`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`DONGHEE AMERICA, INC. AND
`DONGHEE ALABAMA, LLC,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`PLASTIC OMNIUM ADVANCED
`INNOVATION AND RESEARCH,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01605
`Patent 7,166,253 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: September 12, 2018
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, CHRISTOPHER M. KAISER, and
`ROBERT L. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01605
`Patent 7,166,253 B2
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`BAS de BLANK, ESQ.
`Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP
`1000 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025-1015
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`NICHOLAS H. LAM
`Orrick, Herrington, & Sutcliffe, LLP
`51 West 52nd Street
`New York, NY 10019-6142
`
`ALYSSA CARIDIS
`Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP
`777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3200
`Los Angeles, CA 90017
`
`
`VINCENT SHIER
`CHRISTOPER RICCIUTI
`Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP
`1940 Duke Street
`Alexandria, VA 22314
`
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday,
`September 12, 2018, commencing at 12:59 p.m. at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`2
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR2017-01605
`Patent 7,166,253 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: This is a hearing for IPR 2017-01605
`relating to U.S. Patent 7,166,253. Petitioner is Donghee America, Inc. and
`Donghee Alabama, LLC, and Patent Owner is Plastic Omnium Advanced
`Innovation and Research.
`I'm Judge Weatherly and I'm joined by Judge Kinder here in our
`hearing room and remotely by Judge Kaiser. Because the camera through
`which Judge Kaiser is viewing the proceedings is right above my head, you
`may want to look at that camera when you're addressing him and make him
`feel a little bit more part of the proceeding.
`Please be sure to describe any slides that you're using during your
`presentation by number, so that it's easier for Judge Kaiser to follow along
`and makes the record easier for us to use after the fact.
`Pursuant to our hearing order, each party has 30 minutes to present
`their arguments. Petitioner will proceed first, because it bears the burden
`of proving unpatentability followed by Patent Owner. Petitioner and Patent
`Owner both may reserve time to rebut the opposing party's arguments, and
`Patent Owner will go last today.
`Before we begin, I'd like to have Petitioner introduce yourselves and
`whom you have with you, and we'll have introductions from Patent Owner
`right after that before we begin our hearing.
`MR. DE BLANK: Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`3
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Case IPR2017-01605
`Patent 7,166,253 B2
`
`
`Bas De Blank on behalf of Petitioner, and with me is Nick Lamb and
`Alyssa Caridis.
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: Okay. And will you be making the
`presentation for Petitioner today or --
`MR. DE BLANK: Yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: All right. Excellent.
`And Patent Owner.
`MR. SHIER: Vincent Shier representing Patent Owner. With me
`today is Chris Ricciuti. Mr. Ricciuti will be presenting the case for Plastic
`Omnium.
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: Okay.
`MR. SHIER: And just a note that we will reserve five minutes of
`time at the end for rebuttal.
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: All right.
`And, Petitioner, how much time were you planning on reserving?
`MR. DE BLANK: Your Honor, our understanding is that you want
`us to present our argument on both the original and amended claims of
`interest.
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: Yes.
`MR. DE BLANK: Then, we'll reserve five minutes as well.
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: Five minutes, okay.
`All right. Unless anybody has any questions, I think we're ready to
`begin the argument, and so, Petitioner, whenever you're ready, you can come
`to the podium and get us going.
`
`4
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR2017-01605
`Patent 7,166,253 B2
`
`
`MR. DE BLANK: Thank you, Your Honor. Good afternoon, Your
`Honor. In this presentation, and I appreciate the Board's time, we'll address
`both the original and the amended claims and how they are unpatentable in
`light of the prior art, and for the amended claims in addition why they are
`improper new matter and lack a written description.
`There's a number of issues and number of grounds to be covered.
`I'll focus on what I understand to be the key issues and disputes between the
`parties, but, of course, if the Board has any questions or wants to address
`anything that's in the papers, but I haven't covered in the presentation, please
`just let me know.
`Turning to Slide 4, the first issue, the key issue, is the claim
`construction. The Board and the parties have agreed on a construction of
`two terms, hollow body and accessory. And there are three disputed terms
`shown on Slide 5.
`The first term, and what really is central to both the original and the
`amended claims, is whether the term "incorporated" is -- simply means
`inserting, as Petitioners have argued is the broadest reasonable
`interpretation, or should be limited to requiring attaching -- requiring
`attaching before a mold closure as Patent Owners have argued.
`In the papers, I want to note, Patent Owners -- and I'll turn to Slide 6
`-- had actually gone beyond simply attaching and say that has to require
`specific forms of attaching welding mechanical or chemical attachment
`where they tried to distinguish attachments form in the prior art by Keller.
`
`5
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR2017-01605
`Patent 7,166,253 B2
`
`And that's simply not the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
`It's not how a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the claim.
`The claim limitation simply requires incorporating the accessory or
`the duct into the mold and incorporating should have its plain and ordinary
`meaning to mean inserting. You insert it into the mold. It doesn't have to
`be attached at that stage. You then close the mold, that's the subsequent
`step of the claim, and at some point, the attachment does occur as required
`by the last element of Claim 1 of the ʽ253 Patent. And the patent itself
`makes clear that --
`JUDGE KAISER: What about -- I'm sorry. Can I interrupt you for
`just a second?
`MR. DE BLANK: Yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE KAISER: What about the language the Patent Owner
`points to in the patent that is something along the lines of the accessory is
`inserted with the intent to incorporate it. I wonder if you could speak to
`why that doesn't suggest that insert and incorporate have to mean two
`different things.
`MR. DE BLANK: Of course, Your Honor. I think we've got
`examples of those on the left side of Slide 6 of our presentation where we
`have language that describes the process according to the invention as
`beneficial when it is desired to insert into a cut parison at least one accessory
`intended to be incorporated. That's at Column 3, Lines 65 through 67, and
`similar language in Column 4, Lines 1 through 4.
`
`6
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR2017-01605
`Patent 7,166,253 B2
`
`
`What's key though is not that the patent is equating -- I'm sorry, not
`that the patent is differentiating, incorporating, and inserting. What the
`patent is saying, and saying clearly to a person of ordinary skill in the art, is
`that when you desire, if you want to in the future insert something, if this is
`something you desire to insert, it has not yet been inserted, but you desire to
`insert it, then what you do is you intend to incorporate it. That's showing a
`person of ordinary skill that when you desire to insert something, you intend
`to incorporate it. Equating, incorporating, and inserting exactly as
`Petitioners have construed the term.
`It doesn't suggest that by the use of the -- consistent use of the verb
`tenses, it doesn't suggest that inserting is somehow done separate from
`incorporation. Neither -- neither inserting nor incorporating has been done
`in the provisions where the patent addresses that language. They both use
`consistent verb tense to show that what is desired in the future to happen is
`to insert the accessory into the cut parison. And the way you do that is by --
`you would intend to incorporate it if you desire to insert it.
`And, in fact, the patent makes, makes it very clear that incorporating
`cannot mean attaching, because, for example, on Column 4, Lines 23
`through 33, and we have that on Slide 6, it talks about how you have these
`tabs, these connections to the accessory, and that you can move and position
`those, and that those are fastened upon closing the mold, not when the
`accessory is inserted, but upon closing the mold. Only then are they
`fastened.
`
`7
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Case IPR2017-01605
`Patent 7,166,253 B2
`
`
`And that's even more clear on the language on Slide 7, Line --
`Column 4, Line 61 through Column 5, Line 6, and we've highlighted the
`relevant part. Advantageously, the films, sheets, or plates are extended to
`the outside of the parameter of the sheets, and thus make it possible to hold
`and continuously position the objects or the structure while the mold is
`closing, so the patent is unambiguous.
`The patent is describing a method where you would have these
`sheets or films that would be attached to the accessory and allow you or a
`robot to position, and continuously position, keep moving it, lining it up in
`the right spot, while the mold is closing, and only upon closing of the mold,
`is the attachment formed as described in the patent. There's no teaching in
`the patent. There's no embodiment whatsoever that would attach the
`accessory to the hollow body prior to the closure of the mold.
`JUDGE KAISER: What about the embodiment that Patent Owner
`points to in the, at least in the motion to amend that talks about, you know,
`inserting plastic cones into a relief on mold while in the parison welding
`regions?
`MR. DE BLANK: Yes. I believe, Your Honor, that's in Column 5,
`Lines 20 through 25, and I note a couple things about that. First, in Patent
`Owner's Motion to Amend, they purported to lay out the support for the
`limitation, the new limitations that were added. They have a chart were
`they identified where they say the support exists, and where they added the
`attachment limitation, they didn't identify this. They didn't -- they were
`intending that this was somehow showing attachment before mold closure.
`
`8
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR2017-01605
`Patent 7,166,253 B2
`
`
`This is a new argument made in their reply after, after we opposed
`their Motion to Amend, but if you look at the language on Column 5, Lines
`20 through 25, more where if a person of ordinary skill in the art considers
`that, there is nothing in that language that actually says that the accessory is
`being attached to the hollow body prior to mold closure.
`It talks about plastic cones that can provide support for the films,
`sheets, or plates, and those cones are inserted into the mold, not the hollow
`body. They're not attached to the hollow body. They're inserted into the
`mold.
`
`So, we talked before about how the patent allows you to
`continuously position and line up the films and sheets that are holding the
`accessory until the mold closes. This is simply language that describes how
`if you want to line them up precisely, you could have the cones that fall into
`or fit into recesses in the edge of the mold to make sure that you were lining
`up the hollow body -- I'm sorry, lining up the accessory while the mold is
`still closing -- while it still can be positioned.
`There's nothing in that language that says that the accessory is being
`attached to the hollow body. I believe Patent Owner's argument is that
`lining up these cones into these recesses would somehow force the accessory
`into the molten plastic of the hollow body, thereby, causing it to be attached,
`but that's unsupported attorney argument. That's not even their expert's
`declaration. That's simply their attorneys trying to read into this language
`of Column 5 a limitation that frankly doesn't exist in the patent.
`
`9
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR2017-01605
`Patent 7,166,253 B2
`
`
`So, the broadest reasonable interpretation of incorporating is simply
`inserting, not attaching. And on Slide 9, we point out that the parties had
`previously agreed to this. When faced with a more stringent claim
`construction standard in the District Court find the Phillips standard, there
`the Patent Owner and Petitioner had agreed that the element incorporating at
`least one of an accessory or a duct within the hollow body incorporating and
`inserting.
`JUDGE KINDER: Was there even a decision on that?
`MR. DE BLANK: No, Your Honor. The District Court Judge
`would only construe a certain number of terms, I believe, ten, and this is one
`that the parties didn't even think warranted construction presumably in light
`of the fact that we all agreed that incorporating meant inserting. Patent
`Owner, I believe, would have had an opportunity if they had wanted to
`change their construction and suggest that somehow it was limited to
`attaching to startup construction from the District Court, but never did.
`JUDGE KINDER: Okay.
`MR. DE BLANK: So, under the broad -- sorry. Under the District
`Court's Phillips standard, the parties agree that incorporating means
`inserting. The broadest reasonable standard that the Board applies has to be
`at least as broad as what the District Court does. It can't be narrower than
`the District Court's, and that confirms that incorporating simply means
`inserting like the Petitioner and their expert have contended and like the
`patent itself describes.
`
`10
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Case IPR2017-01605
`Patent 7,166,253 B2
`
`
`The next term I want to turn to briefly is duct. This is a very simple
`short dispute. The parties essentially agree that the duct is a pipe or a tube.
`I think we both submitted dictionaries for that. The issue is whether or not
`the duct, the pipe or tube, has to be external to the fuel tank, and that's a
`limitation that Patent Owners have argued for in order to try to preserve the
`validity of their claims, but there's absolutely no support in the ʽ253 Patent
`that would limit a duct to being external to the fuel tank accessory or
`preclude a duct within an, within an accessory for meeting the claim
`language.
`The last term in dispute is --
`JUDGE KAISER: I'm sorry. What about the argument on duct
`that the claims’ use of the phrase an accessory or a duct suggests that those
`need to be separate and independent things?
`MR. DE BLANK: Your Honor, I understand the argument to be
`that because Claim 1 requires attachment of an accessory or a duct that an
`accessory is somehow different than a duct. The parties on, I think, Slide 4,
`yes, have agreed, and the Board has agreed, on a construction of accessory,
`which is extremely broad. An accessory is any object or device, which is
`generally associated with the hollow body in its usual method or use of
`operations and which interacts with, with it in order to fulfill certain useful
`functions.
`So, everyone agrees that the definition of accessory is extremely
`broad. To the extent that the claims make sense at all and would distinguish
`between a duct and an accessory, I respectfully say that a duct has to be
`
`11
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR2017-01605
`Patent 7,166,253 B2
`
`internal to the accessory, because if it were external, as Patent Owners have
`contended, if it were a pipe or tube external to a fuel tank accessory, then it
`would fall within the agreed upon construction of accessory. That would
`itself be an accessory.
`A pipe or tube external to the fuel tank accessory is an accessory, so
`to the extent that the Patent Owners want to try to distinguish between duct
`and accessory, the only logical way that can be done is to say that a duct can
`be and should be within an accessory and can't be limited to a pipe or tube
`external to it.
`The last term is preassembled structure. And we can go through this
`one, Your Honors, if you wish, but quite frankly, it doesn't matter, because
`under either party's construction, the Linden prior art has a preassembled
`structure, as does Keller. I will note that once again the Patent Owner has
`changed their construction.
`We had advanced the construction of preassembled structure that
`was exactly what the Patent Owner said in the District Court case, and we
`used that because for the purposes of this proceeding, the broadest
`reasonable interpretation, that seemed relevant. That seemed appropriate.
`They've now adopted a narrower construction -- and then to be -- I
`want to be clear, Your Honors, they've adopted the construction that, that we
`had advanced in the District Court under the narrower District Court
`standards, so essentially, the parties have changed sides on the meaning of
`this term, but we've done it in a way that's consistent with the different
`
`12
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR2017-01605
`Patent 7,166,253 B2
`
`standards that are applied before this Board and before the District Court
`where our District --
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: Let me ask. Has the District Court ruled
`on any term that is being disputed before us?
`MR. DE BLANK: I believe, the District Courts did rule under the
`Phillips standard that a preassembled structure is -- either is or is very close
`to what Patent Owner's construction is.
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: And has either party submitted that claim
`interpretation order from the District Court as an exhibit?
`MR. DE BLANK: Yes, I believe we have, Your Honor. I can find
`the exhibit number for you if you'd like.
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: Okay.
`MR. DE BLANK: But like I said --
`JUDGE KAISER: Counsel, I think it's -- I think it's Exhibit 2004 if
`I'm not mistaken.
`MR. DE BLANK: Thank you, Your Honor. But, two points I
`want to make. First is, the way that we have done this, we had a narrower
`construction under the narrower legal standard applied by the District Court,
`and the broadest reasonable construction before this Board. And the Patent
`Owner has done it the other way around advancing a broader construction
`before the District Court and a narrower one now.
`But like I said, the construction of preassembled structure ultimately
`shouldn't matter, because the Linden prior art, I believe, the Keller prior art,
`
`13
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Case IPR2017-01605
`Patent 7,166,253 B2
`
`has a preassembled structure that would be the claim limitation under either
`party's construction.
`So, I want to turn and focus on the Linden, Grounds 1 and 2 and 3,
`the Linden anticipation and obviousness arguments, and especially with
`respect to the incorporating step, because I think that really is the heart of the
`dispute.
`So, turning to Slide 14, I don't think there's any dispute that Linden
`talks about the manufacture of a hollow body. In Linden, under the
`broadest reasonable interpretation, the proper construction of incorporating
`does unambiguously show inserting an accessory in that surge pot within
`the, within the hollow body, and that's described -- shown in Slide 15 and
`described in Linden, Figure 1, and Columns 3, Lines 62 through 4, Line 3.
`And, then, just stepping to the last of the claims on Slide 16, we
`show how the mold in Linden is closed. And that closing of the mold
`causes the preassembled structure to attach to the wall of the hollow body,
`and that's shown on Slide 17, that the feet of the preexisting structure --
`preassembled structure that would attach to the hollow body.
`And on Slide 18, this is what I was alluding to before, this is why it
`doesn't matter which construction, premade or preassembled, structure you
`use, because the structure shown on Slide 17 in Linden, Figure 1, and we've
`zoomed in on portions of that from Figure 4 on Slide 18, and Linden makes
`clear that its structure, its framework is either molded integrally -- sorry,
`may be molded integrally -- sorry, molded integrally on the support or leg
`members 44 and 45 or it may not be.
`
`14
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Case IPR2017-01605
`Patent 7,166,253 B2
`
`
`It either can be a single piece or it can be a combination of several
`pieces assembled together that's shown in the figure with the different pieces
`16 of those barbs and described in Linden at Column 11, Lines 13 through
`18, so under the appropriate construction of, of incorporating, Linden does
`this. Linden -- the preassembled structure definition essentially doesn't
`matter.
`
`Jumping forward to Claim 14, because the other dependent claims
`really aren't disputed separately. This is the claim that limits it to attaching
`a duct, and Linden has -- we've highlighted in yellow on Slide 22 -- a duct
`within the surge pot, and that duct is tubing or piping. That allows the fluid
`to flow within the surge pot, and that's attached -- that's incorporated within
`the hollow body and supported by the preassembled structure, so Linden --
`Linden in combination with Hata, renders obvious or anticipates all of the
`claims -- all the challenge claims of the ʽ253 Patent.
`Jumping forward to the Keller reference and --
`JUDGE KINDER: Can I ask a quick question on Ground 3?
`MR. DE BLANK: Yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE KINDER: So, neither party briefed this, but one issue that
`I'm looking at, for Ground 3, you have obviousness of Claim 7 by Linden in
`view of Hata, page 25 of the petition. Do you have any foundation
`asserting that Claim 1 is also obvious by Linden in view of Hata?
`MR. DE BLANK: Your Honor, in the petition, we had argued that
`Linden anticipated Claim 1. When the Board instituted it in the institution
`decision, the Board found that anticipation was the epitome of obviousness,
`
`15
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Case IPR2017-01605
`Patent 7,166,253 B2
`
`and, therefore, instituted on obviousness for both Claim 1 and also Claim 7.
`We -- our original petition was anticipation of Claim 1 by Linden, and
`obviousness of Linden and Hata for Claim 7, but the elements of Claim 1 are
`met by Linden. The obviousness combination is the addition of Hata for
`Claim 7.
`JUDGE KINDER: I understand the combination. I guess, I'm
`looking this -- at this in a post-SAS world where we've been focused to not
`go outside the petition. It’s the Petitioner, not the director, who controls the
`scope of the trial and scope of litigation, and so my concern here is that the
`majority of the time if you find a claim anticipated, it's also going to be
`obvious, but in this case, you have no foundation to show what impact
`adding Hata into the combination has on independent Claim 1. And 99
`percent, maybe 95 to 99 percent of the time, it's not going to make a
`difference, but it's not the same analysis.
`Hata with Linden for Claim 1 is not the same as an anticipation
`analysis based upon Linden alone. There's those few instances where
`adding a secondary reference impacts the underlying analysis, so from an
`evidentiary standpoint, do we have enough here to reach Claim 7 if we say,
`"Look, there's no underlying predicate for Claim 1 based upon Linden and
`Hata?"
`
`MR. DE BLANK: Yes, Your Honor, you do. I would say this fits
`within the 90 to 95 percent of the cases where it doesn't make a difference,
`because we had in our petition gone through how Linden meets every
`element of Claim 1 and that's why it anticipates. Claim 7 depends from
`
`16
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Case IPR2017-01605
`Patent 7,166,253 B2
`
`Claim 1 and incorporates the additional limitations of Claim 7, and in our
`petition, we addressed how the combination of Linden and Hata rendered
`obvious to Claim 7. We incorporated that discussion of Linden for Claim 1.
`JUDGE KINDER: Where did you incorporate it? Because I
`looked and I -- I mean, that's a different story if you actually have something
`that says, "We incorporate the analysis of Claim 1, and it has no impact on,
`you know, adding in Hata," but you don't have anything, so that's why I'm a
`little bit stuck in your analysis is if there were something, it's a different
`story, but you have nothing setting up that foundational predicate in my
`view.
`
`MR. DE BLANK: I apologize, Your Honor, and we will look to see
`if there's a more specific hook, but certainly, the intention of the petition,
`and I think --
`JUDGE KINDER: Okay. Yes, I don't want to spend any more
`time on this.
`MR. DE BLANK: Okay.
`JUDGE KINDER: You can move on.
`MR. DE BLANK: Okay. Thank you. So, then turning to Keller,
`Your Honor, and the -- and I want to just address this quickly, because it's
`the second -- second obviousness combination, or second -- yes, second
`combination, but it also goes directly to Patent Owner's argument that
`incorporating requires attaching prior to mold closure. We don't think that's
`the broadest reasonable interpretation, we don't think that that's correct, but
`even if it were, as shown on Slide 30 in colored figures 1A, 1B, and
`
`17
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Case IPR2017-01605
`Patent 7,166,253 B2
`
`described in Keller Columns 4, 8 through 13, Keller would satisfy even
`Patent Owner's limitation.
`Keller at the end of that top block quote describes -- sorry, in that
`quote describes how its pre-stressed spring elements are inserted into the
`blank, that should be shown in Figure 1A, and then at the end of the quote at
`the top right of the page, it talks about how they are pre-stressed against the
`inside of that blank -- inside -- the inside of the hollow body by spring
`elements eight and nine, so that pre-stressing would be an attachment, even
`were attachment required, which we don't believe it is.
`Patent Owners, I believe, tried to argue, "Well, that's not a sufficient
`attachment, that's not attached enough," because they say attachment
`requires welding mechanical or chemical attachment. They're trying to
`further narrow the broadest reasonable meaning. In other words,
`incorporate it, attachment doesn't appear in their claim, and that's simply not
`a reasonable interpretation requirement of the claim.
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: You have four minutes remaining.
`MR. DE BLANK: Thank you, Your Honor. Then, let me turn
`very quickly to the amended claims. The amended claims are unpatentable
`for essentially two main reasons. One, that they add new matter, they
`document description, and also because even were the Board to consider
`them on the merits, the combination of PFC, Frame, Linden, and Hata
`rendered them obvious.
`With respect to the first part, the lack of the introducing new matter,
`we've talked about how there's no support, there's no embodiment, there's no
`
`18
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Case IPR2017-01605
`Patent 7,166,253 B2
`
`description in the patent for requiring attaching to a curve prior to mold
`closure. And that's a limitation that they have specifically written in and
`added into the claims in order to try to distinguish the prior art and to do so
`in a way that they hope would read on fused products.
`It's an after the fact attempt to rewrite a claim in a wishful way they
`wished they had disclosed and invented, but there's no evidence, there's no
`support for that. And if you look at their motion to amend, you look at the
`support that they cite for that element where they say, "Following insertion
`where incorporating includes attaching," if you look at what they cite for
`that, there's no evidence, there's no support in the ’253 Patent that would
`disclose attaching prior to mold closure.
`But even were the Board to consider that, the -- like I said, the
`combination of the references renders the claims obvious. And Patent
`Owner really spends most of its efforts challenging the combination saying
`that the art is not an analogous or that there be no -- not really like a
`motivation, but really not an analogous art, and that's quite frankly
`misplaced.
`I mean, the art is all directed to plastic molding techniques. They
`say PFC and Frame are not fuel patents, and it's true that they're not
`specifically directed to fuel tanks, but there's nothing that would preclude
`them from being used at a fuel tank application.
`And if you look at the test for analogousness, which is either in the
`same field of endeavor or reasonably pertinent, it can be satisfied in either
`manner, PFC and Frame satisfy both. The field of endeavor of the ’253
`
`19
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Case IPR2017-01605
`Patent 7,166,253 B2
`
`Patent is not limited to fuel tanks, which is what the Patent Owner says. It's
`broadly, as set forth in the title and repeatedly in the specification, and --
`Judge Kaiser, I'm sorry, I'm on Slide 54 -- it's the manufacture of hollow
`plastic bodies.
`And, indeed, if you look at Claim 1, it has nothing to do with fuel
`tanks. There's nothing in their claim that requires the, that the claim be
`directed to a fuel tank. In fact, they had a dependent claim -- I think, it's
`Claim 12 that adds the limitation that their hollow body is in fact could be a
`fuel tank, so for them to say that their field of endeavor is somehow limited
`to fuel tanks and excluding other manufacturing techniques for plastic
`bodies is simply wrong. So, the PFC and Frame both are analogous for that
`reason, but they also address the same problem that the patent is directed to,
`which is how to attach and insert these components.
`And one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine
`these. These talk about well-known techniques in --
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: Do we need to take a recess?
`JUDGE KINDER: Do you need --
`PARTICIPANT: We can keep going.
`JUDGE KINDER: Okay.
`MR. DE BLANK: Do you want me to go on?
`MR. KINDER: I believe we have a recording.
`PARTICIPANT: She's still recording.
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: Okay.
`JUDGE KINDER: You have a recording.
`
`20
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR2017-01605
`Patent 7,166,253 B2
`
`
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: She says we can keep going, then we can
`keep going.
`MR. DE BLANK: Very good, Your Honor.
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: You've got about 35 seconds left.
`MR. DE BLANK: Then, I will be very quick, Your Honor. My last
`point then is --
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: Unless you want to go into your rebuttal.
`MR. DE BLANK: No, Your Honor, I'll reserve that. Is that these
`references all describe well-known techniques of different stages of the
`manufacturing process. One reference talks about forming two sheets.
`Another reference talks about using two sheets to form a hollow body.
`Linden talks about using these hollow bodies for a fuel tank. Hata talks
`about having the multilayers of the fuel tank in order to have better
`impermeability and resistance to damage.
`They all -- they're all used consistently. There's nothing that teaches
`away, and a person of ordinary skill in the art, as we've described, and as Dr.
`Kazmer has explained, would be motivated to combine them.
`Thank you, Your Honor.
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: Thank you.
`And, Patent Owner, you're reserving five minutes also? Yes?
`MR. RICCIUTI: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you.
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: Okay. Whenever you're ready --
`MR. RICCIUTI: Just for one moment --
`
`21
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Case IPR2017-01605
`Patent 7,166,253 B2
`
`
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: No problem. We won't count this time
`against you. Ready?
`MR.
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
