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. IPR2017-01350
`U.S. Patent No. 6,342,284
`____________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 IPR2017-01350
`U.S. Patent No. 6,342,284
`
`
`Page
`
`I. 
`II. 
`
`D. 
`
`Summary Of Arguments .................................................................................. 1 
`Responsive Overview Of The Relevant Technology ...................................... 4 
`A.  Gypsum And Set Gypsum ..................................................................... 4 
`B. 
`“Sag” In Set Gypsum Used For Gypsum Boards ................................. 5 
`C. 
`Petitioner’s Central Premise Is False—Crosslinking Starch Is
`Irrelevant To Adding STMP to Gypsum Slurries ................................. 6 
`There Is No Evidence That STMP Was Used Or Was Known
`To Be Effective To Increase Sag Resistance In Set Gypsum
`Products ................................................................................................. 7 
`III.  Overview Of The ’284 Patent And Its Prosecution History ............................ 9 
`A. 
`The Patented Technology ...................................................................... 9 
`B. 
`The Claimed “Enhancing Materials” .................................................. 10 
`C. 
`The Disclosed And Established Benefits Of The “Enhancing
`Materials” ............................................................................................ 12 
`The Prosecution History Of The ’284 Patent ...................................... 13 
`D. 
`IV.  The Petition Fails To Meet The Requirements For Instituting An
`Inter Partes Review ........................................................................................ 14 
`A. 
`The Board Should Not Institute On Horizontally Redundant
`Grounds ............................................................................................... 15 
`Petitioner Erroneously Relies On Hjelmeland As Prior Art In
`Both Of Its Grounds ............................................................................ 16 
`The Petition Advances Flawed Claim Constructions That Should Be
`Rejected ......................................................................................................... 17 
`A. 
`The Phillips Claim Construction Standard .......................................... 18 
`B. 
`Claim Construction ............................................................................. 19 
`1. 
`“Set gypsum” ............................................................................ 19 
`2. 
`“Enhancing materials” .............................................................. 20 
`
`B. 
`
`V. 
`
`i
`
`

`

`Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2017-01350
`U.S. Patent No. 6,342,284
`
`3. 
`“Host particles” ......................................................................... 25 
`VI.  Petitioner Has Not Met Its Burden To Show A Reasonable
`Likelihood Of Success On Its Asserted Obviousness Grounds .................... 26 
`A. 
`Legal Standards ................................................................................... 26 
`B. 
`Level Of Ordinary Skill In The Art ..................................................... 28 
`C. 
`Overview Of Asserted Prior Art .......................................................... 28 
`1. 
`Graux ......................................................................................... 28 
`2. 
`Satterthwaite .............................................................................. 30 
`3. 
`ASTM C473 .............................................................................. 34 
`4. 
`Hjelmeland ................................................................................ 35 
`5. 
`Sucech ....................................................................................... 36 
`6. 
`Baig ........................................................................................... 37 
`7. 
`Summerfield .............................................................................. 37 
`Petitioner Fails To Meet Its Burden on Ground 1 ............................... 38 
`1. 
`A PHOSITA Would Not Have Been Motivated To
`Begin With Graux Or Combine Graux With The
`Asserted Secondary References ................................................ 38 
`The Proposed Combination of Ground 1 Does Not
`Disclose Or Suggest All Elements Of The Challenged
`Claims ....................................................................................... 41 
`i. 
`Independent Claim 1 ....................................................... 41 
`1a: (preamble) A composition comprising a mixture
`of: .................................................................................... 41 
`1b: a calcium
`sulfate material, water, a
`pregelatinized starch and one or more enhancing
`materials . . ., ................................................................... 41 
`1c: wherein when said composition is cast in the
`form of ½ inch gypsum board, said board has a sag
`resistance, as determined according to ASTM
`C473-95, of less than about 0.1 inch per two foot
`length of said board. ....................................................... 42 
`
`D. 
`
`2. 
`
`ii
`
`

`

`ii. 
`iii. 
`
`Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2017-01350
`U.S. Patent No. 6,342,284
`
`Independent Claim 2 ....................................................... 44 
`Independent Claim 4 ....................................................... 45 
`4a: A composition comprising set gypsum and host
`particles, at least a portion of the set gypsum being
`positioned in and about accessible voids in the host
`particles, wherein the composition comprises a
`mixture of: the host particles having the accessible
`voids therein; .................................................................. 45 
`4b: calcium sulfate hemihydrate, at least a portion
`of which is in the form of crystals in and about the
`voids of the host particles; and one or more
`enhancing materials . . ., ................................................. 46 
`4c: wherein when said composition is cast in the
`form of ½ inch gypsum board, said board has a sag
`resistance, as determined according to ASTM
`C473-95, of less than about 0.1 inch per two foot
`length of said board. ....................................................... 46 
`Independent Claim 5 ....................................................... 46 
`iv. 
`Independent Claim 10 ..................................................... 47 
`v. 
`Independent Claim 34 ..................................................... 47 
`vi. 
`Independent Claim 40 ..................................................... 48 
`vii. 
`viii.  The Challenged Dependent Claims ................................ 48 
`Claim 11: The gypsum board of claim 10, wherein
`the amount of said trimetaphosphate compound is
`from about 0.004 to about 2.0% by weight of said
`calcined gypsum. ............................................................ 49 
`Petitioner Fails To Meet Its Burden on Ground 2 ............................... 50 
`1. 
`A PHOSITA Would Not Have Been Motivated To
`Start With Satterthwaite Or Combine Satterthwaite
`With The Asserted Secondary References ................................ 50 
`The Proposed Combination Does Not Disclose All
`Elements Of The Challenged Claims ........................................ 53 
`i. 
`Independent Claim 1 ....................................................... 53 
`iii
`
`2. 
`
`E. 
`
`

`

`Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2017-01350
`U.S. Patent No. 6,342,284
`
`
`ii. 
`iii. 
`
`1a: (preamble) A composition comprising a mixture
`of: .................................................................................... 53 
`1b: a calcium
`sulfate material, water, a
`pregelatinized starch and one or more enhancing
`materials . . ., ................................................................... 53 
`1c: wherein when said composition is cast in the
`form of ½ inch gypsum board, said board has a sag
`resistance, as determined according to ASTM
`C473-95, of less than about 0.1 inch per two foot
`length of said board. ....................................................... 55 
`Independent Claim 2 ....................................................... 56 
`Independent Claim 4 ....................................................... 57 
`4a: A composition comprising set gypsum and host
`particles, at least a portion of the set gypsum being
`positioned in and about accessible voids in the host
`particles, wherein the composition comprises a
`mixture of: the host particles having the accessible
`voids therein; .................................................................. 57 
`4b: calcium sulfate hemihydrate, at least a portion
`of which is in the form of crystals in and about the
`voids of the host particles; and one or more
`enhancing materials . . ., ................................................. 59 
`4c: wherein when said composition is cast in the
`form of ½ inch gypsum board, said board has a sag
`resistance, as determined according to ASTM
`C473-95, of less than about 0.1 inch per two foot
`length of said board. ....................................................... 59 
`Independent Claim 5 ....................................................... 60 
`iv. 
`Independent Claim 10 ..................................................... 60 
`v. 
`Independent Claim 34 ..................................................... 61 
`vi. 
`Independent Claim 40 ..................................................... 61 
`vii. 
`viii.  The Challenged Dependent Claims ................................ 62 
`Claim 11 .......................................................................... 63 
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2017-01350
`U.S. Patent No. 6,342,284
`
`VII.  Secondary Considerations ............................................................................. 64 
`VIII.  Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 65 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2017-01350
`U.S. Patent No. 6,342,284
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`Cases
`Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc., In re,
`696 F.3d 1142 (Fed. Cir. 2012)............................................................................ 23
`Activevideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012)............................................................................ 28
`Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00276, Paper 64 (PTAB Aug. 15, 2016) ....................................... 27, 28
`Black & Decker, Inc. v. Positec USA, Inc.,
`646 F. App’x 1019 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................... 18
`EMC Corp. v. PersonalWeb Techs., LLC,
`IPR2013-00087, Paper 25 (PTAB June 5, 2013) ................................................ 15
`Fritch, In re,
`972 F.2d 1260 (Fed. Cir. 1992)..................................................................... 49, 62
`Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ................................................................................................. 27
`Honeywell Int’l v. Universal Avionics Sys. Corp.,
`488 F.3d 982 (Fed. Cir. 2007).............................................................................. 19
`Intri-Plex Techs., Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Rencol Ltd.,
`IPR2014-00309, Paper 83 (PTAB Mar. 23, 2014) .............................................. 27
`K/S HIMPP v. Hear-Wear Techs., LLC,
`751 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2014)............................................................... 43, 54, 55
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ...................................................................................... 26, 27
`Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp.,
`733 F.2d 881 (Fed. Cir. 1984).............................................................................. 23
`Leo Pharm. Prods., Ltd. v. Rea,
`726 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013).............................................................................. 8
`Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co.,
`CBM2012-00003, Paper 7 (PTAB Oct. 25, 2012) ................................... 2, 15, 16
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2017-01350
`U.S. Patent No. 6,342,284
`
`
`Medrad, Inc. v. MRI Devices Corp.,
`401 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005)............................................................................ 19
`NuVasive, Inc., In re,
`842 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016)............................................................................ 27
`Personal Web Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`848 F.3d 987 (Fed. Cir. 2017).............................................................................. 27
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..................................................................... 18, 19
`Rambus, Inc., In re,
`694 F.3d 42 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................ 18
`Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni,
`158 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir. 1998)............................................................................ 23
`Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,
`655 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2011)............................................................................ 27
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ........................................................................................ 2, 16, 17
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................ 26
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) .................................................................................................1, 3
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ..................................................................................................... 2
`35 U.S.C. § 371(c) ................................................................................................... 17
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b) .................................................................................................. 16
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 17
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108 ................................................................................................... 16
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(b) ............................................................................................1, 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) ................................................................................................. 1
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2017-01350
`U.S. Patent No. 6,342,284
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`viii
`
`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
`U.S. Patent No. 5,980,628 (“Hjelmeland”)
`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 IPR2017-01350
`U.S. Patent No. 6,342,284
`
`
`EXHIBIT NO. TITLE
`1028
`Redacted Complaint
`1029
`[reserved]
`1030
`[reserved]
`1031
`ASTM C473-81
`1032
`U.S. Patent No. 5,085,929
`1033
`[reserved]
`1034
`[reserved]
`1035
`[reserved]
`1036
`[reserved]
`1037
`[reserved]
`1038
`U.S. Patent No. 5,643,510
`1039
`[reserved]
`2001
`Declaration of Robert Bruce
`2002
`EP 603,727
`2003
`Transaction history for Hjelmeland
`
`
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2017-01350
`U.S. Patent No. 6,342,284
`
`Patent Owner United States Gypsum Company (“USG”) submits this
`
`Preliminary Response to the Petition for Inter Partes Review (“Petition”) regarding
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,342,284 (“’284 patent”) (Paper 2). The ’284 patent discloses and
`
`claims novel gypsum compositions and products
`
`that
`
`include sodium
`
`trimetaphosphate (“STMP”) and other phosphate/phosphoric acid “enhancing
`
`materials” to improve resistance to permanent deformation known as “sag.”
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1–7, 10–15, 18, 22, 26, 29, 32–34, and 40 of the
`
`’284 patent are obvious under two separate grounds—Graux, ASTM C473-95,
`
`Hjelmeland, Sucech, Baig, and Summerfield (Ground 1) and Satterthwaite, ASTM
`
`C473-95, Hjelmeland, Sucech, Baig, and Summerfield (Ground 2). (Pet. at 2–3.)
`
`Petitioner falls far short of its burden to prove that inter partes review is warranted
`
`under either asserted ground. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). The Board should exercise its
`
`discretion to deny both grounds for all challenged claims. 37 C.F.R. §42.108(b); see
`
`35 U.S.C. §314(a).
`
`I.
`
`
`Summary Of Arguments
`
`The Petition fails for each of the following reasons.
`
`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
`
`1
`
`

`

`Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2017-01350
`U.S. Patent No. 6,342,284
`
`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, Hjelmeland is not prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as Petitioner
`
`contends. Hjelmeland states on its first page: “§ 102(e) date: Mar. 6, 1998,” which
`
`is correct under controlling law. This is more than five months after the August 21,
`
`1997 filing priority date for the ’284 patent. Since Hjelmeland is essential to
`
`Petitioner’s challenge to claim 11 in both grounds, the Petition should be denied in
`
`its entirety with respect to those challenges.
`
`Third, none of the asserted references address the problems solved by the
`
`invention of the ’284 patent claims, or even similar problems, and none disclose or
`
`suggest anything similar to solutions recited in the claims. Petitioner fails to show
`
`that the claims are obvious in view of any 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 used in the
`
`claimed gypsum compositions and products. Petitioner and its expert, Mr. Harlos,
`
`present select excerpts from the references out of their full context, misrepresent
`
`their actual teachings, and fail to acknowledge other portions of the references
`
`2
`
`

`

`Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2017-01350
`U.S. Patent No. 6,342,284
`
`demonstrating that they do not disclose (expressly or inherently) the particular claim
`
`element for which they are cited. Indeed, their contentions are unsupported by
`
`competent data, facts and documents.
`
`Nor do Petitioner and Harlos show that a person having ordinary skill 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 claims.
`
`Petitioner’s references either provide no useful guidance or lead away from the
`
`claimed use of STMP and similar claimed enhancing materials. Moreover, even if
`
`there were a reason to combine the references as alleged, the combinations still fail
`
`to account for all elements of the recited claims.
`
`Thus, Petitioner cannot demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that any
`
`challenged claim is invalid under either asserted ground. 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 either asserted ground. 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
`
`3
`
`

`

`Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2017-01350
`U.S. Patent No. 6,342,284
`
`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 provide
`
`additional relevant background.
`
`A. Gypsum And Set Gypsum
`
`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) 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. (Id. ¶38.)
`
`4
`
`

`

`Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2017-01350
`U.S. Patent No. 6,342,284
`
`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 Boards
`
`
`
`A unique property of set gypsum when used to make gypsum board is that
`
`under conditions of high humidity, the gypsum board will change shape over time.
`
`(Id. ¶47.) This phenomenon is called “sag.” (Id.) It results from 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. 1003 at 2:22–25.) Sag can also occur during
`
`transportation and storage and when water-containing surface treatments are applied
`
`to the panels. (Id. ¶71.) Among other problems, sagged and warped panels are
`
`unsightly, more easily damaged, and prone to failure as they are not supported evenly
`
`5
`
`

`

`Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2017-01350
`U.S. Patent No. 6,342,284
`
`on all sides and by all fasteners when they are installed in a building. (Id.; Ex. 1003
`
`at 2:38–39.)
`
`
`
`The sag phenomena of set gypsum-containing 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.) The latter phenomenon is discussed in
`
`Graux and Hjelmeland. (Id. ¶ 46–48). The sag that can occur in gypsum board and
`
`similar set gypsum-containing 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 uneven drying wherein the adhesive starch fails to bind the tile
`
`components together to keep their shape. (Id.)
`
`C.
`
`Petitioner’s Central Premise Is False—Crosslinking Starch Is
`Irrelevant To Adding STMP to Gypsum Slurries
`
`The foundation of Petitioner’s challenges is that the primary references, Graux
`
`and Satterthwaite, each disclose using STMP as an ingredient in a set gypsum-
`
`containing product. Petitioner and Mr. Harlos, however, do not and cannot 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.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2017-01350
`U.S. Patent No. 6,342,284
`
`Both Graux and Satterthwaite, in fact, concern using a variety of different
`
`starches in plaster products (Graux) and mineral wool ceiling tiles (Satterthwaite).
`
`(Ex. 2001 ¶¶101–02, 123–24.) The references mention STMP as only one of many
`
`different reagents that can crosslink their starches. (Id. ¶¶104, 130.) In both
`
`references, the crosslinking is carried out before the starch is added to the mixtures
`
`used to make their products. (Id. ¶¶104, 111–12, 130–31.) Moreover, Satterthwaite
`
`teaches that the crosslinking step is followed by washing and drying the starch,
`
`which removes all excess STMP from the crosslinked starch. (Id. ¶131.) Graux refers
`
`to another reference for its description of crosslinking starch, which also confirms
`
`the conventional washing and drying steps. (Id. ¶111.)
`
`Petitioner’s secondary references fail to remedy these deficiencies. The lack
`
`of key claim elements in Petitioner’s references is fatal to each ground.
`
`D.
`
`There Is No Evidence That STMP Was Used Or Was Known To
`Be Effective To Increase Sag Resistance In Set Gypsum Products
`
`Attempting to fill the glaring holes in the references, Petitioner and Mr. Harlos
`
`assert, again without any competent support, that using STMP to increase sag
`
`resistance in set gypsum products was well-known. (Pet. at 4, 6–7, 27; Ex. 1001
`
`¶64.) Petitioner cites to a reference (not relied upon in either asserted ground) for
`
`treating raw mineral gypsum to temperatures well in excess of those relevant to the
`
`set gypsum of the ’284 patent (1800ºF–2300ºF) (Ex. 1019 at 1:1–5, 1:41–51, 5:54–
`
`7
`
`

`

`Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2017-01350
`U.S. Patent No. 6,342,284
`
`6:20, 10:41–47), and Graux and Satterthwaite, which concern crosslinked starches.
`
`(Ex. 2001 ¶¶103, 130.)
`
`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 board or other
`
`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. 1003 at 4:41–53;
`
`Ex. 2001 ¶67.)
`
`As explained further below, the asserted references actually show STMP and
`
`other phosphate materials used only as set retarders or starch crosslinkers. That using
`
`the claimed “enhancing materials” to increase sag resistance 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).
`
`8
`
`

`

`Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2017-01350
`U.S. Patent No. 6,342,284
`
`
`III. Overview Of The ’284 Patent And Its Prosecution History
`The ’284 patent is a continuation-in-part of an original application filed
`
`August 21, 1997. (Ex. 1003 at 1:6–8.) Petitioner does not contest August 21, 1997
`
`as the effective filing date of the ’284 patent. (Pet. at 20.)
`
`A.
`
`The Patented Technology
`
`The patented technology relates to compositions for making set gypsum
`
`products having increased resistance to sag and other improved properties. (Ex. 1003
`
`at 1:12–39.) 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. (Id. at 2:9–12.) 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
`
`2:17–21.)
`
`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 2:22–25.) Gypsum board
`
`9
`
`

`

`Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2017-01350
`U.S. Patent No. 6,342,284
`
`products must also be able to carry loads, such as from insulation or condensation,
`
`without noticeable sag. (Id. at 2:33–44.)
`
`Previous approaches to combating sag include using a heavier (higher density)
`
`panel, a thicker panel, or additives such as boric acid. (Ex. 2001 ¶72). Heavier or
`
`thicker panels are generally more expensive to manufacture and transport, and more
`
`difficult to handle and install. (Id.) Boric acid in large amounts has the detrimental
`
`effect of making gypsum panels brittle. (Id.)
`
`The ’284 patent specification also describes a need for greater dimensional
`
`stability of set gypsum products during their manufacture and use. (Ex. 1003 at 2:44–
`
`46.) Absorption of moisture can cause gypsum boards to undesirably expand when
`
`exposed to high humidity. (Id. at 2:46–52.) Also, when unreacted water is driven off
`
`by heating set gypsum board products during the manufacturing process,
`
`conventional gypsum cores shrink as the set gypsum crystals of the matrix move
`
`closer together as the water evaporates. (Id. at 2:52–61.) This reduces production
`
`yields during gypsum board manufacture. (Id. at 2:62–3:3.)
`
`B.
`
`The Claimed “Enhancing Materials”
`
`The ’284 patent discloses a particular group of condensed phosphoric acid and
`
`condensed phosphate compounds, denoted using the short-hand “enhancing
`
`materials.” The inventors made the surprising discovery that these materials provide
`
`10
`
`

`

`Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2017-01350
`U.S. Patent No. 6,342,284
`
`remarkable sag resistance, improved strength, and other improved properties when
`
`compared to known additives for set gypsum-containing products. (Ex. 1003 at
`
`1:12–39.) The specification introduces the “enhancing materials” and their benefits
`
`generally in the Field of the Invention and then more specifically identifies the
`
`“enhancing materials”:
`
`A set gypsum-containing product of the invention having increased
`resistance to permanent deformation is prepared in accordance with the
`invention by forming a mixture of a calcium sulfate material, water, and
`an appropriate amount of one or more enhancing materials chosen
`from: cond