`
`
`
`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. IPR2017-01351
`Patent No. 7,758,980
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 7,758,980
`PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319, 37 C.F.R. § 42
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`US Patent and Trademark Office
`PO Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R § 42.8 .................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Real Party-In-Interest under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ............................. 1
`
`Related Matters under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ...................................... 1
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ................... 1
`
`Service Information ............................................................................... 2
`
`II.
`
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ..................... 2
`
`III.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES ..................................................................................... 2
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGES AND RELIEF REQUESTED .................. 2
`
`V.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 3
`
`VI. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND OF THE ʼ980 PATENT .............................. 4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Basics of Gypsum Products ................................................................... 4
`
`The ʼ980 Patent ..................................................................................... 5
`
`Enhancing Materials .............................................................................. 6
`
`VII. PROSECUTION HISTORY OF ʼ980 PATENT ............................................ 7
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 9
`
`i.
`
`Set gypsum ................................................................................. 9
`
`IX. PRIOR ART REFERENCES ........................................................................ 10
`
`A. Graux ...................................................................................................11
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Satterthwaite ........................................................................................12
`
`ASTM ..................................................................................................14
`
`D. Hjelmeland ..........................................................................................15
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Sucech..................................................................................................16
`
`Summerfield ........................................................................................17
`
`X.
`
`THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE
`CLAIM OF THE `980 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE ............................. 18
`
`XI. GROUND 1: OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 1, 2, and 4-7 BASED ON
`GRAUX IN VIEW OF ASTM C 473-95, HJELMELAND, SUCECH, AND
`SUMMERFIELD ........................................................................................... 18
`
`i
`
`
`

`

`
`
`A.
`
`Reasons for Combining Graux, ASTM C473-95, Hjelmeland, Sucech,
`and Summerfield .................................................................................18
`
`B.
`
`Element by Element Analysis .............................................................24
`
`ii.
`
`Claim 1a: A gypsum board comprising: ................................. 24
`
`iii. Claim 1b: set gypsum formed from at least calcined
`gypsum, water and sodium trimetaphosphate, ......................... 25
`
`iv.
`
`v.
`
`vi.
`
`Claim 1c: wherein the amount of the sodium
`trimetaphosphate compound is from about 0.004 to about
`2.0% by weight of the calcined gypsum. ................................. 27
`
`Claim 2. The gypsum board of claim 1, wherein the
`amount of the sodium trimetaphosphate compound is
`from about 0.04 to about 0.16% by weight of the calcined
`gypsum. .................................................................................... 30
`
`Claim 4. The gypsum board of claim 1, wherein the
`gypsum 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. ............................................ 33
`
`vii. Claim 5. The gypsum board of claim 1, wherein the
`board further comprises a pregelatinized starch. ..................... 35
`
`viii. Claim 6. The gypsum board of claim 1, wherein the set
`gypsum is further formed from at least one aqueous
`foaming agent. .......................................................................... 36
`
`ix.
`
`Claim 7. The gypsum board of claim 1, wherein the set
`gypsum is in the form of a core material sandwiched
`between cover sheets. ............................................................... 37
`
`XII. GROUND 2: OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 1, 2, and 4-7 BASED ON
`SATTERTHWAITE IN VIEW OF HJELMELAND, ASTM C473-95,
`SUCECH, AND SUMMERFIELD ............................................................... 38
`
`A.
`
`Reasons for Combining Satterthwaite, ASTM C473-95, and
`Hjelmeland ..........................................................................................38
`
`B.
`
`Element by Element Analysis .............................................................45
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`Claim 1a: A gypsum board comprising: ................................. 45
`
`Claim 1b: set gypsum formed from at least calcined
`gypsum, water and sodium trimetaphosphate, ......................... 45
`
`ii
`
`
`

`

`
`
`iii. Claim 1c: wherein the amount of the sodium
`trimetaphosphate compound is from about 0.004 to about
`2.0% by weight of the calcined gypsum. ................................. 47
`
`iv.
`
`v.
`
`Claim 2. The gypsum board of claim 1, wherein the
`amount of the sodium trimetaphosphate compound is
`from about 0.04 to about 0.16% by weight of the calcined
`gypsum. .................................................................................... 50
`
`Claim 4. The gypsum board of claim 1, wherein the
`gypsum 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. ............................................ 53
`
`vi.
`
`Claim 5. The gypsum board of claim 1, wherein the
`board further comprises a pregelatinized starch. ..................... 56
`
`vii. Claim 6. The gypsum board of claim 1, wherein the set
`gypsum is further formed from at least one aqueous
`foaming agent. .......................................................................... 57
`
`viii. Claim 7. The gypsum board of claim 1, wherein the set
`gypsum is in the form of a core material sandwiched
`between cover sheets. ............................................................... 58
`
`XIII. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................... 59
`
`XIV. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 60
`
`XV. CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT ........................................................... 61
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco, Inc.,
`190 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .................................................................... 34, 56
`
`Cisco Sys., Inc., et al. v. Crossroads Sys., Inc.,
`IPR2014-01544 ..................................................................................................... 8
`
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. AIP Acquisition, LLC,
`IPR2014-00247 (Final Decision, May 20, 2015) ................................................. 9
`
`In re Geisler,
`116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .......................... 33, 34, 54, 55
`
`Int’l Business Machines Corp. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC,
`IPR2015-00302 ..................................................................................................... 8
`
`Mexichem Amanco Holdings v. Honeywell Int’l Inc.,
`Reexamination Appeal 2015-007833 (Decision on Appeal, March
`30, 2016) ....................................................................................................... 34, 55
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC,
`IPR2015-00483 ..................................................................................................... 8
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC,
`IPR2015-00486 ..................................................................................................... 8
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................ 9
`
`Praxair Distribution, Inc. v. Ino Therapeutics, LLC,
`IPR2015-00889 ..................................................................................................... 8
`
`Praxair Distribution, Inc. v. Ino Therapeutics, LLC,
`IPR2015-00893 ..................................................................................................... 8
`
`Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner,
`778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ...........................................passim
`
`iv
`
`
`

`

`
`
`United States Gypsum Company v. New NGC, Inc.,
`Case No. 1:17-cv-00130 (D. Del. Feb. 6, 2017) ................................................... 1
`
`RULES
`
`42.22(a)(1) .................................................................................................................. 2
`
`42.104(b)(1)–(2) ......................................................................................................... 2
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ............................................................................................. 11, 16
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ....................................................................................... 12, 14, 17
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ............................................................................................. 11, 15
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ..................................................................................................... 2
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`37 C.F.R § 42.8 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R § 42.10(b) ................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 2
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`NGC980-1001
`
`Expert Declaration of Gerry Harlos
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`NGC980-1002
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,632,550 (“the ʼ550 patent”)
`
`NGC980-1003
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,342,284 (“the ʼ284 patent”)
`
`NGC980-1004
`
`Selections from the Prosecution History of the ʼ284 Patent
`
`NGC980-1005
`
`Selections from the Prosecution History of the ʼ550 Patent
`
`NGC980-1006
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,932,001 (“Graux”)
`
`NGC980-1007
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,234,037 (“Satterthwaite”)
`
`NGC980-1008
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,980,628 (“Hjelmeland”)
`
`NGC980-1009
`
`ASTM C473-95
`
`NGC980-1010
`
`U.S. Patent No. 2,884,413 (“Kerr”)
`
`NGC980-1011
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,770,468 (“Knauf”)
`
`NGC980-1012
`
`NGC980-1013
`
`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)
`
`vi
`
`
`

`

`
`
`NGC980-1014
`
`ASTM C472-93
`
`NGC980-1015
`
`Robert F. Acker, Physical Testing of Gypsum Board Per
`ASTM C 473, 3-7 (R.A. Kuntze, ed., 1984)
`
`NGC980-1016
`
`L. Amathieu, Improvement of Mechanical Properties of Set
`Plasters, 79 J. of Crystal Growth 169, 176 (1986)
`
`NGC980-1017
`
`U.S. Patent No. 2,985,219
`
`NGC980-1018
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,179,529
`
`NGC980-1019
`
`U.S. Patent No. 2,090,625
`
`NGC980-1020
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,190,787
`
`NGC980-1021
`
`U.S. Patent No. 2,346,999
`
`NGC980-1022
`
`[RESERVED]
`
`NGC980-1023
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,009,062
`
`NGC980-1024
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,320,677
`
`NGC980-1025
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,534,059
`
`NGC980-1026
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,395,438
`
`NGC980-1027
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,246,063
`
`vii
`
`
`

`

`
`
`NGC980-1028
`
`Redacted Complaint
`
`NGC980-1029
`
`[RESERVED]
`
`NGC980-1030
`
`[RESERVED]
`
`NGC980-1031
`
`ASTM C473-81
`
`NGC980-1032
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,085,929
`
`NGC980-1033
`
`[RESERVED]
`
`NGC980-1034
`
`[RESERVED]
`
`NGC980-1035
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,758,980
`
`NGC980-1036
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,643,510
`
`NGC980-1037
`
`[RESERVED]
`
`NGC980-1038
`
`[RESERVED]
`
`NGC980-1039
`
`[RESERVED]
`
`viii
`
`
`

`

`
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R § 42.8
`
`A. Real Party-In-Interest under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`
`The real party in interest for Petitioner is New NGC, Inc. dba National
`
`Gypsum Company.
`
`B. Related Matters under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,758,980 (the “’980 patent”) is at issue in a district court case
`
`styled United States Gypsum Company v. New NGC, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-00130
`
`(D. Del. Feb. 6, 2017). Petitioner filed Petitions for IPR challenging the claims of
`
`related U.S. Patent Nos. 6,632,550 (the “ʼ550 patent”), 7,425,236 (the “’236
`
`patent”), and 7,964,034 (the “’034 patent”). Petitioner is concurrently filing
`
`Petitions for IPR challenging the claims of related U.S. Patent Nos. 6,342,284 (the
`
`“ʼ284 patent”), 7,758,980 (the “ʼ980 patent”), 8,142,914 (the “ʼ914 patent”), and
`
`8,500,904 (the “’904 patent”).
`
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`
`Lead counsel is Ross R. Barton (Reg. No. 51,438) and backup counsel are S.
`
`Benjamin Pleune (Reg. No. 52,421), Lauren E. Burrow (Reg. No. 70,447), Tasneem
`
`D. Delphry (Reg. No. 72,506), Stephen R. Lareau (Reg. No. 63,273), and Adam
`
`Doane (Reg. No. 73,568) all of Alston & Bird LLP, 101 S. Tryon St., Ste. 4000,
`
`Charlotte, NC 28280, 704-444-1000. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R § 42.10(b), Powers of
`
`Attorney are being submitted with this Petition.
`
`1
`
`
`

`

`
`
`D.
`
`Service Information
`
`Petitioner consents to electronic service directed to ross.barton@alston.com,
`
`ben.pleune@alston.com, lauren.burrow@alston.com, stephen.lareau@alston.com,
`
`tasneem.delphry@alston.com, and adam.doane@alston.com.
`
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’980 patent is available for IPR and, Petitioner is
`
`not barred or estopped from requesting an IPR challenging Claims 1, 2, and 4-7 of
`
`the ʼ980 patent on the grounds identified herein.
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES
`
`Petitioner authorizes Deposit Account No. 16-0605 to be charged for the
`
`payment of any fees.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGES AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Pursuant to Rules 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(1)–(2), Petitioner requests
`
`cancellation of claims 1, 2, and 4-7 of the ’980 patent on the following grounds:
`
`Count 1: Claims 1, 2, and 4-7 of the ’980 patent are unpatentable under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a) over Graux, ASTM C473-95, Hjelmeland, Sucech, and
`
`Summerfield.
`
`Count 2: Claims 1, 2, and 4-7 of the ’980 patent are unpatentable under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a) over Satterthwaite, ASTM C473-95, Hjelmeland, Sucech, and
`
`Summerfield.
`
`2
`
`
`

`

`
`
`V.
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The ’980 patent claims commonplace ingredients in identified combinations
`
`to yield known results. NGC980-1001, ¶¶ 32-40, 48, 62. The ʼ980 patent is broadly
`
`directed to gypsum-containing building products, including “gypsum boards,
`
`reinforced gypsum composite boards, plasters, machinable materials, joint treatment
`
`materials, and acoustical tiles.” NGC980-1035, 1:21-25; NGC980-1001, ¶¶ 53-58.
`
`Claims 1 and 4 of the ʼ980 patent are representative and can be summarized as
`
`follows:
`
`A gypsum board comprising set gypsum formed from at least
`
`(1) calcined gypsum,
`
`(2) water, and
`
`(3) sodium trimetaphosphate,
`
`(4) wherein the amount of the sodium trimetaphosphate compound is from
`
`about 0.004 to about 2.0% by weight of the calcined gypsum, and
`
`(5) wherein the gypsum board has a sag resistance of less than about 0.1 inch
`
`per two foot length of board according to ASTM C473-95.
`
`Every single one of these ingredients was known in the prior art. In fact, the
`
`specification reveals that the inventors only considered one step – the addition of
`
`certain “enhancing materials” – to be new, admitting that the mixture of water, and
`
`calcined gypsum, was “employed in the prior art” using “conventional additives…in
`
`3
`
`
`

`

`
`
`customary amounts.” NGC980-1035, 9:3-10; NGC980-1001, ¶ 51. The use of
`
`“enhancing materials” to improve sag resistance, however, was also widely known
`
`in the prior art. NGC980-1001, ¶¶ 44-47. In particular, the use of “enhancing
`
`materials,” including sodium trimetaphosphate, had been used in the prior art
`
`specifically to provide improved sag resistance. Id. When the claims are viewed
`
`against this backdrop, there is nothing nonobvious or inventive about the claims of
`
`the ’980 patent, and the claims are not patentable.
`
`VI. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND OF THE ʼ980 PATENT
`
`A. Basics of Gypsum Products
`
`Gypsum-containing products, such as boards, plasters, and acoustical tiles,
`
`have been used in modern building applications for more than a century, and the
`
`basic recipe for the manufacture of gypsum-containing products has been known for
`
`nearly as long. See, e.g., NGC980-1017, 1:13-35; NGC980-1001, ¶ 33. Gypsum is
`
`a naturally-occurring mineral that, when found in nature in its “raw” or rock form,
`
`has the chemical name “calcium sulfate dihydrate” and the chemical formula
`
`CaSO4•2H2O. NGC980-1001, ¶¶ 32-34.
`
`When raw gypsum is heated, much of the water is driven out from the
`
`material, resulting in a different form of gypsum called calcined gypsum or stucco.
`
`NGC980-1035, 1:61-2:9, 23:5-25; NGC980-1001, ¶ 34. Calcined gypsum contains
`
`the hemihydrate form of gypsum and, when subsequently mixed with water,
`
`4
`
`
`

`

`
`
`spontaneously reacts to return to its original crystalline composition: calcium sulfate
`
`dihydrate. Id. The resulting product is commonly known as “set gypsum.”
`
`NGC980-1013, 84-85; NGC980-1035, 4:24-39; NGC980-1001, ¶ 34.
`
`B.
`
`The ʼ980 Patent
`
`As noted in the ’980 patent, the “composition[s]” can take many different
`
`forms, such as gypsum boards, plasters, joint compound, and acoustical tiles.
`
`NGC980-1003, 1:21-25; NGC980-1001, ¶ 33. In gypsum boards, the prior art
`
`method of manufacturing a board included mixing water, calcined gypsum, and one
`
`or more additional additives such as enhancing materials, foams, retarders, or
`
`starches, both pregelatinized and non-pregelatinized, and depositing the mixture
`
`between two layers of paper and allowing it to harden. NGC980-1001, ¶ 35;
`
`NGC980-1001, ¶¶ 36-39. The’980 patent acknowledges that the use of these
`
`materials in the manufacture of set gypsum-containing products was well-known in
`
`the prior art. NGC980-1001, 7:58-8:4; id. at 7:46-57, 9:11-25, 11:3-10, 11:22-29,
`
`12:8-15, 17:10-22, 20:32-44, 21:6-24; NGC980-1001, ¶ 56. According to the ’980
`
`patent, however, what the inventors (incorrectly) believed to be missing in the prior
`
`art was the use of certain “enhancing materials” that, when added in sufficient
`
`amounts, would yield a product that had increased resistance to sag. Id. The use of
`
`these “enhancing materials” was, in fact, known in the prior art.
`
`5
`
`
`

`

`
`
`C. Enhancing Materials
`
`The ʼ980 patent describes enhancing materials as additives that improve one
`
`or more of the following attributes: strength, sag resistance, or maintenance of
`
`original dimensions (i.e. resistance to shrinkage when drying). See NGC980-1001,
`
`¶¶ 40-41. The challenged claims require that the enhancing material be sodium
`
`trimetaphosphate. See, e.g., NGC980-1035, Claims 1 & 2. According to the
`
`specification, the preferred “enhancing material” was a condensed phosphate called
`
`sodium trimetaphosphate (“STMP”). Id. at 7:67 (“Sodium trimetaphosphate is
`
`preferred.”), 9:11-24.
`
`Since the 1930s, the use of “enhancing materials” to improve these attributes
`
`has been known in the art. NGC980-1001, ¶¶ 42-44, 59. U.S. Patent No. 2,090,625,
`
`which was filed in 1936, discloses treating gypsum with additives such as
`
`orthophosphoric acid, monosodium orthophosphate or sodium metaphosphate, and
`
`silica. NGC980-1019, 5:45-52; NGC980-1001, ¶ 44. The resulting set gypsum-
`
`containing product showed increased strength when these additives were introduced
`
`into the manufacturing process. See NGC980-1019, 6:30-35, 6:65-75, 8:55-65;
`
`NGC980-1001, ¶ 44. Graux, which is also discussed below in detail, discloses the
`
`manufacture of set-gypsum containing products using STMP as an additive to
`
`enhance the finished product. NGC980-1006, 9:29-30; NGC980-1001, ¶ 70. Quite
`
`simply, the use of enhancing materials, including but not limited to STMP, to
`
`6
`
`
`

`

`
`
`improve resistance to sag had been known in the industry for more than 30 years
`
`before the earliest priority date of the ’980 patent. NGC980-1001, ¶¶ 40-52.
`
`Satterthwaite, which is discussed below in detail, discloses the use of STMP – which
`
`the ’980 patent identifies as the “preferred” enhancing material claimed in the
`
`patents – to improve gypsum-containing products by “increas[ing] wet strength,
`
`increas[ing] density and increas[ing] resistance to warp or sag.” NGC980-1007,
`
`1:60-63; NGC980-1001, ¶ 44.
`
`VII. PROSECUTION HISTORY OF ʼ980 PATENT
`
`
`The original claims of U.S. Application Nos. 09/138,355 (that ultimately
`
`issued as the ’284 patent) and 09/249,814 (that ultimately issued as the ’550 patent)
`
`were rejected as obvious over U.S. Patent Nos. 3,770,468 to Knauf and 4,126,599 to
`
`Sugahara.
`
` NGC980-1004; NGC980-1005; NGC980-1001, ¶ 60.
`
` During
`
`prosecution, the applicant made similar arguments and amendments to distinguish
`
`its alleged invention, including the factually incorrect argument that the cited
`
`references do not disclose “condensed phosphoric acids, and/or the condensed
`
`phosphates as described and claimed by applicants,” despite the fact that the prior
`
`art references specifically disclose STMP, which is indisputably a condensed
`
`phosphate. NGC980-1004, 9; NGC980-1005, 7; NGC980-1001, ¶¶ 60-61. The
`
`7
`
`
`

`

`
`
`examiner appears to have been misled by applicant’s arguments, and allowed the
`
`claims to issue.
`
`In any event, none of Graux, Satterthwaite, and ASTM C473-95 were
`
`considered by the examiner during the examination of the application that issued as
`
`the ʼ980 patent or its priority application. NGC980-1001, ¶ 62. Although
`
`Hjelmeland, Sucech, and Summerfield were disclosed to the PTO during the
`
`prosecution of the ʼ980 patent, Sucech, and Summerfield were cited in the ʼ980
`
`patent, and even though Baig and Summerfield were incorporated by reference in
`
`the ʼ980 patent, Hjelmeland, Sucech, and Summerfield were not cited in an Office
`
`Action or referred to during prosecution, and that a reference was disclosed to the
`
`PTO is not a bar to institution. See Praxair Distribution, Inc. v. Ino Therapeutics,
`
`LLC, IPR2015-00893 (Institution Decision, Paper 14) at pp. 7-8 (Sept. 22, 2015);
`
`Praxair Distribution, Inc. v. Ino Therapeutics, LLC, IPR2015-00889 (Institution
`
`Decision, Paper 14) at pp. 9-10 (Sept. 22, 2015); Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel
`
`Networks Licensing, LLC, IPR2015-00483 (Institution Decision, Paper 10) at p. 15
`
`(July 15, 2015); Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC, IPR2015-
`
`00486 (Institution Decision, Paper 10) at p. 15 (July 15, 2015); Int’l Business
`
`Machines Corp. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC, IPR2015-00302 (Institution
`
`Decision, Paper 8) at pp. 14-15 (June 2, 2015); Cisco Sys., Inc., et al. v. Crossroads
`
`8
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Sys., Inc., IPR2014-01544 (Institution Decision, Paper 9) at pp. 13-14 (April 3,
`
`2015); NGC980-1001, ¶ 62..
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`The ʼ980 patent will expire no later than August 21, 2017. Thus, because the
`
`ʼ980 patent will be expired soon after institution, the claims would interpreted using
`
`the standard articulated in Phillips v. AWH Corp. 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. AIP Acquisition, LLC, IPR2014-00247 at *7-*8 (Final Decision,
`
`May 20, 2015); NGC980-1001, ¶ 65.
`
`Claim 1 of the ʼ980 patent, which is representative for purposes of claim
`
`construction, is reproduced below.
`
`1. A gypsum board comprising set gypsum formed from at least calcined
`
`gypsum, water and sodium trimetaphosphate,
`
`wherein the amount of the sodium trimetaphosphate compound is from about
`
`0.004 to about 2.0% by weight of the calcined gypsum.
`
`i.
`
`Set gypsum
`
`The’980 patent defines the term “set gypsum” as follows: “[t]he invention
`
`relates to a method and composition for preparing set gypsum-containing products,
`
`e.g., gypsum boards, reinforced gypsum composite boards, plasters, machinable
`
`materials, joint treatment materials, and acoustical tiles…” NGC980-1035, 1:20-25;
`
`NGC980-1001, ¶ 66. The specification further defines the “products [that] contain
`
`9
`
`
`

`

`
`
`set gypsum (calcium sulfate dehydrate)” to include “paper-faced gypsum boards,”
`
`“gypsum/cellulose fiber composite boards,” “[p]roducts that fill and smooth the
`
`joints between edges of gypsum boards,” “[a]coustical tiles useful in suspended
`
`ceilings,” and “[t]raditional plasters.” NGC980-1035, 1:53-66; NGC980-1001, ¶ 66.
`
`Accordingly, a PHOSITA would understand “set gypsum” to mean “any product
`
`containing calcium sulfate dehydrate, including but not limited to gypsum boards,
`
`reinforced gypsum composite boards, plasters, machinable materials, joint treatment
`
`materials, and acoustical tiles.” NGC980-1001, ¶ 66
`
`IX. PRIOR ART REFERENCES
`
`To provide context to the discussion of the prior art, the below table provides
`
`the combinations of the various prior art references used in the two Grounds of this
`
`petition:
`
`
`
`Ground 1
`
`Claim(s) Primary Reference
`
`Secondary Reference(s)
`
`1, 2
`
`Graux
`
`Hjelmeland
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`ASTM
`
`None
`
`Sucech
`
`Summerfield
`
`10
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Ground 2
`
`Claim(s) Primary Reference
`
`Secondary Reference(s)
`
`1, 2
`
`Satterthwaite
`
`Hjelmeland
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`
`
`ASTM
`
`None
`
`Sucech
`
`Summerfield
`
`A. Graux
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,932,001 to Graux (“Graux”) was filed on May 9, 1997, and
`
`issued on August 3, 1999. NGC980-1001, ¶ 68. As such, Graux is prior art under
`
`at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) (pre-AIA) to the ʼ980 patent. 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) (pre-
`
`AIA). Graux was not before the Examiner during prosecution of the ʼ980 patent.
`
`NGC980-1001, ¶ 68.
`
`Graux is directed to set gypsum-containing products, including a cationic
`
`amylaceous compound and clearly describes the same set gypsum-containing
`
`products disclosed and claimed in the ’980 patent. NGC980-1006, 1:4-5, 1:12-19,
`
`3:8-12; NGC980-1001, ¶¶ 67, 69. Graux states that while “[t]he use of cationic
`
`amylaceous compounds is not new in itself,” many of the known cationic
`
`amylaceous compounds “have only a limited thickening capacity and…are unable
`
`11
`
`
`

`

`
`
`to meet the current demands of the art.” NGC980-1006, 3:13-35; NGC980-1001, ¶¶
`
`70-71. The object of Graux is to provide a set gypsum-containing product having
`
`improved thickening capacity, and a process for the preparation of said set gypsum-
`
`containing product. NGC980-1006, 3:40-45, 8:15; NGC980-1001, ¶¶ 70-71.
`
`The set gypsum-containing product disclosed by Graux includes “finished
`
`articles,” NGC980-1006, 1:35-39, made from a “form of calcium sulphate”
`
`including gypsum and “calcined/rehydrated forms.” NGC980-1006, 1:24-30;
`
`NGC980-1001, ¶ 71. The set gypsum-containing product contains calcined gypsum
`
`mixed with water and other additives, including a starch “crosslinked with sodium
`
`trimetaphosphate.” NGC980-1006, 7:32-33, 9:29-30; NGC980-1001, ¶ 71.
`
`B.
`
`Satterthwaite
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,234,037 to Satterthwaite (“Satterthwaite”) issued on
`
`February 8, 1966. NGC980-1001, ¶ 115. As such, Satterthwaite is prior art under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (pre-AIA) to the ʼ980 patent. 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (pre-AIA).
`
`Satterthwaite was not before the Examiner during prosecution of the ʼ980 patent.
`
`NGC980-1001, ¶ 115.
`
`Satterthwaite is also directed to set gypsum-containing products, in particular
`
`tile products such as acoustical ceiling tiles. NGC980-1007, 1:13-23; NGC980-
`
`1001, ¶¶ 116-117. In fact, the’980 patent specifically indicates that, as early as 1966,
`
`it was known in the art that acoustical ceiling tiles could be made using rehydrated
`
`12
`
`
`

`

`
`
`calcium sulfate hemihydrate, i.e. set gypsum. NGC980-1003, 1:21-25; NGC980-
`
`1027; NGC980-1001, ¶ 116. Satterthwaite discloses “the production of a starch
`
`binder comprising a thick-boiling starch and a polyhydric alcohol fatty acid ester.”
`
`NGC980-1007, 1:11-12; NGC980-1001, ¶¶ 116-117. The starch binder disclosed
`
`by Satterthwaite includes a starch treated with STMP “for use in the manufacture of
`
`acoustical ceiling tile and other tile products made from a mixture of water, gypsum,
`
`mineral wool and other ingredients.” NGC980-1007, 2:9-11, 1:15-18; NGC980-
`
`1001, ¶¶ 117-118. The mixture including the starch binder is “formed into
`
`sheets…cut into sections, dried in an oven, cooled, cut, and processed for sale.”
`
`NGC980-1007, 3:41-42; NGC980-1001, ¶¶ 117-118.
`
`Satterthwaite states that while thick-boiling starches are “commonly used as
`
`binders in the tile making process,” existing methods of making thick-boiling
`
`starches are “time-consuming and expensive because of the high percentage of
`
`partially dried tile…obtained after the usual drying operation.” NGC980-1007,
`
`1:24-25, 1:40-42; NGC980-1001, ¶ 118. Thus, the stated object of Satterthwaite is
`
`to provide a “faster drying rate…[,] elimination of sub-standard tile…[,] increased
`
`13
`
`
`

`

`
`
`wet strength, increased density and increased resistance to warp or sag.” NGC980-
`
`1007, 1:58-62; NGC980-1001, ¶ 118.
`
`C. ASTM
`
`ASTM C473-95 entitled Standard Test Methods for Physical Testing of
`
`Gypsum Board Products and Gypsum Lath was the testing standard for gypsum
`
`products in 1995, although the same tests as those provided by ASTM C473-95 were
`
`used at least as early as 1981, NGC980-1031, and some version of ASTM C473
`
`existed as early as 1961. NGC980-1009, at 1, n.1; NGC980-1001, ¶¶ 72, 119. As
`
`such, ASTM C473-95 is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (pre-AIA) to the ʼ980
`
`patent. 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (pre-AIA). Moreover, the ʼ980 patent repeatedly
`
`identifies ASTM C473-95 as the known testing standard at the time the ʼ980 patent
`
`was filed, thereby making ASTM C473-95 admitted prior art. See, e.g., NGC980-
`
`1003, 18:37-464; NGC980-1001, ¶¶ 72, 119.
`
`ASTM C473-95 provides test methods for measuring various characteristics
`
`of gypsum products, including humidified deflection (i.e. sag resistance), hardness,
`
`and nail pull resistance. NGC980-1009; NGC980-1001, ¶¶ 73, 120. As previously
`
`discussed, the humidified deflection test is used to “evaluat[e] the deflection of
`
`gypsum board or gypsum lath when horizontally suspended and subjected to high
`
`humidity.” NGC980-1009, ¶ 49; NGC980-1001, ¶¶ 73, 120. The hardness test is
`
`used for “evaluating the relative ability of gypsum board or gypsum lath core, ends,
`
`14
`
`
`

`

`
`
`and edges to resist crushing during handling or use of the material.” NGC980-1009,
`
`¶ 9; NGC980-1001, ¶¶ 73, 120. The nail pull resistance test is used for “evaluating
`
`the ability of gypsum board or gypsum lath to resist nail pull-through by determining
`
`the load required to force a standard nailhead through the board or lath.” NGC980-
`
`1009, ¶ 18; NGC980-1001, ¶¶ 73, 120.
`
`D. Hjelmeland
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,980,628 (“Hjelmeland”) claims priority to PCT Application
`
`No. PCT/NO96/00116 filed May 14, 1996 and published December 5, 1996.
`
`NGC980-1001, ¶¶ 74, 121. As such, Hjelmeland is prior art under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(e) (pre-AIA) to the ʼ980 patent. 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) (pre-AIA). Hjelmeland
`
`was not before the Examiner during prosecution of the ʼ980 patent. NGC980-1001,
`
`¶¶ 74, 121.
`
`Hjelmeland is directed to set gypsum-containing products. NGC980-1008,
`
`1:6-7; NGC980-1001, ¶¶ 75, 122. Hjelmeland states that existing set gypsum-
`
`containing products either “creep” after application or harden “in mixer units and
`
`pumps and lead to clogging or blocking of the equipment.” NGC980-1008, 1:22-
`
`31; NGC980-1001, ¶¶ 75, 12