, the tested formulations used Redicote E-9 as the emulsifier rather
`than the Emulsamine L60 disclosed in Pasquier. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 118;
`Ex. 1003, 3:67–68). In addition, the tested recipes used more hydrochloric
`acid than disclosed in Pasquier. Ex. 1002 ¶ 119. Dr. James explained why
`these adjustments were necessary and why he believes an ordinarily skilled
`artisan would have made them. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 118–119. Nevertheless,
`these departures from the formulations set forth in Pasquier undermine
`Petitioner’s reliance on the tests to show inherent characteristics of
`Pasquier’s cured tack coat.
`Petitioner’s remaining arguments are premised on certain assumed
`properties and conditions that are typical or normal rather than necessarily
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01242
`Patent 7,918,624 B2
`present. For example, Petitioner argues that “when taking the normal PI
`range for paving-grade asphalts into account, 10/20 asphalts would
`inevitably have softening points greater than ‘about 60°C.’” Pet. 32
`(emphasis added). Elsewhere, Petitioner asserts that an ordinarily skilled
`artisan “would have known that Pasquier’s residual tack coat would
`generally reflect the characteristics of the base asphalt.” Pet. 34 (emphasis
`added). Dr. James similarly qualifies his conclusion of inherency by
`testifying that:
`a skilled artisan would have expected Pasquier’s tack coat
`residue—when low quantities of the PEG 600 additive were
`utilized in the emulsion recipe (
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
