`
`
`
` 
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`JOHNS MANVILLE CORPORATION AND JOHNS MANVILLE, INC.
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`KNAUF INSULATION, INC. AND KNAUF INSULATION SPRL
`
`Patent Owners
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00863
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,464,207
`
` 
`
`

`

` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`
`
` 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.8(B) .............................. 1 
`A. 
`REAL PARTY IN INTEREST ............................................................. 1 
`B. 
`RELATED MATTERS ......................................................................... 1 
`C. 
`PAYMENT OF FEES ........................................................................... 3 
`D.  DESIGNATION OF LEAD COUNSEL .............................................. 3 
`E. 
`SERVICE INFORMATION ................................................................. 4 
`F. 
`POWER OF ATTORNEY .................................................................... 4 
`G. 
`STANDING ........................................................................................... 4 
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 4 
`A. 
`The ’207 Patent ..................................................................................... 5 
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGES ........................................................ 6 
`A. 
`Challenged Claims ................................................................................ 6 
`B. 
`Statutory Grounds for Challenges ......................................................... 6 
`  PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .......................................... 7 
`LEGAL STANDARD ..................................................................................... 7 
`  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 8 
`A. 
`“Consists Essentially Of” ...................................................................... 8 
`IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE .... 13 
`A. 
`The ʼ207 Patent and Related Patents ................................................... 13 
`B.  Maillard Reactions .............................................................................. 17 
`C. 
`Ground #1: Strauss in view of Tutin and Worthington ....................... 20 
`D.  Ground #2: Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19-21, 30-32, 44-52, 54,
`56-61, 66-77 and 69-71 are Obvious over Strauss combined with
`Tutin and Gogek .................................................................................. 53 
`  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 70 
`
`
` 
`
`i
`
`

`

` 
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Atlas Powder Co. v. E.I. du Pont De Nemours & Co.,
`750 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ............................................................................ 9
`Cuozzo Speed Tech., LLC v. Lee,
`136 S.Ct. 2131 2144-45 (2016) ............................................................................ 8
`In re Herz,
`537 F.2d 549 (C.C.P.A. 1976) .......................................................................... 8, 9
`Ineos USA LLC v. Berry Plastics Corp.,
`783 F.3d 865 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................... 28, 49, 52, 59
`In re Janakirama-Rao,
`317 F.2d 951 (C.C.P.A. 1963) ........................................................................ 9, 11
`In Re: Knauf Insulation,
`Fed. Cir. Nos. 2017-1317, -1323, -1324 (Fed. Cir. March 9, 2018) ................ 1, 2
`Ex Parte Knauf Insulation GmbH,
`Appeal 2017-004826 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 8, 2017) ................................................... 34
`
`Knauf Insulation, Inc., Knauf Insulation GMBH, and Knauf Insulation
`SPRL v. Johns Manville Corporation and Johns Manville, Inc.,
`Case ....................................................................................................................... 1
`Ex Parte Knauf Insulation, Inc.,
`No. 2016-006369 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2016) ....................................................... 21
`Knauf Insulation, Inc. v. Rockwool Int’l A/S,
`680 Fed.Appx. 956 (Feb. 27, 2017) ................................................ 2, 9, 10, 31, 60
`Knauf Insulation v. Johns Manville Corp.,
`Fed. Cir. No. 2017-1433 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 16, 2018) ............................................... 2
`Ex Parte Morozumi,
`No. 2013-005195, 2015 WL 1537957 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2015) ...................... 10
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

` 
`
`PPG Indus. v. Guardian Indus. Corp.,
`156 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .......................................................... 8, 11, 66, 69
`In re Peterson,
`315 F.3d at 1330 ........................................................................................... 49, 52
`Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc.,
`724 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ........................................................................ 7, 8
`Ex Parte Rastegar,
`No. 2014-009943, 2016 WL 5957910 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 12, 2016) ....................... 11
`Riverwood Int’l Corp. v. R.A. Jones & Co.,
`324 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .......................................................................... 30
`Rockwool Int’l A/S v. Knauf Insulation GmbH,
`No. 2017-004826 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 8, 2017) ........................................................... 9
`Rockwool Int’l A/S v. Patent of Knauf Insulation LLC,
`No. 2015-001824, 2015 WL 4607935 (P.T.A.B. July 30, 2015) ....................... 10
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. .................................................................................................................... 9
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ................................................................................................. 5, 6
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ...................................................................................................... 6, 9
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ..................................................................................................... 7
`35 U.S.C. §312(a)(1) .................................................................................................. 3
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. §42.8(B) ..................................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. §42.10(b) ................................................................................................... 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15 ....................................................................................................... 3
`MPEP § 2111.03 III ............................................................................................. 9, 11
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

` 
`
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,464,207
`
`1002
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 9,464,207
`
`1003
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,318,990 to Strauss
`
`1004
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 2004/0038017 by Tutin
`et al.
`
`1005
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,513,001 to Worthington
`
`1006
`
`U.S. Patent No. 2,965,504 to Gogek
`
`1007
`
`Hodge JE. Chemistry of browning reactions in
`model systems. J Agric Food Chem.
`1953;1(15):928–943
`
`1008
`
`Declaration of Dr. Frederick Hirsekorn
`
`1009
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Frederick Hirsekorn
`
`1010
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,114,210 to Hampson
`
`1011
`
`Excerpts of Patent Owner’s Infringement
`Contentions in Related Litigation
`
`1012
`
`Inter Partes Reexamination Decision in
`Reexamination Control 95/000,672 and PTAB
`Appeal 2017-004826 (PTAB, Sept. 8, 2017)
`(regarding Patent No. 7,888,445)
`
`iii
`
`

`

` 
`
`
`
`1013
`
`Ex Parte Reexamination Decision in Reexamination
`Control 90/013,029 and PTAB Appeal 2016-006341
`(PTAB Sept. 29, 2016) (regarding Patent No.
`7,888,445)
`
`1014
`
`In Re: Knauf Insulation, Fed. Cir. Nos. 2017-1317, -
`1323, -1324 (Fed. Cir. March 9, 2018)
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`Ex Parte Reexamination Decision in Reexamination
`Control 90/013,156 and PTAB Appeal 2016-006369
`(PTAB Sept. 30, 2016) (regarding Patent No.
`7,854,980)
`
`Inter Partes Reexamination Decision in
`Reexamination Control 95/000,674 (PTAB July 30,
`2015) (regarding Patent No. 7,854,980)
`
`1017
`
`Knauf Insulation, Inc. v. Rockwool Int’l A/S, 680
`Fed.Appx. 956 (Feb. 27, 2017)
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`Ex Parte Reexamination Decision in Reexamination
`Control 90/013,030 and PTAB Appeal No. 2016-
`006368 (Ex. 1018) (Sept. 29, 2016) (regarding
`Patent No. 7,772,347)
`
`Inter Partes Reexamination Decision, in
`Reexamination Control No. 95/000,675 (Sept. 8,
`2017) (regarding Patent No. 7,772,347)
`
`Final Written Decision in IPR2015-01402 (PTAB
`Oct. 19, 2016) (regarding Patent No. 8,114,210)
`
`Knauf Insulation v. Johns Manville Corp., Fed. Cir.
`No. 2017-1433 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 16, 2018)
`
`iv
`
`

`

` 
`
`Petitioners request institution of an inter partes review trial of Claims 1-3, 5,
`
`6, 8-10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19-23, 30-32, 44-54, 56-61 and 66-71 (“Challenged
`
`Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,464,207 (“’207 Patent”), and a final written decision
`
`cancelling those claims as unpatentable.
`
` MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.8(B)
`A. REAL PARTY IN INTEREST
`
`The real parties-in-interest are Johns Manville Inc. and Johns Manville
`
`Corporation.
`
`B. RELATED MATTERS
`
`The ’207 Patent has been asserted against Johns Manville in Knauf
`
`Insulation, Inc., Knauf Insulation GMBH, and Knauf Insulation SPRL v. Johns
`
`Manville Corporation and Johns Manville, Inc., Case no. 1:15-CV-00111-WTL-
`
`MJD (S.D. Ind.).
`
`The ’207 Patent contains overlapping subject matter with U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,888,445, which patent was subject to both (1) inter partes reexamination
`
`proceedings, in Reexamination Control 95/000,672 and PTAB Appeal 2017-
`
`004826 (Ex. 1012) (claims 16-22 rejected) and (2) ex parte reexamination
`
`proceedings, in Reexamination Control 90/013,029 and PTAB Appeal 2016-
`
`006341 (Ex. 1013) (claims 1-28 rejected), affm’d, In Re: Knauf Insulation, Fed.
`
`Cir. Nos. 2017-1317, -1323, -1324 (Fed. Cir. March 9, 2018)(Ex. 1014).
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

` 
`
`The ’207 Patent also shares subject matter with U.S. Patent No. 7,854,980,
`
`which patent was subject to both (1) ex parte reexamination proceedings, in
`
`Reexamination Control 90/013,156 and PTAB Appeal 2016-006369 (Ex. 1015)
`
`(claims 1-54 rejected), affm’d, In Re: Knauf Insulation, Fed. Cir. Nos. 2017-1317, -
`
`1323, -1324 (Fed. Cir. March 9, 2018)(Ex. 1014), and (2) inter partes
`
`reexamination proceedings, in Reexamination Control 95/000,674 (Ex. 1016)
`
`(claims 21-26 rejected), affm’d, Knauf Insulation, Inc. v. Rockwool Int’l A/S, 680
`
`Fed.Appx. 956 (Feb. 27, 2017) (Ex. 1017).
`
`The ’207 Patent also shares subject matter with U.S. Patent No. 7,772,347,
`
`which patent was subject to both (1) ex parte reexamination proceedings, in
`
`Reexamination Control 90/013,030 and PTAB Appeal No. 2016-006368 (Ex.
`
`1018) (claims 1-36 rejected), affm’d, In Re: Knauf Insulation, Fed. Cir. Nos. 2017-
`
`1317, -1323, -1324 (Fed. Cir. March 9, 2018) (Ex. 1014) and (2) inter partes
`
`reexamination proceedings, in Reexamination Control No. 95/000,675 (Ex. 1019)
`
`(claims 29-32 rejected).
`
`The ’207 Patent also shares subject matter with U.S. Patent No. 8,114,210
`
`(Ex. 1010), which patent was subject to IPR, in IPR2015-01402 (Ex. 1020) (claims
`
`1, 2, 6, 8, 10, 13, 14 held unpatentable), affm’d, Knauf Insulation v. Johns Manville
`
`Corp., Fed. Cir. No. 2017-1433 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 16, 2018) (Ex. 1021).
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

` 
`
`The ’207 Patent also shares subject matter with U.S. Patent No. 9,469,747,
`
`which patent is subject to a Petition for IPR in Case No. IPR2018-00805.
`
`The ’207 Patent also shares subject matter with U.S. Patent No. 9,828,287,
`
`which patent is subject to a Petition for IPR in Case No. IPR2018-00827.
`
`C.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES
`
`This petition for IPR is accompanied by a payment of $59,600.00 and
`
`requests review of 44 claims of the ’207 Patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.15. The Office is
`
`further authorized to charge any other fees, or apply any credit in connection with
`
`this Petition, to Deposit Account No. 20-1430. This Petition meets the fee
`
`requirements under 35 U.S.C. §312(a)(1).
`
`D. DESIGNATION OF LEAD COUNSEL
`
`Lead Counsel
`Kristopher L. Reed
`Reg. No. 58,694
`kreed@kilpatricktownsend.com
`1400 Wewatta Street, Suite 600
`Denver, CO 80202
`(303) 571-4000
`
`Backup Lead Counsel
`Matthew C. Holohan
`Reg. No. 73,288
`mholohan@kilpatricktownsend.com
`1400 Wewatta Street, Suite 600
`Denver, CO 80202
`(303) 571-4000
`
`Darin J. Gibby
`Reg. No. 38,464
`digibby@kilpatricktownsend.com
`1400 Wewatta Street, Suite 600
`Denver, CO 80202
`(303) 571-4000
`
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

` 
`
`
`
`E.
`
`SERVICE INFORMATION
`
`As identified in the attached Certificate of Service, a copy of this Petition, in
`
`its entirety, is being served at the address of the attorney or agent of record in the
`
`Patent Office for the ’207 Patent, as well as counsel of record for the Patent
`
`Owners Knauf Insulation, Inc. and Knauf Insulation SPRL (collectively “Patent
`
`Owners” or “Knauf”) in the above-referenced litigation. The following email
`
`address may be used for service and all communications to both Lead and Backup
`
`Counsel:
`
`JMIPR@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`F.
`
`POWER OF ATTORNEY
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.10(b), a Power of Attorney executed by
`
`Petitioners appointing the above designated counsel is concurrently filed.
`
`G.
`
`STANDING
`
`The Petitioners certify that the ’207 Patent is available for IPR and that the
`
`Petitioners are not barred or estopped from requesting an IPR challenging the
`
`patent claims on the grounds identified in this petition.
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The ’207 Patent relates to fiberglass insulation made using binders. The
`
`claimed method involves manufacturing a fiberglass insulation product by spraying
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

` 
`
`a binder solution onto a mat of fibers such that the residual heat from the fibers and
`
`flow of air evaporates water from the solution, transferring the mat to and through
`
`a curing oven, curing the binder, and compressing the product for packaging and
`
`shipping. The binder solution comprises “Maillard reactants” including an amine
`
`reactant and a carbohydrate reactant, and the curing step consists of a Maillard
`
`reaction.
`
`A. The ’207 Patent
` Overview
`
`The ’207 Patent has 1 independent claim and 70 dependent claims. The
`
`independent claim and 43 dependent claims are challenged.
`
` Priority Date
`
`The ’207 Patent claims priority to provisional application No. 60/702,456,
`
`filed on July 26, 2005. The prior art references relied upon are prior art under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(b) based on this filing date.
`
` Prosecution History
`
`The ’207 Patent issued on October 11, 2016, from U.S. Application No.
`
`13/868,233 (“’233 Application”). The ʼ233 Application was rejected, amended,
`
`and rejected on multiple occasions, with Knauf adding multiple manufacturing-
`
`step limitations and some binder-related limitations to overcome rejections. As
`
`will be seen below, many of the added steps were taken from the Strauss patent
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

` 
`
`and all of the added features were commonly known aspects of fiberglass or the
`
`well-known art of fiberglass manufacturing.
`
`
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGES
`A. Challenged Claims
`
`Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19-23, 30-32, 44-54, 56-61 and 66-71
`
`of the ’207 Patent are challenged.
`
`B.
`
`Statutory Grounds for Challenges
`
`Ground #1: Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19-23, 30-32, 44-54, 56-
`
`61 and 66-71 are obvious under (pre-AIA) 35 U.S.C. § 103 over U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,318,990 to Strauss (“Strauss”) in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.
`
`2004/0038017 by Tutin et al. (“Tutin”) and U.S. Patent No. 3,513,001 to
`
`Worthington et al. (“Worthington”). Strauss issued on June 7, 1994, Tutin
`
`published on February 26, 2004, and Worthington issued on May 19, 1970. All
`
`three references are prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Ground #2: Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19-21, 30-32, 44-52, 54, 56-
`
`61, 66-77 and 69-71 are obvious under (pre-AIA) 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Strauss in
`
`view of Tutin and U.S. Patent No. 2,965,504 to Gogek (“Gogek”). Gogek issued
`
`on December 20, 1960, and thus is prior art to the claims of the ʼ207 Patent at least
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

` 
`
` PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the earliest effective filing
`
`date of the ’207 Patent would have had a Ph.D. in Chemistry and 3-5 years of
`
`industry experience in binder development for insulating or analogous products, or
`
`be someone with a Bachelor’s degree in Chemistry or Chemical Engineering and
`
`10 or more years of experience in binder development for the manufacture of
`
`insulating or analogous products. Ex. 1008 ¶ 37.
`
` LEGAL STANDARD
`
`A claim is unpatentable for obviousness “if the differences between the
`
`subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject
`
`matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a) (pre-AIA). “Applying a flexible approach to the obviousness
`
`inquiry, the Supreme Court observed that common sense can be a source of
`
`reasons to combine or modify prior art references to achieve the patented
`
`invention.” Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc., 724 F.3d 1343, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
`
`The reason or motivation to combine references may be found “explicitly or
`
`implicitly in market forces; design incentives; the ‘interrelated teachings of
`
`multiple patents’; ‘any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

` 
`
`of invention and addressed by the patent’; and the background knowledge,
`
`creativity and common sense of the person of ordinary skill.” Id.
`
`
`
` CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`The claim terms of an unexpired patent subject to IPR shall receive the
`
`“broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in
`
`which [they] appear[].” See Cuozzo Speed Tech., LLC v. Lee, 136 S.Ct. 2131
`
`2144-45 (2016). Because the standards of claim interpretation used by the Courts
`
`and by the Board are different, Petitioners reserve the right to present additional
`
`and different interpretations in the district court litigation.
`
`
`
`A.
`
`“Consists Essentially Of”
`
`“Consists essentially of” is a transition phrase used in a claim to signal that
`
`the claim is partially open. PPG Indus. v. Guardian Indus. Corp., 156 F.3d 1351,
`
`1354 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “By using the term ‘consisting essentially of,’ the drafter
`
`signals that the invention necessarily includes the listed ingredients and is open to
`
`unlisted ingredients that do not materially affect the basic and novel properties of
`
`the invention.” Id.
`
`Under the “broadest reasonable construction standard,” “an applicant who
`
`has not clearly limited his claims is in a weak position to assert a narrow
`
`construction.” In re Herz, 537 F.2d 549, 551 (C.C.P.A. 1976). Therefore, “in
`
`construing the phrase ‘consisting essentially of’ in [the challenged] claims, it is
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

` 
`
`necessary and proper to determine whether [the] specification reasonably supports
`
`a construction that would” exclude unrecited ingredients disclosed in the prior art.
`
`In re Herz, 537 F.2d at 551. If a specification does not contain a clear indication of
`
`the alleged basic and novel characteristics, “consisting essentially of” should be
`
`construed as “comprising.” Id.; In re Janakirama-Rao, 317 F.2d 951, 954
`
`(C.C.P.A. 1963); see also Atlas Powder Co. v. E.I. du Pont De Nemours & Co.,
`
`750 F.2d 1569, 1573-74 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
`
`For example, in Rockwool Int’l A/S v. Knauf Insulation GmbH, No. 2017-
`
`004826, at 16 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 8, 2017) (Ex. 1012), where the Patent Owner had not
`
`“established what additional materials would be excluded by the ‘consisting
`
`essentially of’ language or even what the basic and novel characteristics of the
`
`invention are,” id. at 16, the Board held that the existence of additional ingredients
`
`in the prior art reference could not overcome the Examiner’s Section 103
`
`rejection.1 In other words, the Board treated “consisting essentially of” as
`
`“comprising.” Accord MPEP § 2111.03 III (“For the purposes of searching for and
`
`applying prior art under 35 U.S.C. [§§] 102 and 103, absent a clear indication in
`
`                                                            
`1 The Rockwool decision involved the inter partes reexamination of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,888,445 (“the ʼ445 Patent”), the grandparent of the ʼ207 Patent.
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

` 
`
`the specification or claims of what the basic and novel characteristics actually are,
`
`‘consisting essentially of’ will be construed as equivalent to ‘comprising.’”).
`
`Similarly, in a separate inter partes reexamination concerning Knauf’s
`
`Patent No. 7,854,980—which claims a binder “consisting essentially of a
`
`carbohydrate, an amine, and a polycarboxylic acid”—the Board found that “there
`
`was no clear indication of what constitutes the basic and novel characteristics of
`
`the invention” and therefore, the phrase “consisting essentially of” was once again
`
`properly interpreted “to have the same meaning as ‘comprising’.” Rockwool Int'l
`
`A/S v. Patent of Knauf Insulation LLC, No. 2015-001824, 2015 WL 4607935, at *9
`
`(P.T.A.B. July 30, 2015) (Ex. 1016); see also Knauf Insulation, Inc. v. Rockwool
`
`Int’l A/S, 680 Fed.Appx. 956, 958 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 27, 2017) (Ex. 1017) (affirming
`
`obviousness of claims 21-26 of Pat. No. 7,854,980, which recite a binder
`
`“consisting essentially of dextrose and ammonium salt of citric acid,” without
`
`explicitly opining on the construction of “consisting essentially of”).
`
`The two Board decisions mentioned above interpreting Knauf’s related
`
`patents follow a long line of Board decisions construing the phrase “consisting
`
`essentially of” as “comprising” when, as here, the patent lacks a clear identification
`
`of what the basic and novel characteristics. See, e.g., Ex Parte Morozumi, No.
`
`2013-005195, 2015 WL 1537957, at *2 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2015) (“Absent a clear
`
`indication in the specification what the basic and novel characteristics of the
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

` 
`
`claimed invention actually are, the term ‘consisting essentially of’ will be
`
`construed as “comprising.”) (citing PPG, 156 F.3d at 1354 and In re Janakirama-
`
`Rao, 317 F.2d at 954) (original emphasis); see also Ex Parte Rastegar, No. 2014-
`
`009943, 2016 WL 5957910, at *4 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 12, 2016) (citing PPG, 156 F.3d
`
`at 1355 and MPEP § 2111.03 III).
`
`Here, just as the Board has found with respect to Knauf’s related patents, the
`
`claims and the specification of the ʼ207 Patent do not clearly identify the alleged
`
`basic and novel characteristics of the invention. Ex. 1008 ¶ 43.2 Under the
`
`                                                            
`2 In litigation, Knauf asserted that the basic and novel characteristics of the binder
`
`solutions of the ‘207 Patent are that “the cured binder includes that it is a
`
`‘formaldehyde-free, water-resistant thermoset binder that attaches the glass fibers
`
`of the mat together.’” Ex. 1011 at 4 (regarding Claim 1). This is not supported by
`
`the ʼ207 Patent specification, which fails to identify any basic and novel
`
`characteristics of any claim. Ex. 1008 ¶ 43. Moreover, the phrase “consists
`
`essentially of” in Claim 1 of the ’207 Patent modifies the step of the “curing of the
`
`binder,” which is said to consist essentially of “a Maillard reaction.” Knauf has
`
`not alleged what, if anything, constitutes the basic and novel characteristics of the
`
`curing step. Dependent claim 48 uses “consist essentially of” in a different
`
`context—the “Maillard reactants” themselves “consist essentially of the amine
`
` 
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

` 
`
`broadest reasonable construction, therefore, “consists essentially of” in the claims
`
`of the ʼ207 Patent should be construed as “comprises” for the purposes of this
`
`proceeding.
`
`
`
` “amine reactant”
`
`No definition of “amine reactant” is provided in the specification. However,
`
`Knauf alleges in the related litigation that (a) ammonium salts (including
`
`“diammonium phosphate” and “ammonium sulfate”) are “amine reactants”; (b)
`
`“ammonia” is an “amine reactant”; and (c) the phrase “amine reactants” also
`
`“includes molecules possessing an amine base” or an “amino group.” Ex. 1011 at
`
`2-3.
`
`Although Petitioners do not concede that Knauf’s construction is correct, if
`
`the term “amine reactant” is as broad as Knauf alleges in its infringement
`
`contentions, a reference disclosing a binder made with (a) ammonium salts; (b)
`
`                                                                                                                                                                                                
`reactant and the reducing sugar.” In infringement contentions, Knauf cites a 23-
`
`line long passage from the specification that allegedly discloses the basic and novel
`
`characteristics for Claim 48. Ex. 1011 at 4-5. But nothing from that passage
`
`clearly indicates the basic and novel characteristics. Nonetheless, the Challenged
`
`Claims are unpatentable even under any of Knauf’s various, unsupported
`
`constructions of “consists essentially of,” as discussed below.
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

` 
`
`ammonia; or (c) molecules possessing an amine base or amino group, discloses the
`
`claimed “amine reactant.”
`
` IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`A. The ʼ207 Patent and Related Patents
`1. Manufacturing Process.
`The structure of the independent claim of the ʼ207 Patent reflects a method
`
`for manufacturing a fiberglass insulation product using an aqueous binder solution.
`
`However, the specification of the ʼ207 Patent makes clear that the manufacturing
`
`process described and claimed in the ʼ207 is “conventional.” Ex. 1001 at 23:25-
`
`29. In fact, the “fiberglass manufacturing procedures” described in the ʼ207 Patent
`
`are not only admittedly “conventional” and thus contribute no patentable weight to
`
`the claims, but the procedures were previously described in Strauss itself. Indeed,
`
`as the following table shows, much of the language of Claim 1 of the ʼ207 Patent
`
`was copied—some nearly verbatim—from Strauss:
`
`’207 Patent (Claim 1)
`
`Ex. 1003 (Strauss) at 4:12-49
`
`residual heat from the glass fibers and flow
`of air through the mat evaporates water
`from the aqueous binder solution,
`
`transferring the binder coated mat to and
`through a curing oven;
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`“The residual heat contained in the
`glass fibers as well as the air flow
`through the mat causes a majority of
`the water to volatilize from the mat
`before it exits the forming chamber.”
`“The … mat is then conveyed to and
`through a curing oven ...”
`
`

`

` 
`
`’207 Patent (Claim 1)
`
`Ex. 1003 (Strauss) at 4:12-49
`
`heated air is passed through the mat to cure
`the binder
`ii) flights above and below the mat slightly
`compress the mat to give the fiberglass
`insulation product a predetermined
`thickness and surface finish,
`and iii) fibrous glass having a cured, rigid
`binder matrix emerges from the curing
`oven so as to produce the fiberglass
`insulation product in the form of a batt;
`and compressing the batt for packaging and
`shipping
`
`
`“… wherein heated air is passed
`through the mat to cure the resin.”
`“Flights above and below the mat
`slightly compress the mat to give the
`finished product a predetermined
`thickness and surface finish.”
`“The fibrous glass having a cured,
`rigid binder matrix emerges from the
`oven in the form of a bat ...”
`
`“… which may be compressed for
`packaging and shipping ...”
`
`Thus, the ʼ207 Patent claims nothing more than the conventional fiberglass
`
`manufacturing process described in Strauss, combined with a well-known
`
`“Maillard reactant” binder solution.
`
`2.
`Binder
`The binder solution of the ʼ207 Patent is far from novel. It comprises
`
`“Maillard reactants” including “an amine reactant” and “a carbohydrate reactant.”
`
`Ex. 1001 at Cl. 1. Maillard reactions have been understood since at least 1953, as
`
`explained in Section B. Further, the use of such Maillard reactants as binder
`
`reactants was well-known in the art, and described in detail in, e.g., the
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

` 
`
`Worthington and Gogek references, both of which predate the ʼ207 Patent by
`
`decades.
`
`To illustrate this point, consider the grandparent patent of the ʼ207 Patent,
`
`the ʼ445 Patent, which claimed a binder made of “melanoidin products” (products
`
`of a Maillard reaction) that formed upon dehydrating and curing a mixture that
`
`included a “monosaccharide and an ammonium salt” of an acid. Ex. 1013 at 3-4.3
`
`While the binder in the ʼ445 Patent had other requirements, in essence the claimed
`
`binder comprised a carbohydrate and an amine, just like the binder of the ʼ207
`
`Patent. In an ex parte reexamination, the Board found claims 1-28 to this binder
`
`unpatentable as obvious, and the Federal Circuit recently affirmed. Ex. 1014. The
`
`Board also found claims 16-22 of the ’445 Patent are obvious in an inter partes
`
`reexamination. Ex. 1012.
`
`Another Knauf patent related to the ’207 Patent—U.S. Pat. No. 7,772,347—
`
`claimed a “method of making a collection of matter bound with a melanoidin
`
`                                                            
`3 The accompanying Declaration of Dr. Frederick Hirsekorn (Ex. 1008) describes
`
`the family tree for the ’207 Patent. Several related patents, with substantially
`
`similar specifications, have been subjected to review by the Board. Ex. 1008 at ¶¶
`
`57-77 (discussing Exs. 1012-1021). The decisions in those proceedings are highly
`
`relevant intrinsic evidence in evaluating the patentability of the ‘207 Patent.
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

` 
`
`containing formaldehyde-free thermoset binder.” The Board also held that this
`
`method was obvious, Ex. 1018, and the Federal Circuit affirmed. Ex. 1014; see
`
`also Ex. 1019.
`
`The Board and Federal Circuit have also cancelled as unpatentable claims in
`
`Knauf’s Pat. No. 7,854,980 reciting a “mineral fiber insulating material”
`
`containing certain Maillard reactants. Ex. 1015-1017.
`
`Finally, the PTAB and Federal Circuit also have held that another Maillard-
`
`reactant binder solution patented by Knauf—a “substantially formaldehyde free
`
`binder solution consisting essentially of a solution obtainable by dissolving a
`
`reducing sugar and at least 2.5% by dry weight … of ammonium sulphate salts”—
`
`claimed in U.S. Patent No. 8,114,210 (Ex. 1010), is anticipated by Gogek. Ex.
`
`1020; Ex. 1021. In that same decision, the PTAB found anticipated by Gogek a
`
`method claim for manufacturing that included steps of “providing a collection of
`
`loose matter” and “treating the collection of loose matter with the substantially
`
`formaldehyde free binder solution of claim 1.” Ex. 1020 (claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 10, 13,
`
`14 anticipated by Gogek); see also Ex. 1008 at ¶¶ 57-77 (discussing Exs. 1012-
`
`1021).
`
`Thus, the Board and Federal Circuit have already determined that (1) binder
`
`solutions comprising Maillard reactants are not patentable; (2) methods of binding
`
`matter using such binder solutions are not patentable, and; (3) mineral fiber
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`

` 
`
`insulating material made with such binder solutions are not patentable. The claims
`
`of the ’207 Patent merely recycle these same unpatentable methods of using
`
`Maillard reactants, dressed up with “conventional” manufacturing steps that appear
`
`in any number of prior references, including Strauss and Tutin.
`
`B. Maillard Reactions
`
`The chemistry of Maillard reactions was described in detail in a seminal
`
`article by John E. Hodge published on October 14, 1953 (Ex. 1007). As Hodge
`
`explained, a “Maillard reaction” is a “browning” reaction “involving the
`
`interaction of reducing sugars and amino compounds.” Ex. 1007 at 2. A Maillard
`
`reaction begins with an “initial stage” during which the sugar and the amine
`
`condense and form N-substituted glycosylamines. Id.. The N-substituted
`
`glycosylamines then undergo a process called “Amadori rearrangement.” Id.
`
`Subsequently, the sugar is dehydrated and fragmented and the amino acid is
`
`degraded. Id. In the final stage, brown nitrogenous polymers and copolymers
`
`called “melanoidins” are formed. Id.; id. at 10, Fig. 1. The process is summarized
`
`visually in Figure 1 of the Hodge paper as follows:
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`

`

` 
`
`Ex. 1007 at Fig. 1. The specification of the ʼ207 Patent copied liberally from
`
`Hodge’s paper, including recreating Hodge’s Figure 1 (with only immaterial
`
`modificatio