SHENZHEN KEAN SILICONE PRODUCT CO. LTD.
`(Petitioner)
`V.
`PKOH NYC, LLC
`(Patent Owner)
`______________________
`
`Case IPR2017-01327
`Patent 7,959,036
`
`PATENT OWNER’S
`TRIAL DEMONSTRATIVES
`
`

`

`Background: ‘036 Patent
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,959,036
`Elastomeric Dispensing Container
`
`Inventor: Paul Koh
`Assignee: PKOH NYC, LLC
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`2
`
`

`

`Background: ‘036 Patent
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`3
`
`

`

`Industry Praise:
`International Design Society of America
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`4
`
`

`

`Kean Infringing Bottles
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`5
`
`

`

`Instituted Grounds
`
`- Only Independent Claims are 1 and 31
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`6
`
`

`

`Kean Petition Deficiencies
`
`Seven Key Reasons Petition Fails
`Seven Key Reasons Petition Fails
`
`
`
`Seven Key Reasons Petition FailsSeven Key Reasons Petition FailsSeven Key Reasons Petition FailsSeven Key Reasons Petition Fails
`1. Not obvious to modify Cho to have resiliently deformable walls
`1. Not obvious to modify Cho to have resiliently deformable walls
`
`
`
`1. Not obvious to modify Cho to have resiliently deformable walls1. Not obvious to modify Cho to have resiliently deformable walls1. Not obvious to modify Cho to have resiliently deformable walls1. Not obvious to modify Cho to have resiliently deformable walls
`
`2. Not obvious to replace Cho nipple with a stand up cap
`2. Not obvious to replace Cho nipple with a stand up cap
`
`
`
`2. Not obvious to replace Cho nipple with a stand up cap2. Not obvious to replace Cho nipple with a stand up cap2. Not obvious to replace Cho nipple with a stand up cap2. Not obvious to replace Cho nipple with a stand up cap
`
`3. Not obvious to replace Cho receptacle with bulb
`3. Not obvious to replace Cho receptacle with bulb
`
`
`
`3. Not obvious to replace Cho receptacle with bulb3. Not obvious to replace Cho receptacle with bulb3. Not obvious to replace Cho receptacle with bulb3. Not obvious to replace Cho receptacle with bulb
`
`4. Not inherent/obvious for Cho to have an annular channel and rib
`4. Not inherent/obvious for Cho to have an annular channel and rib
`
`
`
`4. Not inherent for Cho to have an annular channel and rib4. Not inherent/obvious for Cho to have an annular channel and rib4. Not inherent/obvious for Cho to have an annular channel and rib4. Not inherent/obvious for Cho to have an annular channel and rib
`
`5. Not obvious to replace Cho flat side wall with compound curve
`5. Not obvious to replace Cho flat side wall with compound curve
`
`
`
`5. Not obvious to replace Cho flat side wall with compound curve5. Not obvious to replace Cho flat side wall with compound curve5. Not obvious to replace Cho flat side wall with compound curve5. Not obvious to replace Cho flat side wall with compound curve
`
`6. Not obvious to change Cho flat end wall with convex end wall
`6. Not obvious to change Cho flat end wall with convex end wall
`
`
`
`6. Not obvious to change Cho flat end wall with convex end wall6. Not obvious to change Cho flat end wall with convex end wall6. Not obvious to change Cho flat end wall with convex end wall6. Not obvious to change Cho flat end wall with convex end wall
`
`7. Not obvious to modify Cho receptacle with tapered side walls
`7. Not obvious to modify Cho receptacle with tapered side walls
`
`
`
`7. Not obvious to modify Cho receptacle with tapered side walls7. Not obvious to modify Cho receptacle with tapered side walls7. Not obvious to modify Cho receptacle with tapered side walls7. Not obvious to modify Cho receptacle with tapered side walls
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`7
`
`

`

`“Resiliently Deformable” – All Claims
`
`Not Obvious to have Resiliently Deformable Walls
`1. Not obvious to modify Cho to have resiliently deformable walls
`
`2. Not obvious to replace Cho nipple with a stand up cap
`
`3. Not obvious to replace Cho receptacle with bulb
`Impacts Independent Claims 1 and 31
`4. Not inherent for Cho to have an annular channel and rib
`and thus
`All Challenged Claims
`5. Not obvious to replace Cho receptacle with compound curve wall
`
`6. Not obvious to change Cho flat end wall with convex end wall
`
`7. Not obvious to modify Cho receptacle with tapered side walls
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`8
`
`

`

`“Resiliently Deformable” – Claim 1
`
`1. An elastomeric dispensing container for a fluid comprising:
`a flexible and resilient receptacle …;
`an integral gasket …;
`a receptacle neck …,
`a discrete [rigid] sleeve …,
`a cap …,
`engaging means … on the sleeve neck and the cap neck…; and
`a wall portion of the receptacle that is configured to be resiliently
`deformable … is available to be compressed to pressurize fluid in the
`chamber for expelling the fluid … through the cap orifice … and to allow
`air to be drawn into the receptacle chamber as the wall portion resiliently
`returns to the predetermined, non-deformed configuration thereof.
`
`‘036 Patent, Claim 1
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`9
`
`

`

`“Resiliently Deformable” – Claim 31
`31. A squeeze container …comprising:
`a receptacle…;
`an opening of the receptacle at the lower end thereof;
`an integral radially extending gasket … about the receptacle
`
`opening;
`
`a substantially rigid sleeve …;
`a …sleeve having the gasket protruding therefrom;
`a resiliently deformable wall portion of the receptacle … for
`being squeezed to pressurize fluid in the receptacle;
`a dispensing cap…;
`a valve of the dispensing cap lid…;
`a cover of the cap pivotally connected to the cap lid…;
`a flat bottom surface of the cover…;
`a detent between the cover and the lid…; and
`a protruding lip of the cover configured for being engaged by a
`
`user….
`
`‘036 Patent, Claim 31
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`10
`
`

`

`“Resiliently Deformable” – Claims 1 and 31
`
`Claim Terms
`
`Petition’s Critical Deficiencies
`Cho Reference
`State of Art Refs.
`
`“Resiliently deformable”
`(Claim 1 and 31)
`
`“Allow[ing] air to be drawn into
`the receptacle chamber as the
`wall portion resiliently returns
`to the predetermined, non-
`deformed configuration”
`(Claim 1)
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X + Teach away
`
`X + Teach away
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`11
`
`

`

`“Resiliently Deformable”
`Cho Does Not Teach or Disclose
`
`Institution Decision (Paper 14) at p.21
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`12
`
`

`

`“Resiliently Deformable” – SOA References
`
`Resiliently Deformable Not Known
`Goldman says “flexible”; no references show “resiliency”
`
`Goldman Dec. (EX1021) at ¶13
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`13
`
`

`

`“Resiliently Deformable” - SOA References
`
`Okusumi (EX1012) Does Not Disclose
`“A nursing bottle body is produced
`• Entirety of receptacle above
`by silicone 1 with a thickness
`sleeve is not resiliently
`suitable for holding by hand, and
`deformable
`thin silicone 2 contracted by
`atmospheric pressure.” (EX1012-1)
`
`• Portion 1 is described as thick
`silicone; not described as
`deformable or resilient.
`
`• Portion 2 is described as a bag
`type structure – it collapses but is
`not resilient
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`14
`
`

`

`“Resiliently Deformable” - SOA References
`
`Lawrence (EX1007) Does Not Disclose
`“The bellows automatically locks in
`• Entirety of receptacle above
`the compressed state to prevent
`sleeve is not resiliently
`expansion and air intake” (col 2, ln.
`deformable
`36-38)
`
`• Bellows portion automatically
`locks in place; i.e., it is not
`resilient.
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`15
`
`

`

`“Resiliently Deformable” - SOA References
`
`Stroud (EX1011) Does Not Disclose
`“A tactile baby bottle including a
`• Entire receptacle is hard plastic
`transparent, hard plastic inner layer
`and a soft outer layer…” (Abstract)
`
`• Not deformable or flexible
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`16
`
`

`

`“Resiliently Deformable” - SOA References
`
`Okusumi (EX1012) Teaches Away from Resiliency/Drawing in Air
`
`Okusumi (EX1012) at Abstract
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`17
`
`

`

`“Resiliently Deformable” - SOA References
`
`Lawrence (EX1007) Teaches Away from Resiliency/Drawing in Air
`
`Abstract
`
`Col. 2, lns 35-39
`
`Col. 5, lns 8-11
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`18
`
`

`

`“Resiliently Deformable” – Cho Reference
`
`PO Expert Fletcher says POSITA would not modify Cho to have
`“Resiliently Deformable” walls because:
`
` Bottle nipples are designed to regulate flow by sucking,
`not squeezing
`
` It is contrary to proper infant care to allow a baby to feed
`itself no less give it a resiliently deformable bottle to
`potentially force more fluid in its mouth
`
` Baby bottle nipples have vents on the sides through which
`formula would be forced out if the Cho bottle was resiliently
`deformable
`
`Fletcher Dec. (EX2008) at ¶¶85-89
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`19
`
`

`

`Kean Petition Deficiencies
`
`Not Inherent or Obvious to have an Annular Channel and Rib
`1. Not obvious to modify Cho to have resiliently deformable walls
`
`2. Not obvious to replace Cho nipple with a stand up cap
`
`3. Not obvious to replace Cho receptacle with bulb
`
`4. Not inherent/obvious for Cho to have an annular channel and rib
`Impacts Claim 14
`5. Not obvious to replace Cho receptacle with compound curve wall
`6. Not obvious to change Cho flat end wall with convex end wall
`
`7. Not obvious to modify Cho receptacle with tapered side walls
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`20
`
`

`

`Claim 14
`
`14. The container of claim 1 including an annular rib formed
`on the sleeve lower face and an annular channel formed on
`the integral gasket facing the sleeve lower face adapted to
`receive the annular rib.
`
`‘036 Patent, Claim 14
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`21
`
`

`

`Claim 14: Annular Channel and Annular Rib
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`22
`
`

`

`Claim 14: Annular Channel and Annular Rib
`Kean’s Petition points to where an annular
`channel and rib could be added…
`
`… however, there is neither an annular
`channel nor rib in Cho
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`23
`
`

`

`Kean Petition Deficiencies
`
`Not Inherent or Obvious to add a Compound Curve Wall
`1. Not obvious to modify Cho to have resiliently deformable walls
`
`2. Not obvious to replace Cho nipple with a stand up cap
`
`3. Not obvious to replace Cho receptacle with bulb
`
`4. Not inherent/obvious for Cho to have an annular channel and rib
`
`5. Not obvious to replace Cho flat side wall with compound curve
`Impacts Claim 21, 22, 23
`6. Not obvious to change Cho flat end wall with convex end wall
`7. Not obvious to modify Cho receptacle with tapered side walls
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`24
`
`

`

`Claim 21: Compound Curve
`
`21. The container of claim 1 wherein the receptacle wall
`portion has a side wall portion extending upwardly from the
`sleeve upper end and an end wall portion extending upwardly
`from the side wall portion toward the receptacle upper end
`with the side wall portion having a compound curved
`configuration to increase the resiliency thereof for the
`resilient return of the receptacle wall portion to the
`predetermined, non-deformed configuration after being
`resiliently deformed.
`
`‘036 Patent, Claim 21
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`25
`
`

`

`Claim 21: Compound Curve
`
`Kean’s Petition relies solely on Cho
`… however, Cho’s sidewall is flat
`and lacks any disclosure of a
`compound curve
`
`Kean Petition (Paper 1) at p.63
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`26
`
`

`

`Claim 22: Convex End Wall
`
`22. The container of claim 21 wherein the end wall portion
`has a substantially convex configuration for ease in
`compression thereof to expel fluid from the chamber at or
`adjacent the receptacle upper end.
`
`‘036 Patent, Claim 22
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`27
`
`

`

`Claim 22: Convex End Wall
`
`Kean’s Petition relies solely on Cho
`… however, Cho’s base is flat
`and lacks any disclosure of a
`convex end wall
`
`Kean Petition (Paper 1) at p.63
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`28
`
`

`

`Claim 23: Compound Curve Extends for
`more than ¼ of Receptacle Length
`
`23. The container of claim 21 wherein the side wall portion
`having the compound curved configuration extends axially
`for more than a quarter of the predetermined axial length of
`the receptacle.
`
`‘036 Patent, Claim 23
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`29
`
`

`

`Claim 23: Compound Curve Extends for
`more than ¼ of Receptacle Length
`
`Kean’s Petition relies solely on Cho
`… however, Cho’s sidewall is flat
`and even the corner curve does
`not extend more than ¼ the
`receptacle length
`
`Kean Petition (Paper 1) at p.65
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`30
`
`

`

`Other Petition Deficiencies
`
`Not Obvious to Make Cho a Cap Standing Container
`1. Not obvious to modify Cho to have resiliently deformable walls
`
`2. Not obvious to replace Cho nipple with a stand up cap
`
`3. Not obvious to replace Cho receptacle with bulb
`
`4. Not inherent for Cho to have an annular channel and rib
`Impacts Claims 2, 5, 6, 20, 22, 29, 30, 31, 32, 35-38
`5. Not obvious to replace Cho receptacle with compound curve wall
`
`6. Not obvious to change Cho flat end wall with convex end wall
`
`7. Not obvious to modify Cho receptacle with tapered side walls
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`31
`
`

`

`Other Petition Deficiencies
`
`PKOH Cap Standing Type Bottle
`
`Cho Base Standing Type Bottle
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`32
`
`

`

`Other Petition Deficiencies
`
`Petitioner Fails to Show Why a POSITA Would Modify Cho
`
`1. No motivation for a POSITA to add stand up caps to the Cho
`baby bottle.
`
`Mueller and Rohr are for squeeze type containers that
`stand on their caps for dispensing lotions.
`
`2. No motivation for a POSITA to add bulb shaped receptacle or
`convex end wall to a baby bottle.
`
`Baby bottles are intended to stand on a flat base (not cap)
`to prevent leaking and nipple from getting contaminated.
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`33
`
`

`

`End
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`34
`
`