`
` 
`
` 
`Filed on behalf of Dresser, LLC
`By: Herbert D. Hart III
`
`David Z. Petty
`McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd.
`500 W. Madison St., 34th Floor
`Chicago, IL 60661
`Tel: 312-775-8000
`Fax: 312-775-8100
`E-mail:
`hhart@mcandrews-ip.com
`
`
`dpetty@mcandrews-ip.com
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`VRG CONTROLS, LLC
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DRESSER, LLC
`Patent Owner
`_____________
`Case No. IPR2019-00618
`Patent No. 8,141,843
`_____________
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
` 
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2019-00618
`
`I. 
`II. 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1 
`Summary of the 843 patent and the asserted prior art references...................... 3 
`A. 
`The 843 Patent ....................................................................................... 3 
`B. 
`The asserted prior art references ........................................................... 8 
`III.  Claim Construction ........................................................................................... 11 
`IV.  No review should be instituted on any of Grounds 1-3 ................................... 12 
`A. 
`The Board should decline to institute under 35 U.S.C. §
`325(d) because Davenport was previously before the
`Office ................................................................................................... 13 
`1. 
`Davenport was expressly considered during
`examination (Becton Factors 1 and 2) ...................................... 16 
`The Examiner evaluated Davenport during
`prosecution and found the challenged claims
`patentable (Becton Factor 3) ..................................................... 17 
`The same arguments were considered during
`prosecution (Becton Factor 4) ................................................... 17 
`Petitioner has not argued that the Examiner erred in
`evaluating Davenport (Becton Factor 5) ................................... 18 
`No additional facts presented in the Petition favor
`institution (Becton Factor 6) ..................................................... 18 
`Ground 1: Davenport does not anticipate the challenged
`claims because it does not disclose every limitation ........................... 20 
`1. 
`Davenport does not disclose a ball plate including a
`plurality of orifices, as recited in claims 1 and 17 .................... 21 
`a) 
`Petitioner failed to identify any structure of
`Davenport as a ball plate ................................................ 21 
`The Office found the ball plate limitations to
`distinguish over Davenport ............................................. 23 
`The faces 44 and 46 of Davenport are not
`plates ............................................................................... 24 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`B. 
`
`b) 
`
`c) 
`
` 
`
`i
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2019-00618 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`b) 
`
`C. 
`
`Davenport does not disclose a ball plate located in a
`transverse passage, as recited in claim 1 ................................... 27 
`Petitioner failed to identify in Davenport a shoe
`member, as recited in claims 1, 17, and 24 ............................... 31 
`a) 
`Petitioner failed to explain how Davenport
`discloses each element of the shoe member
`limitation ......................................................................... 32 
`Davenport does not disclose a shoe member
`alignable with the downstream flow passage
`of the body ...................................................................... 35 
`Ground 2: the combination of Davenport and Partridge
`does not render the challenged claims obvious ................................... 38 
`1. 
`The combination of Davenport with Partridge does
`not teach or suggest all the limitations of dependent
`claims 19-21 .............................................................................. 40 
`Petitioner failed to explain why a person of ordinary
`skill in the art would have combined Davenport and
`Partridge .................................................................................... 40 
`Petitioner’s obviousness argument
`relied on
`impermissible hindsight ............................................................ 43 
`Petitioner failed to show a reasonable expectation of
`success ....................................................................................... 44 
`The cited section of Petitioner’s expert declaration
`likewise failed to establish obviousness ................................... 45 
`D.  Ground 3: the combination of Fechner in view of Leinen,
`Durco, Carlson, and/or Neles does not render the
`challenged claims obvious .................................................................. 47 
`1. 
`Fechner in view of Leinen, Durco, Carlson, and/or
`Neles does not disclose every limitation of the
`challenged claims ...................................................................... 48 
`a) 
`The combination of Fechner and Leinen
`and/or Durco does not teach or suggest the
`ball plate of claims 1 and 17 ........................................... 48 
`
` 
`
`ii
`
`

`

`The combination of Fechner and Carlson
`does not teach each element of the shoe
`member limitation of claims 1, 17, and 24 ..................... 51 
`Petitioner improperly asked the Board to choose
`among a variety of possible combinations of prior
`art ............................................................................................... 53 
`Petitioner failed to explain why a person of ordinary
`skill would have combined the references as
`proposed .................................................................................... 54 
`a) 
`Independent claims 1, 17, and 24 ................................... 55 
`b) 
`Dependent claims 2, 4, 6, 11, 18-21, 23, and
`25 .................................................................................... 59 
`Petitioner failed to show a reasonable expectation of
`success ....................................................................................... 62 
`The cited section of Petitioner’s expert declaration
`likewise failed to establish obviousness ................................... 62 
`Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 68 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2019-00618 
`
`b) 
`
`V. 
`
`
` 
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2019-00618 
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`CASES 
`3-D Matrix, Ltd. v. Menicon Co., Ltd.,
`IPR2014-00398, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 1, 2014) ..................................... 44, 62
`Actelion Pharma, Ltd. v. Icos Corp.,
`IPR2015-00561, Paper 50 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 3, 2016) ..................................... 44, 62
`Arkon Resources, Inc. v. Nation Products, Inc.,
`IPR2016-01663, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2017) .................................... 23, 34
`Arris Group, Inc. v. TQ Delta, LLC,
`IPR2016-00428, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. June 22, 2016) ........................................... 41
`Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG,
`IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2017) ........................................... 15
`BSP Software, LLC v. Motio, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00307, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 2013) ................................... 42, 57
`Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Medical, Inc.,
`381 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................ 44
`Cultec, Inc. v. StormTech LLC,
`IPR2017-00777, Paper 7, at 13 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2017) ................................ 14
`Duo Security Inc. v. StrikeFroce Tech., Inc.,
`IPR2017-01064, Paper 7 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 16, 2017) ............................................ 57
`Edmund Optics, Inc. v. Semrock, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00583, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2014) ............................................ 54
`Facebook, Inc. v. Sound View Innovations, LLC¸
`IPR2017-00998, Paper 13 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 5, 2017) ........................................... 12
`Free-Flow Packaging International, Inc. v. Automated Packaging Systems, Inc.
`IPR2016-00445, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. June 22, 2016) ........................................... 19
`Grain Processing Corp. v. American Maize-Prods. Co.,
`840 F.2d 902 (Fed. Cir. 1988) .............................................................................. 43
`HTC Corp. v. Lemaire Illumination Techs., LLC,
`IPR2019-00090, Paper No. 7 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 12, 2019) .................................... 41
`I-MAK, Inc. v. Gilead Pharmasset LLC
`IPR2018-00122, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. May 21, 2018) ......................................... 19
`
` 
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2019-00618 
`
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .............................................................................. 41
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int'l, Ltd.,
`829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...................................................................... 21, 23
`In re Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc.,
`832 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 29
`Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge, Ltd.,
`821 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 53
`Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. Am. Hoist & Derrick Co.,
`730 F.2d 1452 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ............................................................................ 31
`Moba, B.V. et al. v. Diamond Automation, Inc.,
`325 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................................ 27
`Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc.,
`545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ...................................................................... 20, 21
`Nyoy, Inc. v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V.,
`IPR2015-01301, Paper 16 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 8, 2015) ........................................... 39
`Otsuka Pharm. Co. Ltd. v. Sandoz, Inc.,
`678 F.3d 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................ 44
`Peerless Indus., Inc. v. Crimson AV LLC et al.,
`2015 WL 1275908 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 17, 2015) ...................................................... 31
`Power-One, Inc. v. Artesyn Techs., Inc.,
`599 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................ 57
`SAS Institute, Inc. v. Complementsoft, LLC,
`IPR2013-00581, Paper 15 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2013) ......................................... 39
`Sony Corp. v. Fujifilm Corp.,
`IPR2018-01751, Paper 14 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 12, 2019) ......................................... 42
`Stericycle, Inc. v. Catalina Nominees Proprietary Ltd.,
`IPR2017-00519, Paper 26 (P.T.A.B. June 28, 2018) ......................................... 58
`TRW Auto. US LLC v. Magna Elecs., Inc.,
`Case No. IPR2014–00257, Paper 18 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2014) ........................ 58
`ZTE (USA) Inc. v. Fractus, S.A.,
`IPR2018-01455, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 2019) .......................................... 13
`STATUTES 
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ............................................................................................12, 20, 27
`
` 
`
`v
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2019-00618 
`IPR2019-00618
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................ 12
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................ 12
`35 U.S.C. § 112(a) .................................................................................................... 11
`35 U.S.C. § 112(a) .................................................................................................... 11
`35 U.S.C. § 311 ........................................................................................................ 12
`35 U.S.C. § 311 ........................................................................................................ 12
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) ............................................................................................... 53
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) ............................................................................................... 53
`35 U.S.C. § 316(e) .................................................................................................... 21
`35 U.S.C. § 316(e) .................................................................................................... 21
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ................................................................................... 2, 13, 14, 15
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ................................................................................... 2, 13, 14, 15
`REGULATIONS 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) ...................................................................................... 45, 62
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) ...................................................................................... 45, 62
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) ........................................................................................ 45, 62
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) ........................................................................................ 45, 62
`
`
`REGULATIONS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 
`
`
`
`vi
`
`Vi
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2019-00618 
`
`
`
` 
`
`Exhibit Number
`2001
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`Exhibit Name and Description
`Webster’s Third New International
`Dictionary
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2019-00618
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`The Petition fails to show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail
`
`with respect to any of challenged claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 11, 17-21, and 23-25 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,141,843 (“the 843 patent”).
`
`A fundamental flaw is Petitioner’s failure to identify a ball plate and a shoe
`
`member in the asserted prior art. Rather, the Petition relies on vague references to
`
`prior art being generally in the same field of endeavor – valves. The Petition does
`
`not state or explain that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood
`
`that the teachings of the asserted prior art references actually disclose each of the
`
`limitations of the challenged claims. Moreover, Petitioner offers no explanation why
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the asserted references.
`
`The Petition includes three grounds of unpatentability1:
`
`Ground 1: claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 11, 17-18, and 23-25 - anticipation by U.S. Patent
`
`                                                            
`1 Patent Owner notes that the timing of the filing of the Petition was intended to
`
`delay the related district court litigation. Under the Local Patent Rules and the
`
`Court’s case schedule, the deadline for filing a motion to stay the case pending
`
`resolution of an IPR was January 29, 2019. Less than a week before that deadline,
`
`Petitioner filed the Petition (January 23, 2019), and its motion to stay (January 24,
`
`2019). The Court denied the last minute motion to stay.
`
` 
`
`1
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2019-00618 
`
`No. 5,070, 909 (“Davenport”) (EX1005);
`
`Ground 2: claims 19-21 - obviousness over Davenport in view of U.S. Patent
`
`Application Publication 2007/0034267 (“Partridge”) (EX1006);
`
`Ground 3: claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 11, 17-21, 23, and 25 – obviousness over European
`
`Patent Application No. 0 889 269 A1 (“Fechner”) (EX1007) in view of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 5,437,305 (“Leinen”) (EX1008), DurcoTrim publication, “Soundtrim
`
`Modulating Low Noise Control Plug Valve,” Durco Brochure Bulletin V-37
`
`(“Durco”) (EX1011), U.S. Patent No. 6,039,304 (“Carlson”) (EX1009), and/or
`
`Neles Q-Ball publication, “Trim Alternatives” (“Neles”) (EX1010).
`
`No trial should be instituted on any of those grounds for at least the following
`
`reasons:
`
`(1) No trial should be instituted on Grounds 1 and 2 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §
`
`325(d) because Davenport was expressly considered by the Office during the
`
`examination of the 843 patent;
`
`(2) No trial should be instituted on Ground 1 for the additional reason that
`
`Davenport fails to disclose each element of independent claims 1, 17, and 24.
`
`Specifically, Davenport fails to disclose the recited ball plate and the recited shoe
`
`member.
`
`(3) No trial should be instituted on Grounds 2 and 3 because Petitioner failed
`
`to present a prima facie case of obviousness for Grounds 2 and 3. Specifically,
`
` 
`
`2
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2019-00618 
`
`Petitioner failed to explain either why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`made the proposed combinations, or that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have had a reasonable expectation of success.
`
`(4) No trial should be instituted on Grounds 2 and 3 because Petitioner failed
`
`to show that the proposed combinations of references disclose the recited ball plate
`
`and shoe member limitations.
`
`For at least these reasons, the Petition fails to show that there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that any challenged claim is unpatentable. Patent Owner respectfully
`
`requests that the Board deny institution of inter partes review.
`
`II.
`
`Summary of the 843 patent and the asserted prior art references
`A. The 843 Patent
`The 843 patent discloses and claims a ball valve for regulating fluid flow by
`
`using multiple stages of fluid pressure reduction.
`
`As the Background of the 843 patent explains, it was known that a ball valve
`
`may be used to control or regulate fluid flow in various fluid systems, such as
`
`cooling systems, heating systems, petroleum refining systems, pneumatic, vapor, or
`
`gas systems, waste water control systems, and chemical process systems. EX1001
`
`at 1:11-2:3. Such a ball valve typically includes an inlet, an outlet, and a valve
`
`element having a bore for allowing flow through the valve. Id. The positioning of
`
`the valve element bore in relation to the inlet and outlet determines the flow rate of
`
` 
`
`3
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2019-00618 
`
`fluid through the valve. Id. For example, at a high flow rate through the valve, the
`
`bore in the valve element is fully aligned with the bores in the inlet and outlet of the
`
`valve body. Id. By contrast, at a lower flow rate, the bore in the valve element is
`
`substantially out of alignment, or partially aligned, with the bores in the valve inlet
`
`and valve outlet, thereby restricting flow through the valve. Id.  
`
`It is such partial alignment of the valve element bore in relation to the valve
`
`inlet and outlet that is a focus of the 843 patent. Id. Specifically, when the bore in
`
`the valve element is out of alignment with the bores in the inlet and outlet, the valve
`
`is in a throttling position restricting flow through the valve. Id. In turn, the restriction
`
`in flow often will introduce a localized loss of fluid pressure to the fluid being
`
`throttled. Id. Such a localized high-pressure drop may cause vibration and noise
`
`problems. Id. The resulting vibration in the valve and pipe is typically referred to as
`
`“noise,” and is caused by shear turbulence and vortices formed in the fluid passing
`
`through the valve. Id.
`
`In addition, when a portion of the valve element body extends into the flow
`
`path at the valve inlet, it effectively reduces the cross-sectional flow path for at least
`
`a portion of the fluid flowing through the valve. Id. The reduced cross-sectional area
`
`will cause the fluid to accelerate into the valve element, but the fluid stream loses
`
`pressure due to the fluid expanding as it enters the valve element. Id. Such fluid
`
`acceleration combined with pressure loss often results in a non-uniform flow path
`
` 
`
`4
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2019-00618 
`
`of the fluid. Id. Additionally, the positioning of the valve element may result in only
`
`a portion of the total inlet fluid having its flow path altered. Id. As a result, shear
`
`occurs within the fluid stream where high pressure, low velocity portions of the
`
`fluid stream contact high velocity, low-pressure portions of the fluid stream. Id. This
`
`shear will induce noise and/or cavitation in the valve, which can lead to valve
`
`failure. Id.
`
`The 843 patent seeks to solve the problem of noise and cavitation by
`
`spreading the pressure drop in a valve over many components within the valve. Id.
`
`Specifically, the ball valve of the 843 patent may include: (1) a ball plate
`
`including a plurality of orifices disposed in a downstream transverse passage of the
`
`throttling ball that intersects the fluid conduit through the throttling ball; and (2) a
`
`shoe member that is detachably secured to the body and includes a fluid passage
`
`having an inlet on an upstream side being alignable with the flow conduit of the
`
`throttling ball and an outlet being alignable with the downstream flow passage of
`
`the body and having an at least partial hemispherical interior surface disposed
`
`adjacent to and tracking an external surface of the throttling ball. Id.; see also FIG.2,
`
`8:8-9:28.
`
` 
`
`5
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2019-00618 
`
`
`
`A more detailed view of the throttling ball showing the ball plate located in a
`
`passage that intersects the fluid conduit is illustrated in Figure 3A. Id at 1:11-2:3;
`
`see also FIG.3A, 9:29-10:13. The specification describes that such a configuration
`
`may reduce the fluid pressure of the fluid during fluid communication through the
`
`ball valve when it is in a partially open position, e.g., up to about 75-degrees toward
`
`the fully open position. Id. at 11:48-63.
`
`
`
` 
`
`6
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2019-00618 
`
`
`Notably, the ball plate and orifices provide additional outlets for fluid exiting
`
`the throttling ball, thereby limiting the pressure drop and acceleration of the fluid as
`
`it exits the throttling ball. Id. at 1:11-2:3. Furthermore, the outlet bore of the shoe
`
`member is alignable with the bore of the downstream flow passage, and the inlet
`
`bore of the shoe member is alignable with the flow conduit of the throttling ball. Id.
`
`In other words, providing a generally uniform cross-section flow path between the
`
`fluid conduit, shoe member, and downstream flow passage helps reduce turbulence
`
`or cavitation in the fluid as it flows through the valve.
`
`Finally, the shoe member has a substantially hemispherical interior surface
`
`positioned adjacent to, and tracking, the spherical external surface of the throttling
`
`ball. Id. 8:8-21. The spherical tracking of the interior surface of the shoe to the
`
` 
`
`7
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2019-00618 
`
`exterior surface of the throttling ball may substantially prevent fluid from flowing
`
`between the throttling ball and the body. Id.  The shoe, therefore, may provide
`
`considerable more predictability and control of the pressure drop through the valve
`
`than a spherical ball element in a cylindrical cavity without the shoe. Id.  
`
`B.
`The asserted prior art references
`Petitioner relied on the following prior art in Grounds 1-3:
`
` Davenport. Davenport, considered by the Examiner before granting the 843
`
`patent, discloses a valve utilizing a series of trim elements to control fluid
`
`flow.
`
` Partridge. Partridge discloses a valve assembly having a plurality of slotted
`
`plates in a spherical plug to allow transverse flow of fluid through the plug.
`
` Fechner, Leinen, Durco, Carlson, and Neles. These references only
`
`generally relate to various valves having structures intended to modulate inlet
`
`and/or outlet flow.
`
` 
`
`8
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2019-00618 
`
`Davenport
`
`
`
`The Davenport valve includes a ball positioned between two fixed inlet and
`
`outlet trim elements, each of which includes a number of flow-limiting parallel
`
`ducts. The ball includes a number of parallel ducts, matching the ducts of the inlet
`
`and outlet trim elements, running in the axial direction parallel to the ball bore. The
`
`ball further includes a number of transverse ducts that are generally perpendicular
`
`to the axially aligned ducts. Notably, the fluid conduit of the ball has only two,
`
`rather than three, open ends. Thus, as is shown by the drawing above of the valve
`
`in a partially closed position, fluid can enter and exit the valve, and likewise the
`
`ball, through only a limited number of ducts. Put differently, fluid flow is only
`
`possible when the ducts of the inlet and outlet trim element are aligned with the
`
`ducts of the ball.
`
`Davenport does not solve the problem of preventing noise and cavitation due
`
` 
`
`9
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2019-00618 
`
`to a change in the cross-sectional flow path. As is shown above, the cross-sectional
`
`flow path is significantly altered four times as fluid enters and exits the Davenport
`
`valve. Specifically, the cross-sectional flow path is: (1) reduced as the fluid exits an
`
`inlet pipe and enters the inlet trim element; (2) increased as the fluid is dispersed
`
`through the transverse ducts of the plug element; (3) reduced again as the fluid exits
`
`the plug element and enters the outlet trim element; and (4) increased again as the
`
`fluid exits the outlet trim element and enters an outlet pipe.
`
`Partridge
`
`
`
`Partridge discloses a valve including a spherical plug having a plurality of
`
`slotted plates. The slotted plates are longitudinally parallel to each other and parallel
`
`to the axis of rotation of the spherical plug. Notably, Partridge does not disclose a
`
`ball plate located in a transverse passage intersecting the fluid conduit or a shoe
`
`member.
`
` 
`
`10
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2019-00618 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Fechner
`
`Leinen
`
`Durco
`
`
`
`Carlson
`
`
`
`Neles
`
`Fechner, Leinen, Durco, Carlson, and Neles all generally relate to valves
`
`utilizing various diffusing elements to change the cross-sectional flow path.
`
`Notably, none of the five discloses either a ball plate located in a transverse passage
`
`intersecting the fluid conduit or a shoe member.
`
`III. Claim Construction
`Petitioner has proposed that all terms in the claims be given their ordinary and
`
`customary meanings. See Pet. at 21. At this time, and only for the purpose of the
`
`Board’s decision whether to institute trial, Patent Owner does not dispute that all
`
`claim terms have their ordinary and customary meanings. Patent Owner does not
`
`waive its right to propose new or additional constructions later in this proceeding if
`
`the Board should decide to institute a trial.
`
`Petitioner attempted to raise a 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) argument in its proposed
`
` 
`
`11
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2019-00618 
`
`claim construction, alleging that certain limitations are indefinite and that the 843
`
`patent lacks a written description of the claimed invention. Pet. at 21-23. Presenting
`
`a § 112(a) argument in a petition is improper, as the scope of an inter partes review
`
`is limited to grounds based on 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. See 35 U.S.C. § 311;
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2017-00998, Paper 13, at 8
`
`(P.T.A.B. Sept. 5, 2017) (“In an inter partes review, a petitioner may not challenge
`
`the patentability of a claim due to indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112.”).
`
`IV. No review should be instituted on any of Grounds 1-3
`Review of Grounds 1 and 2 should not be instituted because the Office
`
`expressly considered Davenport during prosecution. Moreover, regarding Ground
`
`1, Petitioner failed to show that Davenport discloses each limitation of
`
`independent claims 1, 17, and 24.
`
`Review of Ground 2 should not be instituted because: (i) Partridge does not
`
`remedy the deficiencies of Davenport with respect to claim 17, from which
`
`challenged claims 19-21 depend; (ii) Petitioner presented no evidence as to why a
`
`person of ordinary skill would have combined the teachings of Davenport and
`
`Partridge; and (iii) Petitioner failed to present a prima facie showing of obviousness
`
`because its argument relied on impermissible hindsight and failed to show a
`
`reasonable expectation of success.
`
`Review of Ground 3 should not be instituted because (i) Petitioner failed to
`
` 
`
`12
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2019-00618 
`
`identify any combination of the asserted references that discloses all limitations
`
`of independent claims 1, 17, and 24; (ii) Petitioner presented no evidence as to why
`
`a person of ordinary skill would have combined the teachings of Fechner with those
`
`of any of Leinen, Durco, Carlson, and/or Neles; and, (iii) Petitioner again failed to
`
`present a prima facie showing of obviousness.
`
`For at least these reasons, and as further discussed below, the Petition fails
`
`to show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to any of
`
`the challenged claims, and the Board should not institute an inter partes review.
`
`A. The Board should decline to institute under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d)
`because Davenport was previously before the Office
`The Board should decline to institute because Davenport was expressly
`
`considered during prosecution of the 843 patent and the Office allowed the
`
`challenged claims over Davenport.
`
`The Board may “reject the petition . . . because, the same or substantially the
`
`same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” 35 U.S.C. §
`
`325(d). Thus, in exercising its discretion on whether to institute trial, the Board may
`
`take into account whether, and reject the petition because, the same or substantially
`
`the same prior art or arguments were presented previously. See, e.g., ZTE (USA) Inc.
`
`v. Fractus, S.A., IPR2018-01455, Paper 11, at 8-9 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 2019) (denying
`
`institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) where the Office had previously evaluated three
`
`asserted references during reexamination); see also Cultec, Inc. v. StormTech LLC,
`13
`
` 
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2019-00618 
`
`IPR2017-00777, Paper 7, at 13 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2017) (denying institution under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) where the Office previously evaluated two asserted references
`
`during examination and additional relied-upon references were cumulative of prior
`
`art considered during examination). 
`
`The Petition relies on Davenport alone for Ground 1, and in combination with
`
`Partridge for Ground 2. Not only was Davenport the only reference expressly
`
`discussed on the record during prosecution, but the examiner, Examiner Fristoe,
`
`found that the now-challenged claims were allowable over the same disclosures in
`
`Davenport relied upon by Petitioner. Yet Petitioner now asks the Board to re-address
`
`the very same disclosures already considered during examination.
`
`The Petition, however, fails to explain how it presents Davenport in a new or
`
`different light that would warrant reconsideration by the Board. Instead, the Petition
`
`glosses over the fact that Davenport was expressly considered by Examiner Fristoe,
`
`stating that, although Davenport was cited during prosecution, Patent Owner “did
`
`not contest the merits of the . . . rejection, . . . instead amending the claims to add
`
`limitations [directed] to a ball plate.” Pet. at 18, 23.
`
`First, as Petitioner conceded, Davenport was not only merely cited during
`
`prosecution, but was closely considered by Examiner Fristoe. Pet. at 17-18.
`
`Specifically, the prosecution history (EX1004) reveals that Davenport was the
`
`primary reference Examiner Fristoe relied upon when he examined, and found
`
` 
`
`14
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2019-00618 
`
`patentable, the claims of the 843 patent. Second, rather than simply adding
`
`“limitations to a ball plate,” Patent Owner amended the independent claims to
`
`include the subject matter that Examiner Fristoe found to be patentable over
`
`Davenport.
`
`In evaluating whether to deny institution based on 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), the
`
`Board has considered certain non-exclusive factors. See Becton, Dickinson & Co. v.
`
`B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8, at 17-18 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15,
`
`2017). Those factors include:
`
`1. The similarities and material differences between the asserted art and the
`
`prior art involved during examination;
`
`2. The cumulative nature of the asserted art and the prior art evaluated during
`
`examination;
`
`3. The extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination;
`
`4. The extent of the overlap between the arguments made during examination
`
`and the manner in which a petitioner relies on the prior art or a patent owner
`
`distinguishes the prior art;
`
`5. Whether a petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the Office err