UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`G&H DIVERSIFIED MANUFACTURING, LP,
`PETITIONER,
`
`v.
`
`DYNAENERGETICS EUROPE GMBH,
`PATENT OWNER.
`
`CASE PGR2021-00078
`PATENT 10,844,697 B2
`
`DECLARATION OF ROBERT A. PARROTT
`
`GHD
`1015
`
`Page 1 of 182 (PGR2021-00078)
`G&H DIVERSIFIED MANUFACTURING, LP v. DYNAENERGETICS EUROPE GMBH
`
`

`

`PGR2021-00078
`
`Patent 10,844,697 B2
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 5
`PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS .................... 5
`
`I.
`II.
`
`A. Education ........................................................................................................ 5
`B. Employment .................................................................................................... 5
`C. Patents and Publications ................................................................................. 6
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................ 10
`IV. RELEVANT TIME ......................................................................................... 11
`V. GOVERNING LAW ....................................................................................... 11
`
`A. Claim Construction Generally ...................................................................... 11
`B. Indefinite Claims ........................................................................................... 13
`C. Non-Enabled Claims ..................................................................................... 13
`D. Means Plus Function .................................................................................... 14
`E. Anticipation ................................................................................................... 17
`F. Obviousness ................................................................................................... 18
`G. Relevant Prior Art ......................................................................................... 20
`H. Motivation to Combine ................................................................................. 21
`
`VI. MATERIALS CONSIDERED ....................................................................... 22
`VII. DESCRIPTION OF THE ’697 PATENT ....................................................... 24
`
`A. Technology ................................................................................................... 24
`B. Prosecution History ....................................................................................... 29
`
`VIII. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART .............................................................. 32
`
`A. Rogman ......................................................................................................... 32
`B. Borgfeld ........................................................................................................ 35
`C. Deere ............................................................................................................. 37
`D. Burton ........................................................................................................... 39
`E. Rogman, Deere, Burton, and Borgfeld Are within the Inventor’s
`Field of Endeavor or at least Analogous Art .............................................. 41
`
`- 2 -
`
`Page 2 of 182 (PGR2021-00078)
`G&H DIVERSIFIED MANUFACTURING, LP v. DYNAENERGETICS EUROPE GMBH
`
`

`

`PGR2021-00078
`
`Patent 10,844,697 B2
`
`IX.
`
`INTERPRETATION OF TERMS .................................................................. 43
`
`A. “Biasing member . . . for exerting a force”; “Biasing member . .
`. exerting a force”; “Biasing member”; “Biasing member exerts
`a force”; “biasing member exerting a force” (Claims 6–7 & 19–
`21) ................................................................................................................ 43
`B. “Tandem seal adapter” (Claims 1, 4–5, 8–9 & 13–14) ................................ 44
`
`1. Industry Generally ................................................................................... 44
`2. As Used in the ’697 Patent ...................................................................... 46
`
`C. “Pressure bulkhead . . . having a pin connector assembly”
`(Passim) ....................................................................................................... 50
`D. “Electrical communication with” (Claims 1 & 10) ...................................... 51
`E. “It is not possible to interrupt the electrical signal” (Claims 2 &
`15) ................................................................................................................ 52
`F. “Wireless” (Claim 9) ..................................................................................... 60
`G. “Detonator is not physically joined to the electrical connection
`assembly” (Claim 18) .................................................................................. 61
`
`X.
`
`THE PRIOR ART RENDERS THE ’697 PATENT
`UNPATENTABLE ......................................................................................... 62
`
`A. Rogman Anticipates Claims 1–2, 8, and 13 ................................................. 62
`
`1. Claim 1 Preamble .................................................................................... 62
`2. Claim 1 Limitation 1.a ............................................................................ 64
`3. Claim 1 Limitation 1.b ............................................................................ 66
`4. Claim 1 Limitation 1.c ............................................................................ 69
`5. Claim 1 Limitation 1.d ............................................................................ 72
`6. Claim 1 Limitation 1.e ............................................................................ 74
`7. Claim 1 Limitation 1.f ............................................................................. 77
`8. Claim 2 .................................................................................................... 80
`9. Claim 8 .................................................................................................... 81
`10. Claim 13 ................................................................................................ 82
`
`- 3 -
`
`Page 3 of 182 (PGR2021-00078)
`G&H DIVERSIFIED MANUFACTURING, LP v. DYNAENERGETICS EUROPE GMBH
`
`

`

`PGR2021-00078
`
`
`
`Patent 10,844,697 B2
`
`B. Rogman Anticipates Claims 9–11 or, Alternatively, Rogman in
`view of Borgfeld Renders Claims 9–11 Obvious ....................................... 83
`
`1. Claim 9 .................................................................................................... 83
`2. There Is Ample Motivation to Combine Rogman with
`Borgfeld with a Reasonable Expectation of Success .......................... 86
`3. Claim 10 .................................................................................................. 94
`4. Claim 11 .................................................................................................. 97
`
`C. Rogman in view of Borgfeld Renders Claim 12 Obvious .......................... 101
`D. Rogman in View of Deere Renders Claims 3–5, 7, 14–15, and
`21 Obvious ................................................................................................ 101
`
`1. Claim 3 .................................................................................................. 101
`2. There Is Ample Motivation to Combine Rogman and Deere
`with a Reasonable Expectation of Success ....................................... 103
`3. Claim 4 .................................................................................................. 133
`4. Claim 5 .................................................................................................. 134
`5. Claim 7 .................................................................................................. 135
`6. Claim 14 Preamble ................................................................................ 137
`7. Claim 14 Limitation 14.a ...................................................................... 138
`8. Claim 14 Limitation 14.b ...................................................................... 138
`9. Claim 14 Limitation 14.c ...................................................................... 139
`10. Claim 14 Limitation 14.d .................................................................... 140
`11. Claim 14 Limitation 14.e .................................................................... 140
`12. Claim 14 Limitation 14.f ..................................................................... 141
`13. Claim 14 Limitation 14.g .................................................................... 142
`14. Claim 15 .............................................................................................. 142
`15. Claim 21 .............................................................................................. 144
`
`E. Rogman in view of Deere and Borgfeld Renders Claims 16–18
`Obvious ..................................................................................................... 146
`
`1. Claim 16 ................................................................................................ 146
`
`- 4 -
`
`Page 4 of 182 (PGR2021-00078)
`G&H DIVERSIFIED MANUFACTURING, LP v. DYNAENERGETICS EUROPE GMBH
`
`

`

`PGR2021-00078
`
`
`
`Patent 10,844,697 B2
`
`2. There Is Ample Motivation to Combine Rogman, Deere, and
`Borgfeld with a Reasonable Expectation of Success ........................ 148
`3. Claim 17 ................................................................................................ 149
`4. Claim 18 ................................................................................................ 150
`
`F. Rogman in view of Burton and Deere Renders Claims 6 and 19–
`20 Obvious ................................................................................................ 154
`
`1. Claim 6 .................................................................................................. 154
`2. There Is Ample Motivation to Combine Rogman, Deere, and
`Burton with a Reasonable Expectation of Success ........................... 157
`3. Claim 19 ................................................................................................ 167
`4. Claim 20 ................................................................................................ 168
`
`G. Alternatively, Rogman in View of Burton Renders Claim 8
`Obvious ..................................................................................................... 168
`
`1. Claim 8 .................................................................................................. 168
`2. There Is Ample Motivation to Combine Rogman and Burton
`with a Reasonable Expectation of Success ....................................... 170
`
`XI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 178
`XII. DECLARATION .......................................................................................... 178
`APPENDIX A (RESUME) .................................................................................... 179
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`Page 5 of 182 (PGR2021-00078)
`G&H DIVERSIFIED MANUFACTURING, LP v. DYNAENERGETICS EUROPE GMBH
`
`

`

`PGR2021-00078
`
`
`
`Patent 10,844,697 B2
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`¶1. My name is Robert A. Parrott. I have been retained by G&H
`
`Diversified Manufacturing, LP (“Petitioner” or “GHD”) to provide expert
`
`assessment and technical opinions in connection with the above captioned post grant
`
`review (“PGR”) of U.S. Patent No. 10,844,697 B2 (“’697 Patent” or “Patent-at-
`
`Issue”) [Ex. 1001].
`
`¶2.
`
`I am being compensated $350.00 per hour for my work on this matter.
`
`My compensation is not dependent upon the outcome of the PGR.
`
`II. PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`A. Education
`¶3.
`I have a Master of Business Administration from Houston Baptist
`
`University, 1986, and a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering from the
`
`University of Manitoba, 1977.
`
`B. Employment
`¶4.
`I have worked with oilfield perforating technology for approximately
`
`37 years at Schlumberger Limited companies. The title and location of the positions
`
`I have held include:
`
` Product Manager in Rosharon, Texas;
` Product Engineering Manager Perforating Systems in Novosibirsk,
`Russia;
` Engineering Manager in NPD Perforating Guns & Materials, for SRC,
`Russia and China;
`
`- 6 -
`
`Page 6 of 182 (PGR2021-00078)
`G&H DIVERSIFIED MANUFACTURING, LP v. DYNAENERGETICS EUROPE GMBH
`
`

`

`PGR2021-00078
`
`
`
`Patent 10,844,697 B2
`
` Engineering Manager for Perforating Systems in Tyumen, Russia;
` Perforating Technology Manager in Schlumberger, Russia;
` Principal Engineer in Rosharon, Texas, USA; and
` Field Engineer for Schlumberger in Red Deer and Edmonton (Frontier
`District), Alberta and north regions, Canada.
`¶5. My resume is attached as Exhibit A.
`
`C. Patents and Publications
`¶6. Papers I have authored include:
`
` Well Perforating Solutions Redefine Sand Management Strategies,
`Offshore Magazine (July 2001); and
` A Step Change in Perforating Technology Improves Productivity of
`Horizontal Wells in the North Sea, SPE Paper 84910, Society of
`Petroleum Engineers (“SPE”) (Oct. 20, 2003) (presented at the SPE
`International Improved Oil Recovery Conference in Asia Pacific in Kuala
`Lumpur, Malaysia, 20-21 Oct. 2003).
`¶7.
`I am a named inventor on over 100 domestic and foreign patents and
`
`patent applications, including:
`
` U.S. Patent No. 10,400,557, “Method and Apparatus for completing a
`multi-stage well,” also published as CN103339346B, RU2541965C1,
`CA2823127C, WO2012091926A2, AR084628A1;
` U.S. Patent No. 10,138,706, “Completing a multi-stage well,” also
`published as MX342914B, AU2012309073B2, CA2846203A1,
`WO2013039670A1, AR087837A1;
` U.S. Patent No. 9,546,534, “Technique and apparatus to form a downhole
`fluid barrier”;
`
`- 7 -
`
`Page 7 of 182 (PGR2021-00078)
`G&H DIVERSIFIED MANUFACTURING, LP v. DYNAENERGETICS EUROPE GMBH
`
`

`

`PGR2021-00078
`
`
`
`Patent 10,844,697 B2
`
` U.S. Patent No. 9,382,790, “Method and apparatus for completing a
`multi-stage well,” also published as CN103339346B, RU2541965C1,
`CA2823127C, WO2012091926A2, AR084628A1;
` Brazilian Patent No. BR 102013015566, “Cannon reusable, replaceable
`cap opening for single use a reusable gun and loading sleeve for disposal
`in a carrier of a cannon”;
` U.S. Patent No. 9,033,041, “Completing a multi-stage well,” also
`published as MX342914B, AU2012309073B2, CA2846203A1,
`WO2013039670A1, AR087837A1;
` U.S. Patent No. 8,944,171, “Method and apparatus for completing a
`multi-stage well”;
` United States Pub. No. 2013 0340599, “Reusable perforating gun and
`port plug,” also published as RU2013128245A;
` U.S. Patent No. 8,439,114, “Method and Apparatus for Orienting
`Perforating Devices,” also published as GB2401383B, RU2280150C2,
`NO20041888L;
` Canada Patent No. CA 2,599,056, “Perforating gun having a plurality of
`charges”;
` Canada Patent No. CA 2,354,453, “Impermeable and Composite
`Perforating Gun Assembly Components,” also published as
`GB2365468B, NO20013807L, BR0103217A;
` U.S. Patent No. 7,213,655, “System for Connecting Downhole Tools,”
`also published as GB2410046B, NO334528B1, NO336745B1;
` U.S. Patent No. 7,159,657, “Shaped Charge Loading Tube for
`Perforating Gun,” also published as CA2500536C, RU2295027C2;
`
`- 8 -
`
`Page 8 of 182 (PGR2021-00078)
`G&H DIVERSIFIED MANUFACTURING, LP v. DYNAENERGETICS EUROPE GMBH
`
`

`

`PGR2021-00078
`
`
`
`Patent 10,844,697 B2
`
` U.S. Patent No. 7,114,564, “Method and Apparatus for Orienting
`Perforating Devices,” also published as GB2401383B, RU2280150C2,
`NO20041888L;
` U.S. Patent No. 7,000,699, “Method and apparatus for orienting
`perforating devices and confirming their orientation,” also published as
`GB2374887B, NO334632B1, SG104318A1, NO20130950L;
` United Kingdom Patent No. GB 2,399,583, “Method of orienting
`perforating devices”;
` United Kingdom Patent No. GB 2,394,242, “Brake system”;
` U.S. Patent No. 6,817,598, “Gun Brake Device,” also published as
`GB2381282B, NO327167B1;
` United Kingdom Patent No. GB 2,390,627, “Mapping downhole
`equipment using a gyroscope”;
` United Kingdom Patent No. GB 2,390,624, “Methods and apparatus for
`confirming the orientation of perforating devices on firing”;
` United Kingdom Patent No. GB 2,390,625, “Methods of orienting gun
`string components”;
` United Kingdom Patent No. GB 2,390,623, “Perforating guns”;
` United Kingdom Patent No. GB 2,390,626, “Downhole tool connector
`for maintaining the tools in a fixed relative orientation”;
` U.S. Patent No. 6,702,039, “Perforating Guns and Their Methods of
`Manufacture,” also published as GB2374820B;
` U.S. Patent No. 6,588,508, “Method and Apparatus to Reduce Trapped
`Pressure in a Downhole Tool”;
` U.S. Patent No. 6,523,474, “Shaped Recesses in Explosive Carrier
`Housings that Provide for Improved Explosive Performance in a Well,”
`
`- 9 -
`
`Page 9 of 182 (PGR2021-00078)
`G&H DIVERSIFIED MANUFACTURING, LP v. DYNAENERGETICS EUROPE GMBH
`
`

`

`PGR2021-00078
`
`
`
`Patent 10,844,697 B2
`
`also published as AU763218B2, GB2375383B, WO2001058832A2,
`CA2398740C;
` U.S. Patent No. 6,523,449, “Perforating Gun System with New Shaped
`Charge Pattern for Fracture Jobs,” also published as CA2367231C;
` Norway Patent No. NO 20140776 L, “Method and apparatus for
`orienting perforating and confirm their orientation”;
` U.S. Patent No. 6,460,463, “Shaped Recesses in Explosive Carrier
`Housings that Provide for Improved Explosive Performance in a Well,”
`also published as AU763218B2, GB2375383B, WO2001058832A2,
`CA2398740C;
` United States Pub. No. 2002 0129940m “High temperature explosives for
`downhole well applications”;
` U.S. Patent No. 6,422,148, “Impermeable and Composite Perforating
`Gun Assembly Components”;
` U.S. Patent No. 6,397,752, “Method and Apparatus for Coupling
`Explosive Devices,” also published as GB2363449B, AU2412100A,
`WO2000042289A1, NO331115B1;
` U.S. Patent No. 6,397,947, “Optimum Charge Phasing of a Perforating
`Gun,” also published as WO2000066881A1, GB2367350B,
`AU4698500A, NO331252B1, GB0404934D0;
` U.S. Patent No. 6,336,408, “Cooling System for Downhole Tools,” also
`published as AU2626400A, WO2000045099A2;
` United Kingdom Patent GB 2,332,745, “Apparatus and method for
`measuring formation density in rugose boreholes,” also published as
`US5910654A, AU4071597A, EP0920644B1, CA2263704C,
`WO1998008116A1, NO321371B1;
`
`- 10 -
`
`Page 10 of 182 (PGR2021-00078)
`G&H DIVERSIFIED MANUFACTURING, LP v. DYNAENERGETICS EUROPE GMBH
`
`

`

`PGR2021-00078
`
`
`
`Patent 10,844,697 B2
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,021,714, “Shaped Charge Having Reduced Slug
`Creation,” also published as GB2333825B, NO322281B1;
` U.S. Patent No. 5,952,603, “Insert and twist method and apparatus for
`securing a shaped charge to a loading tube of a perforating gun”;
` U.S. Patent No. 5,862,758, “Insert and twist method and apparatus for
`securing a shaped charge to a loading tube of a perforating gun”;
` U.S. Patent No. 5,673,760, “Perforating gun including a unique high shot
`density packing arrangement,” also published as GB2308427B,
`NO311813B1;
` U.S. Patent No. 5,505,134, “Perforating gun having a plurality of charges
`including a corresponding plurality of exploding foil or exploding
`bridgewire initiator apparatus responsive to a pulse of current for
`simultaneously detonating the plurality of charges,” also published as
`AU697672B2, CA2145740C, GB2288005B, DE69513319T2,
`EP0675262B1, DE69513319D1;
` U.S. Patent No. 5,249,461, “Method for testing perforating and testing an
`open wellbore”; and
` U.S. Patent No. 4,960,171, “Charge phasing arrangements in a
`perforating gun.”
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`¶8.
`I understand that Petitioners have proposed that a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art would, at the effective priority date, have a Bachelor of
`
`Science Degree in Mechanical or Electrical Engineering and at least two years of
`
`industry experience related to assembling, operating, and/or designing perforating
`
`- 11 -
`
`Page 11 of 182 (PGR2021-00078)
`G&H DIVERSIFIED MANUFACTURING, LP v. DYNAENERGETICS EUROPE GMBH
`
`

`

`PGR2021-00078
`
`
`
`Patent 10,844,697 B2
`
`tools, and that this description is approximate, and a higher level of training or skill
`
`might make up for less education, and vice-versa.
`
`¶9.
`
`It is my opinion that I would at least qualify as a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art at the relevant time, and that I exceed this level of knowledge, experience,
`
`and education so that I am qualified to provide an expert opinion in this proceeding.
`
`IV. RELEVANT TIME
`¶10. I have been asked to assume the ’697 Patent has an effective priority
`
`date of July 18, 2013, and I have done my analysis considering what a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood as of that date.
`
`V. GOVERNING LAW
`¶11. I am not a lawyer and am not providing any legal opinions. However, I
`
`have been informed and understand that certain legal standards are to be applied by
`
`technical experts in forming opinions regarding the meaning and patentability of
`
`patent claims in a PGR as set forth below.
`
`A. Claim Construction Generally
`¶12. My understanding is that claim terms are generally given their plain-
`
`and-ordinary meaning. The plain and ordinary meaning of a term is the meaning
`
`that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the
`
`time of the invention.
`
`- 12 -
`
`Page 12 of 182 (PGR2021-00078)
`G&H DIVERSIFIED MANUFACTURING, LP v. DYNAENERGETICS EUROPE GMBH
`
`

`

`PGR2021-00078
`
`
`
`Patent 10,844,697 B2
`
`¶13. Although the specification may aid in interpreting the meaning of claim
`
`language, particular embodiments and examples appearing in the specification will
`
`not generally be read into the claims.
`
`¶14. Although extrinsic evidence can also be useful, it is less significant than
`
`the intrinsic record in determining the legally operative meaning of claim language.
`
`For instance, technical dictionaries may be helpful, but they may also provide
`
`definitions that are too broad or not indicative of how the term is used in the patent.
`
`¶15. Two exceptions to the general rule that claim terms are construed
`
`according to their plain and ordinary meaning are when the patentee (1) acts as
`
`his/her own lexicographer or (2) disavows the full scope of the claim term either in
`
`the specification or during prosecution.
`
`¶16. To act as his/her own lexicographer, the patentee must clearly set forth
`
`a definition of the disputed claim term, and clearly express an intent to define the
`
`term. To disavow the full scope of a claim term, the patentee’s statements in the
`
`specification or prosecution history must represent a clear disavowal of claim scope.
`
`¶17. Under the doctrine of claim differentiation, each claim in a patent is
`
`presumed to have a different scope. The presumption is rebutted when, for example,
`
`the construction of an independent claim leads to a clear conclusion inconsistent
`
`with a dependent claim. The presumption is also rebutted when there is a contrary
`
`construction dictated by the written description or prosecution history. The
`
`- 13 -
`
`Page 13 of 182 (PGR2021-00078)
`G&H DIVERSIFIED MANUFACTURING, LP v. DYNAENERGETICS EUROPE GMBH
`
`

`

`PGR2021-00078
`
`
`
`Patent 10,844,697 B2
`
`presumption does not apply if it serves to broaden the claims beyond their meaning
`
`in light of the specification.
`
`B. Indefinite Claims
`¶18. My understanding is that a claim is indefinite when, if read in light of
`
`the specification delineating the patent, and the prosecution history, it fails to inform,
`
`with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.
`
`¶19. Whether a claim is indefinite is determined from the perspective of one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art as of the time the application was filed.
`
`¶20. It is not sufficient that one can ascribe some meaning to a patent’s
`
`claims, but reasonable efforts must result in a definition that provides sufficient
`
`particularity and clarity to inform skilled artisans of the bounds of the claim.
`
`¶21. Claims that are impossible are indefinite.
`
`C. Non-Enabled Claims
`¶22. My understanding is that patents must describe the manner and process
`
`of making and using the invention, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to
`
`enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most
`
`nearly connected, to make and use the invention (i.e., be “enabled”). I have been
`
`told that the enablement requirement is satisfied when one skilled in the art, after
`
`reading the specification, could practice the full scope of the claimed invention
`
`without undue experimentation as of the patent’s effective filing date.
`
`- 14 -
`
`Page 14 of 182 (PGR2021-00078)
`G&H DIVERSIFIED MANUFACTURING, LP v. DYNAENERGETICS EUROPE GMBH
`
`

`

`PGR2021-00078
`
`
`
`Patent 10,844,697 B2
`
`¶23. Factors to be considered in determining whether a disclosure would
`
`require undue experimentation include (1) the quantity of experimentation
`
`necessary; (2) the amount of direction or guidance presented; (3) the presence or
`
`absence of working examples; (4) the nature of the invention; (5) the state of the
`
`prior art; (6) the relative skill of those in the art; (7) the predictability or
`
`unpredictability of the art; and (8) the breadth of the claims.
`
`¶24. I have further been informed that although the knowledge of one skilled
`
`in the art is relevant, the novel aspect of an invention must be enabled in the patent.
`
`That is, it is the specification, not the knowledge of one skilled in the art, that must
`
`supply the novel aspects of an invention in order to constitute adequate enablement.
`
`D. Means Plus Function Terms
`¶25. My understanding is that a patent claim may be expressed using
`
`functional language, and this is often referred to as “means plus function” claiming.
`
`Under this provision, an applicant can describe an element of his invention by the
`
`result accomplished or the function served, rather than describing the item or
`
`element to be used. That is, instead of claiming a machine with Part A “connected
`
`by a two-penny nail” to Part B, a patentee can claim the same machine more
`
`generally as Part A, Part B, and “means of connecting Part A to Part B.” In this way,
`
`the patent would cover systems with Part A and Part B connected by any
`
`- 15 -
`
`Page 15 of 182 (PGR2021-00078)
`G&H DIVERSIFIED MANUFACTURING, LP v. DYNAENERGETICS EUROPE GMBH
`
`

`

`PGR2021-00078
`
`
`
`Patent 10,844,697 B2
`
`corresponding means of connection disclosed in the patent, as well as equivalents
`
`thereof.
`
`¶26. When means plus function claim structure applies, the scope of the
`
`functional term is limited to only the structure, materials, or acts described in the
`
`specification as corresponding to the claimed function and equivalents thereof. The
`
`equivalents are for individual elements of the claim, not to the invention as a whole.
`
`¶27. Construing a means-plus-function limitation involves multiple steps.
`
`The first step . . . is a determination of the function of the means-plus-function
`
`limitation. The next step is to determine the corresponding structure disclosed in the
`
`specification and equivalents thereof. A structure disclosed in the specification is
`
`“corresponding” structure only if the specification or prosecution history clearly
`
`links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim. The focus of
`
`the “corresponding structure” inquiry is not merely whether a structure is capable of
`
`performing the recited function, but rather whether the corresponding structure is
`
`clearly linked or associated with the recited function. The corresponding structure
`
`must include all structures that actually perform the recited function.
`
`¶28. But no more structure should be identified than necessary to perform
`
`the function, and structural features that do not actually perform the recited function
`
`do not constitute corresponding structure, and, thus, do not serve as claim
`
`limitations.
`
`- 16 -
`
`Page 16 of 182 (PGR2021-00078)
`G&H DIVERSIFIED MANUFACTURING, LP v. DYNAENERGETICS EUROPE GMBH
`
`

`

`PGR2021-00078
`
`
`
`Patent 10,844,697 B2
`
`¶29. While there is a presumption that means plus function claiming applies
`
`when the claim language includes the words “means for,” and that it does not apply
`
`in the absence of this phrase, the presumption ultimately stands or falls according to
`
`whether one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the claim with the
`
`functional language, in the context of the entire specification, to denote sufficiently
`
`definite structure for performing the function. That is, when a claim term lacks the
`
`word “means,” the non means plus function presumption can be overcome if the
`
`challenger demonstrates that the claim term fails to recite sufficiently definite
`
`structure or else recites function without reciting sufficient structure for performing
`
`that function.
`
`¶30. Some well-known “nonce” words (generic or coined structural terms
`
`lacking a clear meaning such as “widget”) that can operate as a substitute for
`
`“means” in the context of a means plus function analysis include “module,”
`
`“mechanism,” “element,” and “device” that reflect nothing more than verbal
`
`constructs tantamount to using the word “means,” because they typically do not
`
`connote sufficiently definite structure.
`
`¶31. One way to find a means plus function claim anticipated or obvious is
`
`to show structure corresponding to the patent’s claimed functional means, or an
`
`equivalent thereof, in the prior art. That is, a structural analysis is required when
`
`- 17 -
`
`Page 17 of 182 (PGR2021-00078)
`G&H DIVERSIFIED MANUFACTURING, LP v. DYNAENERGETICS EUROPE GMBH
`
`

`

`PGR2021-00078
`
`
`
`Patent 10,844,697 B2
`
`means-plus-function limitations are at issue; a functional analysis alone will not
`
`suffice.
`
`E. Anticipation
`¶32. My understanding is that a prior art reference renders an invention
`
`unpatentable as not new, or “anticipates” the patent, if (1) the claimed invention was
`
`patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise
`
`available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or
`
`(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent or in a published application for
`
`patent, in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor
`
`and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
`
`¶33. Although anticipation refers to “the invention,” the anticipation inquiry
`
`proceeds on a claim-by-claim basis because “the invention” is set forth by the claims
`
`that delineate the bounds of the invention and what subject matter is covered. A
`
`reference anticipates a claim if it expressly or inherently discloses each claim
`
`limitation arranged as in the claim. A dependent claim is construed to incorporate
`
`by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers and adds further
`
`limitations.
`
`¶34. One may not establish that a reference inherently discloses a claim
`
`limitation by probabilities or possibilities (i.e., the mere fact that a certain thing may
`
`result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient). Inherency occurs if the
`
`- 18 -
`
`Page 18 of 182 (PGR2021-00078)
`G&H DIVERSIFIED MANUFACTURING, LP v. DYNAENERGETICS EUROPE GMBH
`
`

`

`PGR2021-00078
`
`
`
`Patent 10,844,697 B2
`
`disclosure is sufficient to show that the limitation at issue is necessarily present.
`
`Inherency provides modest flexibility in the rule that “anticipation” requires that
`
`every element of the claims appear in a single reference by accommodating
`
`situations where the common knowledge of technologists is not recorded in the
`
`reference; that is, where technological facts are known to those in the field of the
`
`invention, albeit not known to judges.
`
`¶35. My understanding of the effective filing date of a prior art patent or
`
`application for patent is that it is the earlier of (1) the actual filing date of the patent
`
`or the application for patent; or (2) if the patent or application for patent is entitled
`
`to claim a right of priority based upon one or more prior filed applications for patent,
`
`as of the filing date of the earliest such application that describes the subject matter.
`
`F. Obviousness
`¶36. My understanding of the law is that a patent for a claimed inventi