IPR2017-01902 & 01921
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives for Oral Argument
`
`David A. Mancino
`Kevin P. Flynn
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives for Oral Argument
`
`David A. Mancino
`Kevin P. Flynn
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Issues Identified in Patent Owner’s Briefing
`
`• Construction of the claim term “offset.”
`PO’s Response, Paper 22 (01902), at 9–11; PO’s Sur-Reply, Paper 47 (01902) at 22–24
`–
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`The challenged claims are not anticipated by Hochtritt.
`PO’s Response, Paper 22, at 27–36; PO’s Sur-Reply, Paper 47 at 8–12
`–
`
`The challenged claims are not anticipated by Grosriez.
`PO’s Response, Paper 22, at 36–43; PO’s Sur-Reply, Paper 47 at 12–15
`–
`
`The challenged claims are not obvious over the proposed
`modification to Hochtritt.
`PO’s Response, Paper 22, at 43–54; PO’s Sur-Reply, Paper 47 at 15–18
`–
`
`The challenged claims are not obvious over the proposed
`combination of Hochtritt and Grosriez.
`PO’s Response, Paper 22, at 55–64; PO’s Sur-Reply, Paper 47 at 19–22
`–
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`
`
`Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
`of the Claim Term “Offset”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3
`
`
`
`BRI of “Offset”
`‘761 and ‘372 Patents - Exs. 1001 & 1028, 2:8–10; 3:11–12
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Sur-Reply, Paper 47, at 24
`4
`
`
`
`BRI of “Offset”
`Carlson Decl. - Ex. 2004, ¶¶ 71–72
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Response, Paper 22, at 10
`5
`
`
`
`BRI of “Offset”
`Parnell Decl. - Ex. 2005, ¶ 50
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Response, Paper 22, at 10
`6
`
`
`
`BRI of “Offset”
`Mrvica Depo. - Ex. 2006, 105:8–106:4; 106:18–107:10
`
`Q. So if your – if your client is asking for an offset, that’s an engineer-
`designed offset right?
`A. Exactly.
`
`Q. So if somebody asks you, I want an offset on this napkin, what they
`mean is an engineered or design offset, right?
`A. Yeah, exactly.
`Q. And going to paragraph 51, on page 21 of 58, this understanding of
`offset is consistent with how the 761 patent describes an offset as a
`deliberate offset, correct?
`A. So we’re talking about 761 and it being engineering and design,
`right?
`Q. That’s correct.
`A. So here – the 761 is a deliberate offset, because in the 761, they
`offset the sheets by two inches.
`PO’s Response, Paper 22, at 10–11
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`7
`
`
`
`The USPTO Examiner Found the
`Claims Patentable Over Hochtritt
`and Grosriez
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`8
`
`
`
`The USPTO Found the Claims
`Distinguishable Over Hochtritt
`Notice of Allowance, Ex. 2007 (01902), at 4
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Response, Paper 22, at 19
`9
`
`
`
`The USPTO Found the Claims
`Distinguishable Over Grosriez
`Notice of Allowance, Ex. 2007 (01902), at 5
`
`PO’s Response, Paper 22, at 19–20
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`10
`
`
`
`Mr. Mrvica’s Testimony is
`Unreliable
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`11
`
`
`
`Mr. Mrvica Admitted to Having not Written
`His Own Declaration
`Mrvica Depo. - Ex. 2006, 58:17–59:1; 62:6–10
`
`Q. Did you participate in writing any of this declaration
`yourself?
`A. So writing, as far as the writing of the declaration,
`no. I did participate in that I provided the elements. But I
`had some help to implement it, to put into form, into
`shape.
`
`Q. Who prepared the first draft of your declaration?
`A.
`Internal legal.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Response, Paper 22, at 20
`12
`
`
`
`Mr. Mrvica Could not Recognize Hochtritt in
`his Declaration
`Mrvica Depo. - Ex. 2006, 18:11–23:5
`
`Q. What – in your – in your opinion, what is the importance
`of this document, Exhibit 1015, to the IPR proceeding
`for the two patents, 761 and 372?.
`A. So for now I—I don’t have an specific opinion about
`it. I just said what I believe.
`
`Q. Do you ever recall analyzing this document, Exhibit
`1015?
`A. The first page – the first page indeed rings bell, but I
`would have to re-read it to be more certain.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Response, Paper 22, at 21
`13
`
`
`
`Mr. Mrvica Could not Recognize Hochtritt in
`his Declaration
`Mrvica Depo. - Ex. 2006, 18:11–23:5
`
`Q. Okay. My question is do you recall, sitting here right now,
`why Exhibit 1015 is being analyzed in your declaration?
`A. Yes. So if I had to comment in my declaration – in my
`declaration, indeed.
`Q. So your answer is, yes, you do recall?
`A. That I saw the document.
`Q. Okay. So your answer is, yes, you’ve seen the document.
`But my question is, do you remember why - how or why that
`document is analyzed in your declaration?
`A. Yeah, I have seen the document. Now, saying that I
`remember every single detail is another matter. Yes, I
`have seen the document but it’s very detailed and I don’t
`necessarily recall everything.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Response, Paper 22, at 21
`14
`
`
`
`Mr. Mrvica was Confused by his own
`Declaration
`Mrvica Depo. - Ex. 2006, 161:14–20
`
`Q. Did you review any other parts of your – specific parts
`of your declaration yesterday evening?
`A. Quite frankly, the more I read, the more I end up
`having questions, so then I stopped entirely. So it was
`a very cursory reading.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Response, Paper 22, at 22
`15
`
`
`
`Mr. Mrvica Lacked a Basic Understanding
`of Anticipation
`Mrvica Depo. - Ex. 2006, 164:4–13; 164:21–166:6
`
`Q. What does it mean, for example, for a reference such
`as Hochtritt to anticipate claim 1 of the 761 patent?
`A. So it means that they already declared it in whatever
`that’s called, the prior art.
`Q. Declared what?
`A. Not declared. What is means is that they anticipated
`or announced that that product already existed the
`way it was done.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Response, Paper 22, at 22
`16
`
`
`
`Mr. Mrvica Lacked a Basic Understanding
`of Anticipation
`Mrvica Depo. - Ex. 2006, 164:4–13; 164:21–166:6
`
`Q. What role do the claims of the ‘761 patent have to do
`with the determination of anticipation?
`I’m sorry, could you repeat that?
`A.
`Q. Who [sic] role of the claims of the 761 patent have to do
`with this anticipation?
`A. Everything is linked.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Response, Paper 22, at 22
`17
`
`
`
`Mr. Mrvica Admitted to Giving Misleading
`Testimony
`Mrvica Depo. - Ex. 2006, 160:15–161:13
`
`A.
`
`Q. And you declared in your declaration and you testified
`yesterday that it’s you opinion that the 3/16th offset in
`the Tarzana OneNap product was intentional. Do you
`remember saying that?
`I did say yesterday, based on my knowledge, that I
`thought it was intentional. But I would like to revise
`my statement, retract myself. I do recognize that I
`don’t know how intentional that it was, because it could
`have been equipment, it could have been intentional.
`You know, my opinions are based on my knowledge in
`what I do. But I can’t really testify to something I
`haven’t seen. I basically don’t really know, if I
`haven’t seen.
`PO’s Response, Paper 22, at 23–24
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`18
`
`
`
`Mr. Mrvica Conceded His Own Patent When it
`became Convenient for His Employer, Petitioner
`Mrvica Depo., Ex. 2006, 175:1–176:7
`
`Q. So it seems by the same logic that you argue that the
`761 patent is invalid because all of the elements existed
`for a long time, shouldn’t claim 1 of the 790 patent
`[listing Mrvica as an inventor] be invalid for the same
`reason?
`A. You’re – you’re absolutely right. If it is determined that
`Essity should have the patent, then it would be the
`same thing for us, and we should have a patent on
`that.
`
`** Mr. Mrvica failed to disclose any of the cited references
`during prosecution of his own patent.
`
`PO’s Response, Paper 22, at 24–25
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`19
`
`
`
`Mr. Mrvica has Never even Designed a Stack of
`Interfolded, Quarter-Folded Napkins
`Mrvica Depo., Ex. 2006, 92:14–16
`
`Q. Have you been involved in the design of any four-panel
`interleaved Cascade [sic] napkins?
`A. No.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Response, Paper 22, at 44
`20
`
`
`
`The Petition’s Claim Differentiation
`Argument
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`21
`
`
`
`Hochtritt’s Claims 1 and 6 are not Otherwise
`Identical but for Reference to Bisecting Folds
`Hochtritt, Ex. 1015, claims 1, 6
`
`1
`
`2
`
`4
`
`5
`
`3
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Response, Paper 22, at 33
`22
`
`
`
`What Hochtritt Would Have Taught
`or Suggested to a POSITA at the
`Time of the Invention
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`23
`
`
`
`Hochtritt Discusses Prior Art Single-Folded
`Napkins with an Off-Folded Interfolding Fold
`Hochtritt, Ex. 1015, [0007]
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Response, Paper 22, at 33
`24
`
`
`
`Hochtritt’s Discussion of Single-Folded Napkins
`is Distinct from Quarter-Folded Napkins
`Mrvica Depo., Ex. 2006, 128:12–129:7; 129:15–20
`
`A. What I see is it’s a half fold, so a two-panel napkin.
`Q. So paragraph 7 is talking about a two-panel napkin?
`A. Yes, because they’re talking about a paper napkin
`and single fold.
`
`Q. Where does it say quarter fold anywhere in that
`paragraph?
`A. No. Nowhere.
`Q. So it – the paragraph does not say quarter-folded
`napkin, right?
`A. No, I can’t see it.
`
`PO’s Response, Paper 22, at 33–34
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`25
`
`
`
`The Lone Fold of a Single-Folded Napkin Corresponds to
`the Interfolding Fold of a Quarter-Folded Napkin
`Carlson Decl., Ex. 2004, ¶¶ 85–87
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Response, Paper 22, at 31
`26
`
`
`
`The Lone Fold of a Single-Folded Napkin Corresponds to
`the Interfolding Fold of a Quarter-Folded Napkin
`Parnell Decl., Ex. 2005, ¶ 74
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Response, Paper 22, at 31
`27
`
`
`
`The Lone Fold of a Single-Folded Napkin Corresponds to
`the Interfolding Fold of a Quarter-Folded Napkin
`Mrvica Depo., Ex. 2006, 76:19–77:9; 123:21–124:3, 126:5–16
`
`Discussion of Quarter-Folded Napkins
`Q. And in the – I guess the interfolder, the second folds are
`created, the napkins are separated, and they’re
`interleaved with each other, is that correct?
`A. Yes. So the first fold is created. It goes into the folder,
`and then it is interfolded, and the second fold is created
`that way.
`
`PO’s Response, Paper 22, at 32–33
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`28
`
`
`
`The Lone Fold of a Single-Folded Napkin Corresponds to
`the Interfolding Fold of a Quarter-Folded Napkin
`Mrvica Depo., Ex. 2006, 76:19–77:9; 123:21–124:3, 126:5–16
`
`Discussion of Single-Folded Napkins
`Q.
`Is that true with respect to converting equipment?
`A. So if I take a half fold or two panel, the first fold would be
`the interfolding fold.
`
`Q. Your converting equipment for manufacturing quarter-folded
`napkins cannot take as input stacks of single-folded napkins,
`correct?
`A. Right, just a roll.
`Q. Right. So when you opine here that a single-folded napkin is
`just the first fold of a quarter-folded napkin, that’s never true in
`practice, right?
`A. Yes, but there are two variance. Basically I can offset the sheet
`before folding it.
`PO’s Response, Paper 22, at 32–33
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`29
`
`
`
`The Lone Fold of a Single-Folded Napkin Corresponds
`to the Interfolding Fold of a Quarter-Folded Napkin
`Petitioner’s Reply, Paper 33 (01902), at 11
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Sur-Reply, Paper 47, at 9
`30
`
`
`
`Hochtritt Only Discloses Quarter-Folded
`Napkins having Equal Folds
`Hochtritt, Ex. 1015, [0011]–[0012]
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Response, Paper 22, at 12
`31
`
`
`
`Hochtritt Only Discloses Quarter-Folded
`Napkins having Equal Folds
`Carlson Decl., Ex. 2004, ¶¶ 77, 79
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Response, Paper 22, at 12
`32
`
`
`
`Hochtritt Only Discloses Quarter-Folded
`Napkins having Equal Folds
`Parnell Decl., Ex. 2005, ¶ 60
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Response, Paper 22, at 12
`33
`
`
`
`Hochtritt Discloses only Quarter-Folded
`Napkins Having Equal Folds
`Mrvica Depo., 131:10–132:6
`
`Q. So if it is true that there is no reference to a four panel
`in paragraph 7, then the half fold and off fold that’s
`closing paragraph 7 only pertains to a two-panel
`napkin, right?
`A. Yes, if we can’t see that there is a four panel.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Response, Paper 22, at 34
`34
`
`
`
`The Claimed Sheets Expressly Distinguish over
`Hochtritt’s Sheets
`‘761 and ‘372 Patents - Exs. 1001 & 1028, 6:3–14
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Sur-Reply, Paper 47, at 17
`35
`
`
`
`What Grozriez Would Have Taught
`or Suggested to a POSITA at the
`Time of the Invention
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`36
`
`
`
`Grosriez Discloses only Quarter-Folded
`Napkins Having Equal Folds
`Grosriez, Ex. 1021, 4:33–50
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Response, Paper 22, at 13
`37
`
`
`
`Grosriez Discloses only Quarter-Folded
`Napkins Having Equal Folds
`Grosriez, Ex. 1021, FIGS. 1a-c
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Response, Paper 22, at 14
`38
`
`
`
`Grosriez Describes and Depicts only Quarter-
`Folded Napkins Having Equal Folds
`Carlson Decl., Ex. 2004, ¶ 95
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Response, Paper 22, at 13
`39
`
`
`
`Grosriez Describes and Depicts only Quarter-
`Folded Napkins Having Equal Folds
`Parnell Decl., Ex. 2005, ¶ 61–62
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Response, Paper 22, at 13
`40
`
`
`
`Grosriez Describes and Depicts only Quarter-
`Folded Napkins Having Equal Folds
`Mrvica Depo., 145:7–146:14
`
`Q. Can you show me in Grosriez where it talks about any
`of the embodiments that has an offset interfold – or an
`offset first fold?
`I cannot see it. I don’t find it. I can’t see it.
`A.
`Q. In your opinion, does this Grosriez patent provide
`enough detail so that this person of ordinary skill, as
`you defined it, could manufacture interfolded napkins
`with an offset first fold and an equal second fold?
`A. Yes. We’re here talking about this complete system, you
`know; but you know, when doing offset first fold, second
`fold, point to point, and again point to point, yes, of
`course, Grosriez could do it.
`
`PO’s Response, Paper 22, at 39–40
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`41
`
`
`
`Grosriez Seeks to Avoid Specific Stacking
`Problems
`Grosriez, Ex. 1021, 1:54–2:8
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Response, Paper 22, at 14
`42
`
`
`
`Grosriez Seeks to Avoid Specific Stacking
`Problems
`Carlson Decl., Ex. 2004, ¶ 96
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Response, Paper 22, at 14
`43
`
`
`
`Whether a PHOSITA Would have
`Found it Obvious to Modify
`Hochtritt as Suggested in the Petition
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`44
`
`
`
`The Patents Envision that the Claimed Stacks are
`Formed by Converting Machinery
`‘761 and ‘372 Patents - Exs. 1001 & 1028, 4:22–24; 6:29–32
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Sur-Reply, Paper 47, at 6
`45
`
`
`
`The Patents Envision Forming the Claimed Stacks
`with Converting Machinery
`Carlson Decl. - Ex. 2004, ¶ 48
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Sur-Reply, Paper 47, at 6
`46
`
`
`
`There are At Least Four Fold Options for the
`First Fold of a Quarter-folded Napkin
`Mrvica Depo., Ex. 2006, 116:3–16
`
`Q. . . . with the bisecting fold, right, if you have a flat piece
`of paper, you would have two options right? You can
`fold it up?
`A. Uh-huh.
`Q. Right, or you could fold it down?
`A. Uh-huh.
`Q. And that would mean if you’re going to choose between
`offset or equal folds, you would have potentially four
`options. You could have an equal fold up, an equal
`fold down, an offset fold up, or an offset fold down.
`Does that make sense?
`A. Yeah.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Response, Paper 22, at 29
`47
`
`
`
`Consideration of the Fold Direction is Critical
`Mrvica Depo., Ex. 2006, 117:4–19; 118:13–119:8
`
`Q. . . . with respect to manufacturing of the napkin, the
`direction of your fold, that’s – that’s critical, isn’t that
`correct, whether or not, for example, you have the flat
`piece of paper that folds up or the fold is down?
`It’s critical. Again, it’s the choice of the demand. You
`can create that, you know, for the purpose of the –
`certain, you know, market. Because you going to
`change the – the off fold.
`
`A.
`
`Q. . . . You could also create the offset so that either the
`right panel is larger or the left panel is larger, right?
`A. Yes, I can put the offset on the left or on the right.
`PO’s Response, Paper 22, at 30
`48
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`There are At Least Four Fold Options for the
`First Fold of a Quarter-folded Napkin
`Carlson Decl., Ex. 2004, ¶ 83
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Response, Paper 22, at 30
`49
`
`
`
`There are At Least Four Fold Options for
`the First Fold of a Quarter-folded Napkin
`Parnell Decl., Ex. 2005, ¶ 73
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Response, Paper 22, at 30
`50
`
`
`
`Innovations in Folded Napkins Do Not
`Occur Very Rapidly
`Mrvica Decl., Ex. 1002, ¶ 41
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Response, Paper 22, at 46
`51
`
`
`
`Innovations in Folded Napkins Do Not
`Occur Rapidly
`Carlson Decl., Ex. 2004, ¶ 109
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Response, Paper 22, at 46
`52
`
`
`
`PHOSITAs Would Not Seek to Change a
`Napkin’s Existing Design
`Carlson Decl., Ex. 2004, ¶ 109
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Response, Paper 22, at 46
`53
`
`
`
`Substituting an Offset First Fold Would
`Affect All Downstream Processes
`Carlson Decl., Ex. 2004, ¶ 98
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Response, Paper 22, at 59
`54
`
`
`
`Substituting an Offset First Fold Would
`Affect All Downstream Processes
`Carlson Decl., Ex. 2004, ¶ 109
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Response, Paper 22, at 46
`55
`
`
`
`Whether a PHOSITA Would have
`Found it Obvious to Modify
`Hochtritt with Grosriez as Suggested
`in the Petition
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`56
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Cited Motivations for Combining
`Hochtritt and Grosriez are Insufficient
`Petitioner’s Reply, Paper 33 (01902), at 23
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Sur-Reply, Paper 47, at 19
`57
`
`
`
`A PHOSITA Would be Disinclined from
`Substituting an Offset First Fold
`Carlson Decl., Ex. 2004, ¶ 110
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Response, Paper 22, at 46
`58
`
`
`
`Grosriez’s “Alternative Form of Folding”
`Results in Asymmetrical, Unbalanced Sheets
`Carlson Decl., Ex. 2004, ¶ 97
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Response, Paper 22, at 38
`59
`
`
`
`A PHOSITA Would Know that Interfolding
`Would Exacerbate Grosriez’s Stacking Problems
`Carlson Decl., Ex. 2004, ¶ 96
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Response, Paper 22, at 38
`60
`
`
`
`A PHOSITA Would Know that Interfolding
`Would Exacerbate Grosriez’s Stacking Problems
`Carlson Decl., Ex. 2004, ¶ 98
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Response, Paper 22, at 38
`61
`
`
`
`A PHOSITA Would Know that Interfolding
`Would Exacerbate Grosriez’s Stacking Problems
`Carlson Depo., Ex. 1040, at 333:7–14
`
`A. Because the first folds create an unbalance in the
`napkin. In Grosriez he's all about -- he or she is
`always about balance, keeping that balance.
`Q. Does interleafing cure that unbalance?
`A. With offset folding in conjunction with interfolding, it
`doesn’t help.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Sur-Reply, Paper 47, at 14
`62
`
`
`
`A PHOSITA Would Know that Interfolding
`Would Exacerbate Grosriez’s Stacking Problems
`Carlson Decl., Ex. 2004, ¶ 112
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Response, Paper 22, at 61
`63
`
`
`
`A PHOSITA Would Know that Interfolding
`Would Exacerbate Grosriez’s Stacking Problems
`Parnell Decl., Ex. 2005, ¶ 95
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Response, Paper 22, at 38
`64
`
`
`
`A PHOSITA Would Know that Interfolding
`Would Exacerbate Grosriez’s Stacking Problems
`Parnell Decl., Ex. 2005, ¶ 96
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Response, Paper 22, at 38
`65
`
`
`
`A PHOSITA Would Know that Interfolding
`Would Exacerbate Grosriez’s Stacking Problems
`Parnell Decl., Ex. 2005, ¶ 126
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Response, Paper 22, at 61
`66
`
`
`
`A PHOSITA Would Know that Interfolding
`Would Exacerbate Grosriez’s Stacking Problems
`Parnell Decl., Ex. 2005, ¶ 128
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Response, Paper 22, at 61
`67
`
`
`
`Dependent Claims
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`68
`
`
`
`The Claimed Dimensions are Not a “Minor
`Variation” from Hochtritt’s Dimensions
`(‘761 Claims 4–7 & 24–26; ‘372 Claims 4–7)
`‘761 and ‘372 Patents - Exs. 1001 & 1028, 6:3–10
`
`** The ‘761 and ’372
`Patents seek to provide a
`napkin that
`is visually
`indistinct from Hochtritt’s
`napkins while using less
`paper
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Sur-Reply, Paper 47, at 17
`69
`
`
`
`Hochtritt’s 8.5” x 11” Sheet is Formed into a
`4.25” x 5.5” Equal-Folded Napkin
`(‘761 Claims 4–7 & 24–26; ‘372 Claims 4–7)
`Carlson Decl., Ex. 2004, at ¶ 78
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Response, Paper 22, at 53
`70
`
`
`
`Hochtritt’s 8.5” x 11” Sheet is Formed into a
`4.25” x 5.5” Equal-Folded Napkin
`(‘761 Claims 4–7 & 24–26; ‘372 Claims 4–7)
`Parnell Decl., Ex. 2005, at ¶ 57
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Response, Paper 22, at 53
`71
`
`
`
`The Claimed Sheets Perform Differently from
`Hochtritt’s Sheets by Using Less Paper
`(‘761 Claims 4–7 & 24–26; ‘372 Claims 4–7)
`‘761 and ‘372 Patents - Exs. 1001 & 1028, 6:10–17
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Response, Paper 22, at 52
`72
`
`
`
`The Patents Require Offset Portions Positioned
`Either Interiorly or Exteriorly
`(‘761 Claims 8 & 9; ‘372 Claims 8 & 9)
`‘761 and ‘372 Patents - Exs. 1001 & 1028, claims 8, 9
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Response, Paper 22, at 42
`73
`
`
`
`The Patents Require Offset Portions Positioned
`Either Interiorly or Exteriorly
`(‘761 Claims 8 & 9; ‘372 Claims 8 & 9)
`Mrvica Decl., Ex. 1002, ¶ 129
`
`PO’s Response, Paper 22, at 53–54
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`74
`
`
`
`The Patents Require Offset Portions Positioned
`Either Interiorly or Exteriorly
`(‘761 Claims 8 & 9; ‘372 Claims 8 & 9)
`Carlson Decl., Ex. 2004, ¶ 103
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Response, Paper 22, at 42
`75
`
`
`
`The Patents Require Offset Portions Positioned
`Either Interiorly or Exteriorly
`(‘761 Claims 8 & 9; ‘372 Claims 8 & 9)
`Parnell Decl., Ex. 2005, ¶¶ 100–101
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Response, Paper 22, at 42
`76
`
`
`
`Grosriez Fails to Disclose Offset Portions Positioned
`Either Interiorly or Exteriorly
`(‘761 Claims 8 & 9; ‘372 Claims 8 & 9)
`Mrvica Depo., 145:7–146:14
`Q. Can you show me in Grosriez where it talks about any
`of the embodiments that has an offset interfold – or an
`offset first fold?
`I cannot see it. I don’t find it. I can’t see it.
`A.
`Q. In your opinion, does this Grosriez patent provide
`enough detail so that this person of ordinary skill, as
`you defined it, could manufacture interfolded napkins
`with an offset first fold and an equal second fold?
`A. Yes. We’re here talking about this complete system, you
`know; but you know, when doing offset first fold, second
`fold, point to point, and again point to point, yes, of
`course, Grosriez could do it.
`
`PO’s Response, Paper 22, at 39–40
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`77
`
`
`
`Grosriez Fails to Disclose Offset Portions Positioned
`Either Interiorly or Exteriorly
`(‘761 Claims 8 & 9; ‘372 Claims 8 & 9)
`Carlson Decl., Ex. 2004, ¶¶ 103, 104
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Response, Paper 22, at 42
`78
`
`
`
`Grosriez Fails to Disclose Offset Portions Positioned
`Either Interiorly or Exteriorly
`(‘761 Claims 8 & 9; ‘372 Claims 8 & 9)
`Parnell Decl., Ex. 2005, ¶ 102
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Response, Paper 22, at 42
`79
`
`
`
`Six-Panel, Z-Folded Napkins are Not Fairly
`Comparable to the Claims
`(‘761 Claims 8 & 9; ‘372 Claims 8 & 9)
`Carlson Decl., Ex. 2004, ¶ 102
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Response, Paper 22, at 42
`80
`
`
`
`Six-Panel, Z-Folded Napkins are Not Fairly
`Comparable to the Claims
`(‘761 Claims 8 & 9; ‘372 Claims 8 & 9)
`Parnell Decl., Ex. 2005, ¶ 103
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Response, Paper 22, at 42
`81
`
`
`
`Mr. Mrvica Never Even Opined that Grosriez
`Anticipates these Limitations
`(‘761 Claims 8 & 9; ‘372 Claims 8 & 9)
`Mrvica Decl., Ex. 1002, ¶ 129
`
`PO’s Response, Paper 22, at 42–43
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`82
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply Fails to Address
`the Identified Deficiencies
`in the Petition
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`83
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply Fails to Address the
`Identified Deficiencies in the Petition
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Petitioner’s Reply presents misquotes and gross
`mischaracterizations of the testimony of Mr. Carlson. (Paper
`47 (01902), at 6–8).
`
`Petitioner’s Reply fails to rebut Dr. Parnell’s expert opinions
`at all. (Paper 47 (01902), at 2).
`
`Petitioner’s Reply relies on distortions of Patent Owner’s
`arguments. (Paper 47 (01902), at 2).
`
`Petitioner’s Reply relies on mischaracterizations of the law.
`(Paper 47 (01902), at 17, 22–23).
`
`Petitioner’s Reply relies on overstatements of the prior art.
`(Paper 47 (01902), at 7–8, 10).
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`84
`
`
`
`Mr. Carlson Never Admits that Offset, Quarter-
`Folded, Interleaved Napkins were “Well-Known”
`Pet. Reply, Paper 33, at 7; Carlson Depo., Ex. 1040, 55:16–18; 56:10; 57:22–58:1
`
`A.
`
`I don’t recall any quarter folds.
`
`A. There were no quarter-folded interfolded napkins.
`
`A. [T]here wasn’t interfolded napkins at the time when
`I was at Bretting.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Sur-Reply, Paper 47, at 7
`85
`
`
`
`Mr. Carlson’s Deposition Testimony is Consistent
`with his Un-Rebutted Declaration Testimony
`Carlson Depo., Ex. 1040, 55:16–18; 56:10; 57:22–58:1; Carlson Decl., Ex. 2004, at ¶ 81
`
`A.
`
`I don’t recall any quarter folds.
`
`A. There were no quarter-folded interfolded napkins.
`
`A. [T]here wasn’t interfolded napkins at the time when
`I was at Bretting.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Sur-Reply, Paper 47, at 7
`86
`
`
`
`Mr. Carlson Never Admits that Grosriez Teaches
`Napkins Interleaved to Solve Stacking Problems
`Pet. Reply, Paper 33, at 8; Carlson Depo., Ex. 1040, 333:7–14
`
`A. Because the first folds create an unbalance in the
`napkin . . .
`Q. Does interleafing cure that unbalance?
`A. With offset folding in conjunction with interfolding,
`it doesn’t help.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Sur-Reply, Paper 47, at 7
`87
`
`
`
`Mr. Carlson’s Deposition Testimony is Consistent
`with his Un-Rebutted Declaration Testimony
`Carlson Depo., Ex. 1040, 333:7–14; Carlson Decl., Ex. 2004, at ¶¶ 43, 96
`
`A. Because the first folds create an unbalance in the
`napkin . . .
`Q. Does interleafing cure that unbalance?
`A. With offset folding in conjunction with interfolding,
`it doesn’t help.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Sur-Reply, Paper 47, at 7–8
`88
`
`
`
`Petitioner Mischaracterizes Its Own Question
`as Mr. Carlson’s Testimony
`Pet. Reply, Paper 33, at 9; Carlson Depo., Ex. 1040, 247:2–4
`
`Q. [BY MR. ANNIS] Yeah, so you can be both – you can
`have an equal bisecting fold and an offset bisecting
`fold at the same time?
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Sur-Reply, Paper 47, at 11
`89
`
`
`
`Mr. Carlson Never Admits that there are Only Two
`First-Fold Options for a Quarter-Folded Sheet
`Pet. Reply, Paper 33, at 16–17; Carlson Depo., Ex. 1040, 306:6–12; 252:19–253:10
`
`Q.
`
`“. . . it seems to me that Hochtritt is saying you either – in a
`single-fold napkin you either have half-folded when it bisects or
`you have off-folded when it does not; is that what he's saying?
`A. That’s what he’s saying.
`
`Q.
`
`. . . I’m reading your declaration and you state you have a
`disagreement with Mr. Mrvica’s characterization that quarter-
`fold napkins as only including two possible folds . . . you still
`disagree with him, right?
`A. As it relates to quarter-folds with offset, yes.
`PO’s Sur-Reply, Paper 47, at 15–16
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`90
`
`
`
`Mr. Carlson’s Deposition Testimony is Consistent
`with his Un-Rebutted Declaration Testimony
`Carlson Depo., Ex. 1040, 306:6–12; 252:19–253:10; Carlson Decl., Ex. 2004, at ¶¶ 82–83
`
`Q.
`
`. . . I’m reading your declaration and you state you have a disagreement
`with Mr. Mrvica’s characterization that quarter-fold napkins as only
`including two possible folds . . . you still disagree with him, right?
`A. As it relates to quarter-folds with offset, yes.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Sur-Reply, Paper 47, at 16
`91
`
`
`
`Petitioner Overstates the Law with Respect to
`Anticipation by Grosriez
`Pet. Reply, Paper 33, at 14–15; Grosriez, Ex. 1021 at 4:51–54
`
`PO’s Sur-Reply, Paper 47, at 13–14
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`92
`
`
`
`Petitioner Overstates the Law with Respect to
`Anticipation by Grosriez
`Carlson Decl., Ex. 2004, at ¶¶ 95–96
`
`PO’s Response, Paper 47, at 13–14
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`93
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reliance on DyStar to Support its
`Lacking Obviousness Arguments is Misplaced
`DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co.,
`464 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, Paper 33, at 18
`94
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reliance on DyStar to Support its
`Lacking Obviousness Arguments is Misplaced
`DyStar, 464 F.3d at 1362
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Sur-Reply, Paper 47, at 17
`95
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Ground 4 Obviousness Arguments
`Do Not Apply a “Combination of References”
`Petition, Paper 3 (01902), at 8, 59
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Sur-Reply, Paper 47, at 17
`96
`
`
`
`Hochtritt and the ‘761 and ‘372 Patents
`Seek to Solve Different Technical Problems
`
`Petition, Paper 3 (01902), at 59; Hochtritt (Ex. 1015), at [0007]–[0008];
`‘761 and ‘372 Patents - Exs. 1001 & 1028, 6:3–17
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Sur-Reply, Paper 47, at 17
`97
`
`
`
`Petitioner Cites the Non-Controlling Dissent in
`Profectus, Which is Unhelpful
`Pet. Reply, Paper 33, at 3; Profectus, 823 F.3d at 1385–85
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Sur-Reply, Paper 47, at 23
`98
`
`
`
`TriQuint Actually Supports Patent Owner’s
`Proposed Construction
`TriQuint, 2012 WL 1432529 at *10
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Sur-Reply, Paper 47, at 23
`99
`
`
`
`All Experts Agree that a PHOSITA Could Objectively Verify
`Whether an Offset was Intentionally Designed
`Pet. Reply, Paper 33, at 3–4; Carlson Decl., Ex. 2004, at ¶¶ 59, 70–74;
`Parnell Decl., Ex. 2005, at ¶ 50
`
`PO’s Sur-Reply, Paper 47, at 23–24
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`100
`
`
`
`Mr. Mrvica’s Impermissibly-
`Leading Re-Direct Testimony (and
`the Portions of Petitioner’s Reply
`Relying Thereon) Should be
`Excluded
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`101
`
`
`
`Mr. Mrvica’s Impermissibly-Leading Re-Direct
`Testimony Should be Excluded
`
`• None of the cited exceptions apply to Petitioner’s leading
`re-direct questions. (Paper 45 (01902), at 1–2).
`
`• The re-direct examination of Mr. Mrvica is replete with
`leading questions suggesting a particular answer. (Paper
`45 (01902), at 2–4).
`
`• Petitioner’s Reply arguments are supported only by Mr.
`Mrvica’s responses elicited by impermissibly-leading re-
`direct questions. (Paper 45 (01902), at 4–5).
`
`• Mr. Mrvica’s re-direct testimony exceeded the scope of
`proper cross-examination. (Paper 45 (01902), at 5).
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`102
`
`
`
`Mr. Mrvica’s Re-direct Examination is Replete with
`Leading Questions Suggesting A Particular Answer
`Mrvica Depo., Ex. 2006, at 177:17–21; 178:7; 179:1; 179:13; 185:19–22
`
`Q.
`
`. . . You said that . . .
`correct?
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. So, you know . . .
`
`Q. Were you satisfied. . .
`A.
`. . . yes.
`
`Q. Do you see that. . .
`A. Yes.
`
`Q.
`
`. . . and you said . . . Do
`you recall that testimony?
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. And you personally, in
`your experience . . . Is that
`accurate or not?
`A. So I’ll answer. Yes . . .
`
`Q. And I direct you . . . Can
`you just start reading . . .
`A. Yes. Yes.
`
`PO’s Reply to Petitioner’s Opposition to PO’s Motion to Exclude, Paper 45, at 3
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`103
`
`
`
`Mr. Mrvica’s Re-direct Examination is Replete with
`Leading Questions Suggesting A Particular Answer
`Mrvica Depo., Ex. 2006, at 186:12–15; 187:1–2; 190:11–14;
`190:20–21; 192:21–193:2; 193:12
`
`Q. So does that say to you
`that . . . is that correct?
`
`Q. So that would mean . . . is
`that your understanding?
`A. Yes . . .
`
`Q. So . . . people skilled in
`the art would normally . . .
`is that correct?
`A. Yes . . .
`
`Q.
`
`It’s simply . . . in your
`opinion?
`A. Yes . . .
`
`Q. But I think you testified
`yesterday . . . you know . .
`. am I accurately capturing
`what you think?
`A. Yes . . .
`
`. . . is that right?
`Q.
`A. Yes . . .
`
`PO’s Reply to Petitioner’s Opposition to PO’s Motion to Exclude, Paper 45, at 3
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`104
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply Arguments are Supported Only
`by Impermissibly-Leading Re-D
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
