`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`CASCADES CANADA, ULC AND
`TARZANA ENTERPRISES, LLC,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ESSITY HYGIENE & HEALTH AB,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2017-01902 (Patent 8,597,761 B2)
`IPR2017-01921 (Patent 9,320,372 B2)
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: November 8, 2018
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before JO-ANNE M. KOKOSKI, KRISTINA M. KALAN, and
`JON B. TORNQUIST, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01902 (Patent 8,597,761 B2)
`IPR2017-01921 (Patent 9,320,372 B2)
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`RUDY TELSCHER, ESQUIRE
`Husch Blackwell
`190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600
`St. Louis, MO 63105
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`DAVID A. MANCINO, ESQUIRE
`KEVIN P. FLYNN, ESQUIRE
`Baker Hostetler
`312 Walnut Street
`Suite 3200
`Cincinnati, OH 45202
`
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday,
`November 8, 2018, commencing at 1:00 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01902 (Patent 8,597,761 B2)
`IPR2017-01921 (Patent 9,320,372 B2)
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE KOKOSKI: You may be seated. Good afternoon.
`Today we will hear arguments in IPR 2017-01902 concerning U.S. Patent
`No. 8,597,761 and IPR 2017-01921 concerning U.S. Patent No. 9,320,367.
`I’m Judge Kokoski. Judge Tornquist is here with me, and Judge Kalan is
`joining us from our Denver office. At this time, we’d like counsel to
`introduce yourselves and also let us know who you have with you, beginning
`with Petitioner.
`MR. TELSCHER: Rudy Telscher on behalf of Cascades and
`Tarzana. With me is Daisy Manning of the law firm of Husch Blackwell.
`JUDGE KOKOSKI: Thank you.
`MR. MANCINO: Good afternoon. David Mancino with Baker
`and Hostetler. We’re representing the Patent Owner. And I’m joined by my
`colleague, Kevin Flynn. I’m also joined by the client, Mr. Kevin Gorman
`and Mr. Ramon Erteaga, who are in-house counsel with Essity.
`MR. TELSCHER: And I should have introduced our client as
`well. Mr. Pierre Brochu is with us.
`JUDGE KOKOSKI: Okay, thank you. Welcome.
`Before we begin I just want to remind you that whatever is
`projected on the screen is not viewable by Judge Kalan. When you refer to
`an exhibit on the screen, please state the slide or page number to which you
`are referring for the record. This is also important for clarity in the
`transcript.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01902 (Patent 8,597,761 B2)
`IPR2017-01921 (Patent 9,320,372 B2)
`
`
`Consistent with our hearing order, each party has 60 minutes to
`present their arguments. The Petitioner will proceed first and may reserve
`time for rebuttal. How much time would you like to reserve, if any?
`MR. TELSCHER: Fifteen minutes.
`JUDGE KOKOSKI: Fifteen? Okay. All right. And then --
`MR. MANCINO: Your Honor, if I may?
`JUDGE KOKOSKI: Yes?
`MR. MANCINO: We, one question we have about the
`arguments, are Your Honors interested in hearing oral arguments on the
`Motions to Exclude?
`JUDGE KOKOSKI: I think that’s up to you whether you want
`to make those arguments.
`MR. MANCINO: Okay.
`JUDGE KOKOSKI: If that’s how you want to use your time,
`
`that’s fine.
`
`MR. MANCINO: We wish to use some of that time. And if it’s
`okay, I would like to have my colleague, Mr. Flynn, present the Motions to
`Exclude arguments. He is a young associate and it would be a great chance
`to get him some experience here in the PTAB.
`JUDGE KOKOSKI: That’s fine. If you want to split the time
`between you, that’s fine as well.
`MR. MANCINO: Okay, thank you.
`MR. FLYNN: Thank you, Your Honor.
`JUDGE KOKOSKI: Okay. Petitioner, you can begin when you
`
`are ready.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01902 (Patent 8,597,761 B2)
`IPR2017-01921 (Patent 9,320,372 B2)
`
`
`MR. TELSCHER: And we have copies of our presentation.
`Shall we hand those up now or later?
`JUDGE KOKOSKI: Sure, we’ll take them.
`MR. TELSCHER: Okay.
`MR. MANCINO: We’ll hand ours out, too, to save some time.
`JUDGE KOKOSKI: Sure.
`MR. TELSCHER: There’s three, and we have an extra for you
`
`as well.
`
`MR. TELSCHER: May it please the Board, Rudy Telscher here
`on behalf of Petitioners Cascades and Tarzana. This case is about quarter
`folded interleaved napkins and the specific distinction of the independent
`claims that are at issue is, you know, offset first fold. Can you put up Slide
`5, please?
`
`For the record, Slide 5 is from our demonstratives on the
`screen. Slide 5 are photographs from both the 761 and 372 patents. You’ll
`see on the screen there’s Figures 1C, Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4A and
`Figure 4B. What these show is an eight and a half by 11 piece of paper that
`is folded twice with the first fold offset. There’s then a second fold in
`Figure 3 that shows the offset fold hidden, and then Figures 4A and 4B show
`that they are interleaved into a stack in 4B. Slide 2, please.
`Both independent claims in this case from the 761 and 372
`patent are identical for the purposes of this petition and hearing. We have a
`fairly unique situation here because the Hochtritt patents, which have been
`briefed extensively, are near identical patents but for and from the same
`owner, Essity, that show quarter folded, interleaved, and they contend are
`limited to bisecting. The 761 and 372 added the idea of the offset, is what
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01902 (Patent 8,597,761 B2)
`IPR2017-01921 (Patent 9,320,372 B2)
`
`they contend. But in all other respects, for example embossing, basis
`weight, they are identical. So the issue before the panel, the big issue is, was
`it patentable to add an offset to a quarter folded interleaved napkin?
`We have four grounds, as the Board is probably aware at this
`point. Two are anticipatory under Hochtritt and Grosriez, and two are based
`on obviousness, ground four and ground five.
`In this particular case the experts all agree that offset folds were
`known in the art well prior to the critical dates for the 761 and 372 patents.
`And that’s both experts, Mr. Mrvica and also Patent Owner’s expert Mr.
`Carlson, agree that offset folds were known. We’ve cited to the Dodge
`patent from 1996, which also references an offset first fold to save money.
`Everyone agrees that using offset folds was known in the art well prior to the
`critical dates of these patents. By way of testimony, Mr. Carlson’s can be
`found at page 250, and for the record I’ll state right now that I’m well aware
`of the Board’s rules that I can’t cite new testimony that’s not in the briefs.
`So whenever I cite to testimony, it is in our briefs. If you’re ever curious
`about where that’s at, Ms. Manning has a sheet and we’ll try to tie that up
`for you. But we are well aware of that rule.
`So this is at page 250, lines 16 to 251 line 6, where Carlson
`admits it. Mr. Mrvica has of course testified that offset folds were well
`known. There are only two ways to fold a napkin when you’re taking about
`the fold of a napkin. I can make it equal, or I can make it offset. If I make it
`offset, then it’s just a matter of how much the offset is. So there’s only two
`ways to do it.
`Interesting in this case is that both Hochtritt and Grosriez, both
`references that we’re relying on for our grounds for invalidation, show every
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01902 (Patent 8,597,761 B2)
`IPR2017-01921 (Patent 9,320,372 B2)
`
`single feature of the claimed invention in Claim 1. Both undeniably show
`quarter folded interleaved napkins. Both discuss equal and offset folds. The
`only debate that Essity has with our position on these two references is they
`contend that it’s not packaged together within the references as nice as they
`would like. They are saying we have to piece things within a reference
`together. But there’s no debate that both Hochtritt and Grosriez disclose
`every single element of the claim, including the fact that you can have an
`offset fold or an equal fold.
`Grosriez is where I’m going to start because I think Grosriez,
`it’s hard to refute how clear Grosriez is. And I’m going to go through the
`patents, the disclosure of the patents, and show that. I think Hochtritt is just
`about as clear and whatever clarity didn’t exist as to Hochtritt was solidified
`when Essity filed for the 159 patent, which is a quarter folded napkin having
`an offset second fold. If there wasn’t disclosure in Hochtritt for an offset
`fold then that patent couldn’t have been obtained.
`So we will cover both of those grounds. One of the things I
`think is important which makes this case also highly unusual is how did we
`get here? In 2003 Essity applied for the Hochtritt patent. And the original
`claims were not limited to equal or offset. They applied for that patent. The
`patent examiner, primary in view of Pigneul but other references, rejected
`Essity’s attempt to patent the basic concept of the quarter folded napkin
`that’s interleaved into a stack. In 2008, that was a final rejection that they
`couldn’t get.
`As of 2008, the concept of a quarter folded interleaved napkin
`was held by another Board to be not patentable. What makes this case I
`think highly unique is that Essity then went off in two separate patent
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01902 (Patent 8,597,761 B2)
`IPR2017-01921 (Patent 9,320,372 B2)
`
`families, one under Hochtritt it went for equal, and primarily the Patent
`Office in that one was relying on Pigneul, for having an offset fold. And
`they said, we should get equal because offset is shown. Then in a separate,
`with separate inventors, which is somewhat remarkable because the 761 and
`372 patents are identical to the Hochtritt patents except for the addition of
`offset. And they claim that separate inventors did that. They filed a separate
`patent, which went to a separate examiner. And the Pineul reference, which
`was before the Patent Office with the equal patents which had the offset first
`fold, wasn’t submitted to the Patent Office.
`So in one proceeding they went for equal. In the other
`proceeding they went for unequal. In the equal ones they argued that it
`wasn’t obvious to do equal because there was unequal out there. And in the
`unequal ones they said that it wasn’t obvious to do unequal because equal
`was out there. And what they wound up with between the Hochtritt patents
`and the Formon patents, which is the 761 and 372, is a complete monopoly
`over quarter folded interfolded napkins, which is what a Board in 2008 said
`they couldn’t get.
`So through two separate applications they have gotten precisely
`the coverage that the Patent Office said they couldn’t get. And they are now
`asking this panel to affirm their ability to have the last piece to the monopoly
`puzzle and send it up to the Federal Circuit where this panel then would be
`in at least indirect conflict with the prior panel, which ruled that this wasn’t
`patentable at the general level.
`Turning now to Grosriez, which again I think is the clearest
`anticipatory reference before you. If you could please put up Slide 12. So
`Slide 12 are the photographs from Grosriez that we’re focused on and
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01902 (Patent 8,597,761 B2)
`IPR2017-01921 (Patent 9,320,372 B2)
`
`they’re the subject of our briefing. You have Figure 1A, Figure 1B, Figure
`1C, all of which show making a first longitudinal fold, which is 1A and 1B,
`and then making the second transverse fold in 1C. Figure 6 shows the
`interleaving. And Figure 9B shows a stack of interleaved napkins according
`to Grosriez.
`Can you put up Slide 13, please? On Slide 13 we’re showing
`Column 4 of the Grosriez patent, where there is no dispute, not even by
`Essity, that the descriptions and figures 1A, 1B, and 1C each disclose the
`concept of the quarter folded napkin. And if you notice, in Column 4 this is
`basically, it’s the detailed description of the invention. This is where
`Grosriez starts off. So what they are describing is the prior art napkin. The
`invention in Grosriez is directed to how to stack them to cure imbalance.
`But what they are talking about here in Column 4 is just the known quarter
`folded napkin. And if you get down to the bottom of the passage in Slide
`13, at the bottom of the excerpt, we have according to an alternative form of
`folding not depicted, the longitudinal fold line, which is the first one,
`delimits two sections, the transverse dimension of one which differs from
`the transverse dimension of the other. Both experts agree that that is a
`reference, an express reference, to not have a bisecting fold but having an
`offset fold. And what it says is that’s the alternative. For your longitudinal
`fold you can make it offset, not bisecting. So it’s an express disclosure of
`the very issue that’s before this Court in both the 761 and 372 claims.
`Slide 16, please. Further down the column, and this is all in the
`same section. One of the things that Essity has tried to argue is that
`somehow this is a throwaway line, and I’m going to get to that in a second.
`But if you notice this is describe the quarter folded napkin, first fold can be
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01902 (Patent 8,597,761 B2)
`IPR2017-01921 (Patent 9,320,372 B2)
`
`equal, or you can make it offset if you want. Both experts agree that at the
`time of the inventions for the 761 and 372, that people knew of cheater
`folds. And here’s Grosriez saying, yeah, you can make it equal, you can
`make it offset.
`It now says, and now they are going on to the invention of
`Grosriez, the remainder of the description will relate non-limitingly to a
`supple Sheet 36. So before this line what Grosriez expressly disclosed was
`that you could make a quarter folded napkin with the first fold equal, or
`offset. Now we’re going to tell you how to stack them.
`Turning to Slide 17, so what does Grosriez show? It shows
`three different ways that you can -- and the concept of Grosriez, just to be
`clear, it says it expressly, is that when you fold the napkin twice where the
`fold is, it creates a higher area. So if you kept stacking the high area on top
`of the high area on top of the high area, it would do this. If you look at
`Figures 2 and 3 of Grosriez they demonstrate the problem. It would really
`be not much different than if you have binders, and we all know how binders
`can do this, and if you keep stacking a binder it will do this. Whereas if you
`rotate one binder, one binder this way, you flatten out the stack.
`Grosriez had three different ways that you could flatten out the
`stack. There’s only one that matters but just for the record I’ll state the other
`two. One way, which is shown in Figure 4, is what I would call the star.
`Where you have a napkin here and you just start rotating them at an angle.
`And by rotating them at an angle, you’re taking the, the high portion, and
`you’re distributing it around a circle as you rotate around that circle.
`Figure 5 is just a stack of napkins. So you do this. You have a
`big side over here, then you put a big side over here. Then you put a big
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01902 (Patent 8,597,761 B2)
`IPR2017-01921 (Patent 9,320,372 B2)
`
`side over here, then you put a big side over here. You just rotate back and
`forth 180 degrees in a stack. They are not interleaved, it’s just a stack. So
`that’s the rotate back and forth method.
`Figure 6 and 9B are the ones that are of interest now. That is
`interleaving. It’s identical to the stacking ones shown in Figure 5, except it’s
`interleaved. So the stack goes rotate, rotate, rotate, rotate. Interleave goes
`rotate, rotate, rotate, except for you interleave the napkins in. And Grosriez
`tells you why you want to interleave. It says, and this is at Column -- if you
`look between 50 and it looks to be 65, and right in probably the 60 to 65
`range, Grosriez states this in Column 5. Intertwining the folded sheets
`makes it possible particularly when the stack is placed in a dispenser for the
`lower panel of the upper sheet to carry by virtue of frictional forces the
`upper panel of the intermediate folded sheet out of the opening. What
`Grosriez teaches is you can have a stack of napkins with a rotate, rotate,
`rotate. Or you can have interleaving with the rotate, rotate. And when you
`want to use the interleaving is when you are using dispensers. Essity,
`Cascades, Tarzana, they are all dispenser companies so they interfold. So
`interfolding is shown.
`So what Grosriez shows in clear and express terms in Column 4
`is the napkins that you’re stacking, which are quarter folded, could be an
`offset, could be equal. And now if you want to stack them, you have to, I’m
`quoting two methods, rotate, rotate either in a stack or rotate, rotate
`interleave. That’s what Grosriez expressly teaches.
`So how does Essity respond to the clear disclosures of
`Grosriez? One of their responses, which they cite at page 37 of their brief
`and page 58, is they call it a throwaway line. Now we had the chance to
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01902 (Patent 8,597,761 B2)
`IPR2017-01921 (Patent 9,320,372 B2)
`
`depose Mr. Carlson about the reference if we go back to the slide with the
`offset language on it. Number 12, or 13 I think it is. Is it Slide 13? Yeah.
`So Slide 13, the language that’s highlighted at the bottom which talks about
`the alternative form of folding, we had a chance to depose Mr. Carlson over
`it and he admits that that relates to the express disclosure of having a first
`offset fold. He admits that’s that what it shows in the context of Figures 1A,
`B, and C. That’s at page 317 of his deposition, line 12 through 318, line 16,
`and the offsets at 320, lines 3 to 21.
`JUDGE TORNQUIST: Now Patent Owner’s argument is that
`there’s no depiction of these offset folded napkins actually being interleaved.
`Is there any question that they could be interleaved?
`MR. TELSCHER: No, there’s not. In fact, they make the
`argument that one skilled in the art -- first of all, I’m going to answer the
`question this way. First of all, there’s no requirement of course in patent law
`that you have to have a figure for there to be a disclosure. There can be
`written disclosure as well as a figure. Second, they have made the argument
`that one skilled in the art would be dissuaded from using an offset fold
`because it would make the imbalance worse and that you wouldn’t think to
`combine a quarter interfolded napkin with an offset because it would make
`the balancing worse. That’s their argument.
`Now first of all I would point out the only disclosure in the 761
`and 372 patents for interleaved offset napkins is interleaving, identical to
`Grosriez. It’s identical. There is no description or discussion in 761 or 372
`about if you have an offset it’s going to make the stacking problem worse.
`But in any event, what Grosriez shows is that you have a high side, so you
`put one here, rotate 180 degrees, put a big side here. Just keep rotating back
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01902 (Patent 8,597,761 B2)
`IPR2017-01921 (Patent 9,320,372 B2)
`
`and forth. There is no explanation, and Mr. Carlson certainly doesn’t
`provide any, on why rotating back and forth wouldn’t work. And he would
`be hard pressed to explain why rotating back and forth wouldn’t work
`because their own patent only discloses the interfolded rotating back and
`forth. It’s exactly what Grosriez shows, identical.
`The other oddity about that argument is, it’s clear from
`Grosriez, so Grosriez describes -- up on the screen is Slide 13. So they go
`through Figures 1A, 1B, and 1C. And they describe how you make a quarter
`folded napkin. And this is conventional. They are not claiming this as their
`invention, it’s just quarter folded napkins. Fold it once, fold it twice, now
`you have a quarter folded napkin. You can make the first longitudinal fold
`offset. It would make absolutely no sense for Grosriez to be talking about
`making an offset fold right after describing the quarter folded napkin. So
`they describe the quarter fold and they said, by the way, you can make the
`first fold offset. It would make absolutely no sense to describe an off folded
`napkin if the whole point wasn’t that you could use that napkin with the
`methods that follow. That was the whole point of Grosriez. If they are
`correct that one skilled in the art would think that you couldn’t combine an
`offset first fold with this interleaving method, then what Grosriez would say
`is don’t use offset because it won’t work. What Grosriez says is you can
`make your first fold equal. You can make your first fold offset. Now by the
`way, here’s how you fix the imbalance. That’s expressly what Grosriez
`teaches.
`
`And if you go to Slide, what is it, 16 or 17 (indiscernible), the
`patent expressly says, it’s Slide 16, after describing the quarter folded
`napkin, the offset first fold, it goes on to say the remainder of the description
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01902 (Patent 8,597,761 B2)
`IPR2017-01921 (Patent 9,320,372 B2)
`
`will relate non-limitingly to a supple sheet 36 folded in four, after they just
`described that you could have the first fold offset. And now they go on to
`tell you how, whether it’s an offset fold or whether it’s an equal fold, that
`you can stack it by rotating back and forth and make the stack equal so it
`doesn’t tip over. Does that answer the question?
`JUDGE TORNQUIST: It does. I guess the one question I
`would say is, does Mr. Mrvica directly address the reasonable expectation of
`success here in interleaving?
`MR. TELSCHER: Yes. I mean, he testifies that in his opinion
`Grosriez teaches anticipatorily every element. And that even if Hochtritt
`doesn’t show the offset fold, which we contend it does and we’re going to
`get to Hochtritt in a little bit, that it would be obvious to take the offset
`teachings of Grosriez and combine them. And again, there’s only two ways
`that you can make a napkin, with a quarter fold or any of these. Either you
`have equal folds or you have offset folds. That’s the only way you can do it.
`And I know there’s been some discussion that they claim that with
`machinery you’ve got some options on how, a directional fold with
`machinery, but these claims aren’t directed to machinery. There’s only two
`ways you can do it and as we said, in Hochtritt, in 2008 there was a final
`rejection by the Board. And in Hochtritt they went off and got equal and in
`the Formon, which is 761 and 372, they got unequal. So they’ve got both
`types of quarter folded interleave napkins.
`And I would also point out that again, while Mr. Carlson says,
`he suggested, and he does admit, Carlson admits that Grosriez teaches three
`ways to fix imbalance and that interfolding napkins is one of them. That
`would be at pages 331, lines 21 to 332, line 9, where he expressly recognizes
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01902 (Patent 8,597,761 B2)
`IPR2017-01921 (Patent 9,320,372 B2)
`
`that the interleaving rotation of Grosriez would fix, is one of the ways that
`Grosriez teaches to fix imbalance. And again, it’s no more complicated than
`our binder example. You’ve got a big side, rotate, a big side, big side, big
`side. That’s all Grosriez teaches. And Carlson gives no explanation, there’s
`no evidence in this record why having an offset would make that imbalance
`worse, much less why rotating one big side to the next wouldn’t fix the
`problem.
`
`And by the way, I would also point out that both Carlson and
`Mr. Mrvica agree that cheater folds have been made for decades. So if
`cheater folds have been made for decades, and we all know that napkins
`have, you know, that’s how they are sold, is in stack. For decades people
`have been doing it and nobody, there’s not one shred of literature or record
`evidence that would suggest that there’s a stacking problem with an offset
`napkin as opposed to an equal napkin, where you do what both Grosriez
`does and what Hochtritt patent show, which is rotate, rotate, rotate. If you
`rotate, the big sides are distributed evenly. There’s no reason to believe that
`that wouldn’t work and our expert testifies that it does.
`JUDGE TORNQUIST: Can you show me where he actually
`testifies that it works? I’m looking at like Paragraph 100 of Mrvica’s
`testimony. He just says figure 6 shows this.
`MR. TELSCHER: Can you find that for me? I’m going to have
`Ms. Manning pull that testimony.
`JUDGE TORNQUIST: Sure. And you can continue with
`argument while that comes up.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01902 (Patent 8,597,761 B2)
`IPR2017-01921 (Patent 9,320,372 B2)
`
`
`JUDGE KALAN: I had a question regarding the term non-
`limitingly. How non-limiting is that, in view of the fact that it does
`specifically refer to supple sheet 36, which is folded symmetrically?
`MR. TELSCHER: I think the fact that right before it they
`describe the offset fold for the first fold, it would have to refer to, I mean,
`there would be no point to describing offset fold if it didn’t refer to napkin
`36 can have an equal first fold or an unequal first fold, and now here’s how
`you stack them. There would be no point in Grosriez to explaining an offset
`fold if the solutions that followed for curing the imbalance didn’t apply to a
`napkin made with an off fold. I can’t see any reason why that would even be
`in there if Grosriez thought that you weren’t supposed to fix the imbalance
`of an offset folded napkin. Does that answer the question?
`JUDGE KALAN: It does. But going to a different extreme, I
`mean, could it be folded in fours such that there are triangular shaped
`pieces? I mean, how non-limiting is non-limitingly in that situation?
`MR. TELSCHER: That’s an interesting question. But non-
`limiting certainly applies to -- so I, no I, let me answer the question this way.
`I don’t think that you could take license to say that the napkin could be just
`any form of a napkin. I think what Grosriez discloses is folding it twice,
`once, twice, to create the quarter folded napkin. It talks about an equal first
`fold. It then says the first fold could be unequal in the language we just
`talked about. And then it also says that you could make a C-folded napkin
`or a Z-folded napkin. So I think the non-limiting would only apply to what’s
`been described as napkin 36. I mean, there might be some minor deviations
`to that that you could contemplate that would be within that language as
`understood by one skilled in the art. But certainly the language non-
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01902 (Patent 8,597,761 B2)
`IPR2017-01921 (Patent 9,320,372 B2)
`
`limitingly has to apply to the description that, you know, is in the few
`paragraphs that preceded it. Does that make sense?
`I’ll also note that while Mr. Carlson contends that Grosriez, one
`skilled in the art would not think to use an offset folded napkin and solve the
`problem with his rotation method, where we rotate back and forth, the 761
`patent and the 372, you know, because they have the same claims, they
`cover offsets up to 5.5 inches when you look at the ranges. So if one skilled
`in the art would not know how to stack an offset folded napkin, 761 and 372
`have no disclosure about doing that other than the same solution that
`Grosriez has. There’s no discussion in 761 or 372 that if you have an offset
`folded napkin you’re not going to be able to stack it evenly because of the
`offset and here’s how we solve it. All that 761 and 372 say are you want to
`use an offset because it saves you money. There’s no discussion about
`machinery problems. There’s no discussion about stacking problems. All
`they say is you can make it with less material by using an offset fold. And
`the only thing you’ve got to do to stack it right is rotate, rotate, rotate, which
`is exactly what Grosriez shows. And it, I mean, the experts say it but it’s a
`matter of common sense that if you have a big portion and stack it, you put a
`big portion here, and then rotate, it evens out the big parts. That’s what
`Grosriez teaches. There’s no record evidence that would suggest any reason
`why that wouldn’t work. Mr. Carlson has a conclusory statement that in my
`view should not be accorded weight unless there is an explanation and
`there’s isn’t one.
`On Grosriez also I will say, Daisy I’d like to look at the two
`Slides 14 and 15. You know, further to this notion of it’s a throw away, if
`you look at Column 2, and the Board cited in its institution decision in
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01902 (Patent 8,597,761 B2)
`IPR2017-01921 (Patent 9,320,372 B2)
`
`Column 2, the paragraphs 10 through about 20, where it talks about the
`quarter folded interleaved napkin. And then if you read further down
`Column 2 it states that according to other, and this is at line 26, according to
`other characteristics of the invention, and it goes on to describe the
`longitudinal fold line delimits the two sections. The offset fold is described
`right in Column 2 as being another characteristic of the napkins that have
`been described, interleave napkins that have been described.
`Also in Grosriez, just again moving beyond that this is not a
`throw away, go to the next Slide 15. Claim 7 is a dependent claim from 1
`and Claim 7 covers the offset fold. So to argue that Grosriez doesn’t teach
`one skilled in the art to use the stacking methods of Column 5 with the
`napkin of 36 is belied by the claiming structure of this patent.
`That is all that I have on Grosriez. I was going to move to
`
`Hochtritt.
`
`Slide 8, please. Hochtritt, just like Grosriez, discloses a quarter
`folded napkin that’s interleaved, identically to Column 4 of Grosriez. Both
`show the same thing. And that’s Slide 8 that’s on the screen for the record.
`Slide 9, please. So the issue as to Hochtritt is in Hochtritt
`Column 1, and the lines are blocked out, but it starts at Paragraph 7 of
`Column 1, is where the infamous language says, and it’s excerpted on Slide
`9, paper napkins that are single folded only sometimes, also called half
`folded when the fold bisects the napkin or off folded when it does not. Right
`in Hochtritt it discloses both types of folds, which again the experts have
`said, skilled artisans knew by about the 1990s, also as stated in Dodge, that
`you could have equal folds or off folds, off, you know, offset folds. Those
`are the only two. Right in Hochtritt it expressly states that. And if you look
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01902 (Patent 8,597,761 B2)
`IPR2017-01921 (Patent 9,320,372 B2)
`
`at the summary of the invention that follows right below, in the summary
`they describe the napkins of Hochtritt and they don’t describe them as being
`offset or equal. They describe their invention as covering both.
`So here they are describing the two different types of folds in
`Column 1. They then go on to their summary of the invention and they
`describe their summary as not being limited to equal or offset, teaching one
`skilled in the art that their napkin could made with equal or offset. There
`would be no point to the disclosure in Paragraph 7 that we just talked about
`if it