`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 19
`Filed: May 5, 2022
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`

`

`PGR2021-00078
`
`
`
`Patent 10,844,697 B2
`
`I.
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 1
`A. “Connected To” (Claims 1, 9 and 14) ............................................................. 1
`B. Indefinite and Non-Enabled Claims ................................................................ 3
`
`1. “it is not possible to interrupt the electrical signal” (Claims 2
`and 15) ....................................................................................................... 3
`2. “detonator
`is not physically
`joined
`to
`the electrical
`connection assembly” (Claim 18) ............................................................. 4
`
`III.
`
`’697 PATENT HAS PRIORITY NO EARLIER THAN JUNE 8,
`2017 ................................................................................................................. 4
`IV. ROGMAN ........................................................................................................ 5
`A. Exemplary Illustrations .................................................................................... 5
`
`1. Figures 3 .................................................................................................... 6
`2. Figures 1, Ends Of ..................................................................................... 7
`3. Figures 5 .................................................................................................... 8
`
`B. An Operator Does Not Manually Wire Rogman’s Pin Connector
`Ends to a Corresponding Jack ......................................................................... 9
`C. Rogman’s Bulkhead Meets Claim 1’s “Gun Carrier Connected
`to the TSA” and Claim 1 and 14’s “Provide a Seal” Limitations ................. 10
`D. Rogman’s “Coaxial Feedthru” Meets Claim 1 and 14’s PCA
`Limitations ..................................................................................................... 15
`E. Rogman’s Spring-Loaded Ballistic Interrupt Shutter Meets
`Claim 8’s Spring-Loaded Electrical Connection Positioned
`Adjacent a TSA Limitation ............................................................................ 18
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`PGR2021-00078
`
`
`
`Patent 10,844,697 B2
`
`F. Rogman’s Multi-Gun Configuration Meets Claim 9’s “Second
`Gun Connection” Limitation ......................................................................... 19
`G. Rogman Meets Claim 10’s BCE in Electrical Communication
`with a Second Detonator Limitation .............................................................. 20
`H. Rogman Meets Claim 11’s Detonator Ground and Through Wire
`Connection Limitation ................................................................................... 21
`I. Rogman Meets Claim 13’s “Bulkhead Extends through the
`TSA” Limitation ............................................................................................ 21
`
`V.
`
`ROGMAN IN VIEW OF BURTON ALSO TEACHES CLAIM
`8’S “SPRING-LOADED ELECTRICAL CONNECTION”
`ADJACENT THE TSA LIMITATION ......................................................... 21
`VI. ROGMAN IN VIEW OF BORGFELD ........................................................ 24
`A. Motivation to Combine and Actual Combination for Claims 9-
`12 ................................................................................................................... 24
`B. Rogman in View of Borgfeld Teaches Claim 9-10’s Second Gun
`Connected to a TSA Limitation ..................................................................... 25
`C. Rogman in View of Borgfeld Teaches Claim 11’s Ground and
`Through Wire Connections ........................................................................... 26
`D. Rogman in View of Borgfeld Teaches Claim 12’s “Wireless”
`BCE on a Detonator Head ............................................................................. 26
`
`VII. ROGMAN IN VIEW OF DEERE ................................................................. 26
`A. Deere Provides Motivation to Combine ........................................................ 26
`B. Rogman in View of Deere Discloses Claims 3-5 and 14 “Spring
`Loaded Contact Pin” Limitations .................................................................. 28
`C. Deere Discloses Claims 7 and 21’s “Inner Body”......................................... 29
`
`VIII. ROGMAN IN VIEW OF DEERE AND BORGFELD ................................. 29
`A. Motivation to Combine .................................................................................. 29
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`PGR2021-00078
`
`
`
`Patent 10,844,697 B2
`
`B. Combination shows Claim 16’s Signal-In to PCA Connector and
`Claim 17’s Detonator Head Through Wire and Ground
`Connector Element ........................................................................................ 30
`
`IX. ROGMAN IN VIEW OF DEERE AND BURTON SHOW
`CLAIM 6, 19, AND 20’S PIN HEADS ........................................................ 30
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 31
`
`
`
`X.
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`PGR2021-00078
`
`
`
`Patent 10,844,697 B2
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`AMC Multi-Cinema, Inc. v. Fall Line Patents, LLC,
`No. 21-1051, 2021 WL 4470062 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 30, 2021)
`(Doc. 51) ............................................................................................................... 10
`Ethicon LLC. v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc.,
`847 Fed. App’x 901 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ..................................................................... 1
`Everstar Merch. Co. Ltd. v. Willis Elec. Co., Ltd, No. 2021-1882,
`2022 WL 1089909 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 12, 2022) (Doc. 44) ...................................... 10
`Evolusion Concepts Inc. v HOC Events Inc.,
`22 F.4th 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ............................................................................. 28
`Gillette Co. v. Energizer Holdings, Inc.,
`405 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................ 14
`Google, LLC v. Ikorongo Tech. LLC,
`IPR2021-00204-16 (PTAB Jan. 25, 2022) ............................................................. 4
`In re Clay,
`966 F.2d 656 (Fed. Cir. 1992) .............................................................................. 27
`Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc.,
`21 F.4th 784 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ............................................................................... 31
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ...................................................................................... 30, 31
`MPHJ Tech. Invs., LLC v. Ricoh Ams. Corp.,
`847 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .............................................................................. 4
`Raytheon Tech. Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co.,
`993 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2021) .............................................................................. 3
`RPX Corp. v. Rothschild Connected Devices Innovations, LLC,
`IPR2016-00443-28 (PTAB July 6, 2017) .............................................................. 3
`Solvay SA v. Honeywell Intern., Inc.,
`622 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .............................................................................. 2
`Synchronoss Techs., Inc. v. Dropbox, Inc.,
`987 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2021) .............................................................................. 4
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 112 .......................................................................................................... 3
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`PGR2021-00078
`
`
`
`Patent 10,844,697 B2
`
`Rules and Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) ................................................................................................ 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) ................................................................................................. 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`PGR2021-00078
`
`
`
`Patent 10,844,697 B2
`
`PETITIONER’S CURRENT EXHIBIT LIST1
`
`No. Brief Description
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 10,844,697 B2 to Preiss et al. (“’697 Patent”)
`1002 File History for U.S. Application No. 16/585,790 that issued as the ’697
`Patent (“’697 Patent File History”)
`1003 U.S. Patent No. 9,677,363 to Schacherer et al. (“Schacherer”)
`1004 US 2013/0126237 A1 to Burton et al. (published May 23, 2013)
`(“Burton”)
`1005 U.S. Patent No. 10,077,641 to Rogman et al. (“Rogman Patent”)
`claiming priority to Rogman PCT (Ex. 1006) and Rogman
`Provisional (Ex. 1007)
`1006 PCT Application US 13/73094 (filed Dec. 4, 2013), published as WO
`2014/089194 (“Rogman PCT”)
`1007 U.S. Provisional Patent No. 61/733,129 (filed on Dec. 4, 2012)
`(“Rogman Provisional”)
`1008 US Patent Publication No. 2013/0008669 A1 to Deere et al. (published
`Jan. 10, 2013) (“Deere”)
`1009 U.S. Patent Pub. 2013/0153205 A1 to Borgfeld et al. (published Jun. 20,
`2013) (“Borgfeld”)
`1010 DynaEnergetics’ Preliminary Response, Hunting Titan, Inc. v.
`DynaEnergetics Europe GmbH, PGR2020-00080-6 (PTAB filed
`Nov. 18, 2020) (“Hunting Titan P.R.”)
`1011 Cooperative Patent Classification, Scheme for E21B (Fixed
`Constructions), available at
`https://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/cpc/pdf/cpc-
`scheme-E21B.pdf
`1012 Patent assignment 036606/0616 to Schlumberger Technology
`Corporation (“Rogman Assignment”)
`1013 Patent assignment 027806/0921 to Schlumberger Technology
`Corporation (“Borgfeld Assignment”)
`
`1 Relevant portions of Petitioners’ exhibits may be highlighted to help the Panel
`locate cited sections.
`
`- vi -
`
`

`

`PGR2021-00078
`
`
`
`Patent 10,844,697 B2
`
`1016
`
`No. Brief Description
`1014 Defendants’ Preliminary Infringement Contentions, G&H Diversified
`Mfg., LP v. DynaEnergetics Europe GmbH, No. 3:20-cv-00276
`(S.D. TEx. served Mar. 25, 2021)
`1015 Declaration of Mr. Robert A. Parrott accompanying Petition (“Parrott
`First Dec’l”)
`Introduction to Seamless Pipe Manufacturing, The Process Piping (last
`accessed Mar. 22, 2021), available at
`https://www.theprocesspiping.com/introduction-to-seamless-pipe-
`manufacturing/
`1017 Coaxial power connector, Wikipedia (last accessed Mar. 22, 2021),
`available at
`https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coaxial_power_connector
`1018 U.S. Patent No. 5,358,418 to Carmichael (issued Oct. 25, 1994)
`(“Carmichael”)
`1019 United Kingdom Patent Application No. GB 2,404,291 A to Wallace
`(published Jan. 26, 2005) (“Wallace”)
`1020 Discovery Order, G&H Diversified Manufacturing, LP v.
`DynaEnergetics Europe GmbH and DynaEnergetics US, Inc.,
`3:20-cv-00376 (S.D. TEx. issued Mar. 12, 2021) (Doc. 31)
`1021 Order Governing Proceedings in Patent Cases (W.D. TEx. filed Feb. 23,
`2021)
`1022 Return of Summons, DynaEnergetics Europe GmbH and
`DynaEnergetics US, Inc. v. Yellow Jacket Oil Tools, LLC and
`G&H Diversified Manufacturing, LP, 3:20-cv-00376 (W.D.
`TEx. filed Mar. 1, 2021) (Doc. 21)
`1023 Defendants’ Answer to Complaint & Counterclaim, G&H Diversified
`Manufacturing, LP v. DynaEnergetics Europe GmbH and
`DynaEnergetics US, Inc., 3:20-cv-00376 (S.D. TEx. filed Mar. 8,
`2021) (Doc. 28)
`1024 Coil Spring, Wikipedia (last accessed Apr. 2, 2021), available at
`https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coil_spring
`1025 Wireline Hardware Brochure, Hunting Titan, V.9.1 (2012)
`1026 U.S. Patent No. 8,943,943 to Tassaroli (filed Nov. 9, 2012)
`(“Tassaroli”)
`
`- vii -
`
`

`

`PGR2021-00078
`
`
`
`Patent 10,844,697 B2
`
`No. Brief Description
`1027
`Isolation Sub Assembly, LRI Perforating Systems Inc. (Mar. 2008)
`(“LRI”)
`1028 Gilliat et al., New Select-Fire System, Baker Hughes (2012) (“Select-
`Fire System”)
`1029 U.S. Patent No. 9,080,433 to Lanclos et al. (filed Feb. 3, 2012)
`(“Lanclos”)
`1030 U.S. Provisional App. No. 61/439,217 to Lanclos et al. (filed Feb. 3,
`2011) (“Lanclos Provisional”)
`1031 U.S. Patent No. 6,196,325 to Connell et al. (issued Mar. 6, 2001)
`(“Connell”)
`1032 U.S. Patent No. 6,773,312 to Bauer et al. (issued Aug. 10, 2004)
`(“Bauer”)
`1033 Case Readiness Status Report, DynaEnergetics Europe GmbH v. Yellow
`Jacket Oil Tools, LLC, No. 6:20-cv-01110 (W.D. TEx. filed Mar.
`25, 2021) (Doc. 25)
`1034 3-¼” Quick Change Assembly, Owen Oil Tools, (Copyright 2004, Rev.
`8/2002)
`1035 Gun Systems and Accessories Catalog
`1036 May 10, 2021 Letter to DynaEnergetics’ counsel re litigation invalidity
`stipulation
`1037 G&H’s Answer after Yellow Jacket Severed and Transferred,
`DynaEnergetics Europe GmbH v. G&H Diversified Mfg., LP, No.
`6:20-cv-01110 (W.D. TEx. filed Aug. 30, 2021) (Doc. 43)
`1038 G&Hs Invalidity Contentions (Main Document) after Yellow Jacket
`Severed and Transferred, DynaEnergetics Europe GmbH v. G&H
`Diversified Mfg., LP, 3:20-cv-01110 (W.D. TEx. served Aug. 31,
`2021)
`1039 DynaEnergetics’ Preliminary Infringement Contentions (Main
`Document), DynaEnergetics Europe GmbH v. G&H Diversified
`Mfg., LP, 3:20-cv-01110 (W.D. TEx. served July 6, 2021)
`
`- viii -
`
`

`

`PGR2021-00078
`
`
`
`Patent 10,844,697 B2
`
`No. Brief Description
`1040 Order Granting Yellow Jacket’s Notice of Dismissal of Counterclaims
`without Prejudice, DynaEnergetics Europe GmbH v. Yellow
`Jacket Oil Tools, LLC, No. 4:21-cv-2599 (S.D. TEx. issued Sept.
`13, 2021) (Doc. 60)
`1041 DynaEnergetics’ Motion to Dismiss its Claims against Yellow Jacket
`with Prejudice, DynaEnergetics Europe GmbH v. Yellow Jacket
`Oil Tools, LLC, No. 4:21-cv-02599 (S.D. TEx. filed Aug. 24,
`2021) (Doc. 56)
`1042 Yellow Jacket Oil Tools, LLC’s Response to DynaEnergetics’ Motion to
`Dismiss, DynaEnergetics Europe GmbH v. Yellow Jacket Oil
`Tools, LLC, No. 3:21-cv-00240 (S.D. TEx. filed Sept. 14, 2021)
`(Doc. 62)
`1043 Excerpts from Patent Reform Act of 2011 Debate, 157 Cong. Rec.
`S1368–70 (Mar. 8, 2011) (Statement of Senator Kyl)
`1044 Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”), § 2154.01 (9th Ed.,
`Rev. 10.2019, Last Revised June 2020), available at
`https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/index.html
`1045 Final Rejection, Patent App. No. 17/221,219 (Aug. 24, 2021)
`1046 “Connected,” Online Cambridge dictionary, available at
`https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/connected
`(last accessed Aug. 27, 2021)
`Joint Claim Construction Statement, G&H Diversified Manufacturing,
`LP v. DynaEnergetics Europe GmbH and DynaEnergetics US,
`Inc., 3:20-cv-00376 (S.D. TEx. filed July 8, 2021) (Doc. 51)
`1048 Second Declaration of Mr. Robert A. Parrott accompanying Petitioner’s
`Formal Reply (“Parrott Second Dec’l”)
`1049 Nov. 24, 2021 Claim Amendment, U.S. Patent App. No. 17/352,728
`(’697 Patent’s progeny four applications subsequent)
`1050 Nov. 1, 2021 Ex Parte Reexamination No. 90 014,871 Determination
`Ordering Reexam (“EPR Inst. Decision”)
`1051 Feb. 8, 2017 Preliminary Amendment from U.S. Patent No. 9,702,680
`File History (a ’697 Patent ancestor four applications previous).
`1052 Declaration of Mr. Rodney Warfford re Authenticity of Rogman
`Provisional as Filed, Ex. 1053
`
`1047
`
`- ix -
`
`

`

`PGR2021-00078
`
`
`
`Patent 10,844,697 B2
`
`No. Brief Description
`1053 Ex. A to Warfford Declaration, Original U.S. Provisional Patent
`Application No. 61/733,129 Disclosure as Filed on Dec. 4, 2012
`(“Rogman Provisional as Filed”)
`1054 Wyde Declaration accompanying Petitioner’s Formal Reply
`1055 Certificate of Service regarding Original Rogman Provisional
`1056 RCA-Type Electrical Plug Connector, U.S. Patent No. 6,568,964 to
`D’Addario (issued May 27, 2003) (“D’Addario”)
`1057 Dual Contact Banana Connector, U.S. Patent No. 5,915,995 to Meyer et
`al. (issued Jun. 29, 1999) (“Meyer”)
`1058 U.S. Patent No. 5,922,155 to Clouet et al. (issued Jul. 13, 1999)
`(“Clouet”)
`1059 Schlumberger’s U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0112942 A1 to Shah
`(published May 26, 2005) (“Shah”)
`1060 Vibration Damping Tool for Downhole Electronics, U.S. Patent
`Publication No. 2011/0061934 A1 to Jekielek (“Jekielek”)
`(published Mar. 17, 2011)
`
`- x -
`
`

`

`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`The ’697 Patent claims should not have issued because, prior to the ’697
`
`Patent’s filing date, Schlumberger had already filed the Rogman application
`
`disclosing a perforation gun adapter with a pressure-sealed electrical feedthrough
`
`assembly that fluidly isolated adjacent guns. And for the obvious advantages
`
`previously laid out, a POSITA would have predictably added springs and pins with
`
`heads to Rogman’s feedthrough connections (as had been done to so many other
`
`similar devices) or a protrusion to a detonator body that could be called a “head,”
`
`using prior art elements according to their predictable and established functions.
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A. “Connected To” (Claims 1, 9 and 14)
`The Panel should give “connected to” its ordinary meaning of “joined
`
`together” that encompasses items connected “merely through physical contact” and
`
`not in a “manner that resists separation.” DynaEnergetics Europe GmbH (“Dyna”
`
`or “Patent Owner”) proposes excluding such connected items, Paper 18 (“Resp.”) at
`
`29, but to do so the Board “must find support either in the words of the claim[,] . . .
`
`express disclaimer or independent lexicography to justify adding th[e] negative
`
`limitation[s].” Ethicon LLC. v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 847 Fed. App’x 901, 907
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2021) (citation and internal quotes omitted). There is no such support,
`
`and the specification uses the term as it is commonly understood. See Ex. 1001 at
`
`7:58-60 (discussing how a detonator “abuts/connects to” the PCA); 12:62-64
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`
`
`(claiming a detonator “connected to” the PCA).
`
`Dyna asserts that “connected to” has some “industry usage,” Resp. at 29, 31,
`
`but despite providing an expert declaration regarding this term, provides no
`
`evidentiary support for this contention. Ex. 2019 (“Rodgers Second Dec’l”) ¶¶92-
`
`96. Indeed, Dyna’s reliance upon an “Advanced Learner’s Dictionary” for this term
`
`in a parallel litigation is an implicit concession that “connected to” has no special
`
`meaning in the field. Ex. 1047 at 4-5.
`
`Dyna’s reasoning that the Court should write the negative limitation into
`
`“connected to” in claims 1.b, 9, and 14.e, in view of separate limitations 1.f and 14.f
`
`requiring the TSA to “provide a seal,” Resp. 31, does not track. “Connected to” in
`
`Claim 9 refers to a second end of a TSA and Claim 14’s use is referring to the PCA
`
`to detonator connection, not the TSA to carrier connection, neither of which requires
`
`“sealing.” See also Solvay SA v. Honeywell Intern., Inc., 622 F.3d 1367, 1383 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2010) (explaining a “fundamentally different limitation” should not influence
`
`another term’s definition).
`
`Finally, the patentee knew—and knows—how to express a “strong”
`
`connection to the gun carrier. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 3:16-17 (using “locking”);
`
`Ex. 1049 at 10 (using “in sealing engagement”). That patentee “chose a different
`
`term . . . implies a broader scope.” Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp., 483 F.3d 800, 807
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`
`
`B. Indefinite and Non-Enabled Claims
`Dyna has waived its position that these claims are not invalid by improperly
`
`seeking to incorporate by reference its § 112 arguments from Paper 7 (“Prelim.
`
`Resp.”). Resp. 34; see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) (forbidding this incorporation);
`
`RPX Corp. v. Rothschild Connected Devices Innovations, LLC, IPR2016-00443-28,
`
`at 18 (PTAB July 6, 2017) (same).
`
`1. “it is not possible to interrupt the electrical signal” (Claims 2 and 15)
`Even if Patent Owner’s argument that the ’697 Patent teaches a “more robust
`
`assembly” were true, Prelim. Resp. at 33, this fails to enable the “truly
`
`uninterruptable” claim scope, Paper 10 at 36. Indeed, the ’697 Patent provides no
`
`enabling guidance, as it never uses any form of the word “interrupt” outside of
`
`Claims 2 and 15. To the contrary, the ’697 Patent teaches that the PCA and pressure
`
`bulkhead are comprised of “multiple small parts,” Ex. 1001, 8:4-8, 31-42 & Figs. 19
`
`& 32 (i.e., of a nature that is susceptible to electrical interruption, Ex. 1015, ¶¶99-
`
`109). In fact, Dr. Rodgers describes the state of the art of electrical connections as
`
`having “many opportunities for miswiring or other electrical integrity issues,”
`
`Rodgers Second Dec’l. ¶33, further supporting that this limitation is “beyond
`
`reality.” See Raytheon Tech. Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 993 F.3d 1374, 1378, 1382
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2021).
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`
`
`2. “detonator is not physically joined to the electrical connection
`assembly” (Claim 18)
`The only reasonable interpretation of “the electrical connection assembly” in
`
`Claim 18 is that it refers to Claim 14’s preamble that, in turn, includes the detonator.
`
`Therefore, Claim 18 is indefinite and/or not enabled as a matter of law as
`
`“nonsensical and requir[ing] an impossibility,” a detonator not physically joined to
`
`itself. Synchronoss Techs., Inc. v. Dropbox, Inc., 987 F.3d 1358, 1366-67 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2021).
`
`III. ’697 PATENT HAS PRIORITY NO EARLIER THAN JUNE 8, 2017
`Every ’697 Patent claim has an effective priority of no earlier than June 8,
`
`2017. As the Central Reexamination Unit explained, the PCA “configured to relay
`
`an electrical signal” across the bulkhead limitation (found in every claim) was only
`
`enabled after two amendments deleting text teaching the TSA was conductive
`
`because, prior to this change, a “signal would not pass through the bulkhead.”
`
`Exs. 1050 at 8-9 (citing Ex. 1051 at 3-4) & 3006 at 5-7; see also MPHJ Tech. Invs.,
`
`LLC v. Ricoh Ams. Corp., 847 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that
`
`“deletion [of text] from the . . . application . . . contributes [to the] understanding of
`
`the intended scope”). The later priority date removes the need for Rogman
`
`Provisional § 102(d)(2) support. See also Google, LLC v. Ikorongo Tech. LLC,
`
`IPR2021-00204-16, at 9-10 (PTAB Jan. 25, 2022) (Paper 16) (finding priority may
`
`be challenged post-institution).
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`
`
`IV. ROGMAN
`A. Exemplary Illustrations
`Petitioner identifies the following Rogman figures for later reference,
`
`including images from Ex. 1053, the Rogman Provisional as filed prior to USPTO
`
`processing.2 See also Exs. 1052, 1054 (authenticating Ex. 1053).
`
`
`
`
`2 The provisional as filed has color. Petitioner has added all other balloon callouts
`and coloring in this Reply unless otherwise noted.
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`
`
`1. Figures 3
`
`Provisional (Ex. 1007) Fig. 3
`
`Original Provisional (Ex. 1053) Fig. 3
`
`Patent (Ex. 1005) Fig. 3 (Annotation Added)
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`
`
`2. Figures 1, Ends Of
`Provisional (Ex. 1007) Fig. 1
`
`Original Provisional (Ex. 1053) Fig. 1
`
`Patent (Ex. 1005) Fig. 1 (Rotated, and Lead Line 116 Corrected)
`
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`3. Figures 5
`Provisional (Ex. 1007) Fig. 5 (Shown in Part)
`
`
`Original Provisional (Ex. 1053) Fig. 5 (Shown in Part)
`
`Patent (Ex. 1005) Fig. 5 (Corrected3)
`
`
`
`112 Initiator
`
`
`
`3 Petitioner inadvertently misidentified the initiator as the bulkhead in its Petition,
`Paper 1 (“Pet.”) at 49, because the Rogman Patent mislabels the initiator 112 as the
`bulkhead, “116.” Ex. 1048, ¶¶1–4.
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`
`
`B. An Operator Does Not Manually Wire Rogman’s Pin Connector Ends to
`a Corresponding Jack
`Dyna relies upon a “wired bulkhead theory” throughout its entire response,
`
`alleging that in Rogman “a coaxial cable . . . is manually connected to corresponding
`
`connectors in adjacent guns, and [the cable] extends between the guns” to the
`
`corresponding jacks, see e.g., Resp. 2, 39-41, 55-56; but that is not how Rogman is
`
`built or functions.4 Except for listed exceptions, such as the IDC wires to the circuit
`
`board, Ex. 1007, Fig. 4, and the “coaxial or twisted pair cable/wire” that runs to the
`
`shaped charges,5 id. 6 & Figs. 1, 6, Rogman explicitly states that its bulkhead design
`
`does not use wires or manual connections. Ex. 1007 at 13 (“Simple assembly—
`
`eliminates technique sensitive wiring”); id. (extolling that elimination of traditional
`
`sub adapters “eliminates field wiring”); id. at Fig. 5 (noting “connector . . . design
`
`allows [for] a hands-free insertion”); id. at 15 (“Initiator and upper connector . . .
`
`slides into a shaped profile bulkhead”). In reality, Rogman’s PCAs wirelessly and
`
`“automatically align and make electrical contact with electrical connectors within
`
`
`4 Dyna also incorrectly says that Rogman’s feedthrough uses a “seal gland,” Resp.
`55–56, contrary to Rogman’s teaching that the “feedthroughs . . . thread into the
`bulkhead,” Ex. 1007 at 14.
`5
`It is this “coaxial or twisted pair cables” to the shaped charges Mr. Parrott said
`was flexible, Ex. 2020, 95:13–96:18, while clarifying that the pin running through
`Rogman’s bulkhead is only about 3–4 inches, id., “not skinny,” “robust enough for
`the connector,” and “stiff,” id. 92:12–18.
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`
`
`adjacent outer gun carriers,” Resp. 56, just like the ’697 Patent embodiments.
`
`Because Dyna’s wired bulkhead theory is incorrect, so are all of Patent
`
`Owner’s arguments that rely upon it.
`
`C. Rogman’s Bulkhead Meets Claim 1’s “Gun Carrier Connected to the
`TSA” and Claim 1 and 14’s “Provide a Seal” Limitations
`While Rogman’s bulkheads are “connected to” the outer gun carriers in the
`
`sense that they are “joined together” with no space between them—as shown in
`
`Figures 1 & 3, and as Patent Owner described, see Resp. 45, as having a key inserted
`
`into a carrier slot—Rogman’s bulkheads are also connected under Dyna’s proposed
`
`narrower definition because the bulkhead “fits snuggly in the gun carrier to so seal
`
`the loading tube and its contents,” Pet. 49.6
`
`At a fundamental level, Dyna is just wrong that “Rogman simply does not
`
`disclose any sealing function of its bulkhead,” Resp. 49, as Rogman expressly states
`
`there are “seal surfaces on . . . [its] adapters,” Ex. 1007 at 13-14, referring to the
`
`bulkheads, id. Fig. 3 (labeling each bulkhead “ADAPTER”). See also Ex. 1048 ¶12.
`
`
`6 Contrary to Patent Owner’s assertion, Resp. 42 n.7, Petitioner is allowed to
`explain how the “snug” fit meets Patent Owner’s “connected” definition (first
`appearing in a response). See AMC Multi-Cinema, Inc. v. Fall Line Patents, LLC,
`No. 21-1051, 2021 WL 4470062, at *6 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 30, 2021) (Doc. 51). And
`now that Patent Owner has injected the issues into this proceeding, Petitioner also
`has a right to fully respond. Everstar Merch. Co. Ltd. v. Willis Elec.Co., Ltd, No.
`2021-1882, 2022 WL 1089909, at *4 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 12, 2022) (Doc. 44).
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`
`
`And as shown below, the “seal surfaces” on Rogman’s bulkheads include the exact
`
`same o-ring “connections” as the embodiments in the ’697 Patent. Cf. Ex. 1001,
`
`7:60-63 & Figs. 19, 32; Ex. 1048 ¶¶15-16.
`
`Figures 1 (shown in part)
`O-Ring
`
`Figures 3 (shown in part)
`
`O-Ring Notch
`
`O-Ring
`
`O-Ring Notch
`
`O-Ring
`
`O-Ring Notch
`
`O-Rings
`
`O-Rings
`
`
`
`
`(Color in Original)
`
`O-Rings
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Provisional
`
`Provisional as Filed
`
`Patent
`
`The Patent Office also recognized the o-ring sealing function, saying
`
`Rogman’s bulkheads have “seal element notch[es]” for o-rings. Ex. 1045 at 6-7.
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Indeed, Dyna equates “connected to” as “coupling,” Resp. 36, and Rogman
`
`notes that its bulkheads are “coupled to” the string tools (in the same manner that
`
`they are coupled to the carriers) to prevent carrier flooding after perforating charges
`
`have detonated. Ex. 1005, 5:57-6:11; 3:19-24 (describing how bulkheads “isolate”
`
`the loading tubes); Ex. 1048 ¶11.
`
`Dyna also admits that “[t]he term ‘bulkhead’ is a common and accepted
`
`industry term,” Ex. 1010 at 13, adding no qualifier as Dyna imagines there was,
`
`Resp. 46. Rather, Dyna only said it used the term consistently with the industry
`
`meaning. Id. Therefore, a POSITA would understand Rogman’s use of this very
`
`same term to have the very same meaning, indicating Rogman’s bulkhead connects
`
`to and seals with the carrier to “isolate[] adjacent guns” while its feedthrough “passes
`
`an electrical signal between the adjacent guns.” Id.; see also Ex. 1048 ¶¶13-25
`
`(explaining other references define bulkhead in the same manner).
`
`Despite these clear teachings, Patent Owner makes several unsupported and
`
`incorrect counter arguments. First, Dyna says Rogman’s o-rings do not
`
`“necessarily” seal. Resp. 43. But Rogman discloses that “[m]ultiple guns can be
`
`combined in the same string,” the guns have “addressable switches,” and that the
`
`guns have a design that “survive[s] gun shock.” Ex. 1007 at 14-15 & Fig. 4; see also
`
`Rodgers Second Dec’l. ¶24 (explaining this type of “selective perforating” system).
`
`Therefore, the bulkheads must seal all gun contents; otherwise, the non-detonated
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`
`
`guns would not “survive” and remain capable of subsequent address and detonation.
`
`Ex. 1048 ¶¶5-10.
`
`Next, Dyna argues that it is only Rogman’s “seals” that hold pressure.
`
`Resp. 47. But Rogman explicitly discloses that the bulkheads may include electrical
`
`feedthroughs “while maintaining fluid isolation of the . . . space between the carrier
`
`102 and the loading tube 110.” Ex. 1005, 3:59-64. And it is undisputed that the
`
`“seal” is physically positioned “interior of the bulkhead” and does not touch the
`
`carrier, Resp. 46; therefore, the seal alone cannot possibly isolate the space between
`
`the gun carrier and loading tube without the bulkhead also forming a seal with the
`
`outer gun carrier. Ex. 1048 ¶¶5-10.
`
`Dyna’s new argument that Rogman’s o-rings only centralize and absorb shock
`
`but do not seal, Resp. 44, 57, is contrary to Rogman’s teachings that there are
`
`separate “shock absorbers” that may be a “gasket or flange,” not o-rings. Ex. 1005,
`
`3:31-36; Ex. 1007, Fig. 1. Because the bulkhead simultaneously connects to the
`
`outer gun carrier via the o-ring and to the loading tube via the centralizers, see
`
`Ex. 1005, 3:46-57, the bulkhead is able to centralize and seal, while a gasket or
`
`flange absorbs shock, Ex. 1048 ¶17:
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Loading Tube
`
`Shock Absorber
`
`O-rings
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 1 (shown in part).
`
`Centralizers
`
`Gun carrier
`
`
`
`Dyna also argues that if Rogman requires another component, such as a
`
`second gun, for a bulkhead to connect and seal with a first gun, then the limitation
`
`is not met. Resp. 32, 36. First, Rogman does not require a second gun to “connect”
`
`because, like the ’697 Patent, the o-rings grip as soon as they are inserted. Ex. 1048
`
`¶18. Second, even if Rogman required another gun (it does not) Rogman still would
`
`be within the claim scope because the ’697 Patent has “comprising” claims that do
`
`“not exclude additional, unrecited elements.” Gillette Co. v. Energizer Holdings,
`
`Inc., 405 F.3d 1367, 1371-72 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`Finally, Dyna relies upon its expert who speculates that the bulkheads “may
`
`be free to rattle or move,” Resp. 38, but because Dr. Rodgers’s contention cites no
`
`references nor explains why the carrier-to-carrier connection precludes and
`
`overrides the clearly taught carrier-to-bulkhead sealing o-ring connection, Ex. 2019
`
`¶100, his testimony is entitled to little or no weight. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a); see also
`
`Ex. 1048 ¶19 (explaining that the bulkheads are not free to move).
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`
`
`D. Rogman’s “Coaxial Feedthru” Meets Claim 1 and 14’s PCA Limitations
`Dyna is incorrect that Rogman’s “coaxial feedthru” does not meet the “pin
`
`connector assembly” limitations. Resp. 50-57. The term “coaxial feedthru” itself
`
`has meaning: “coaxial” denotes that there are at least two conductors (typically with
`
`a dielectric in between) radially situated about a common axis (i.e., a
`
`multicomponent “assembly”) and “feedthru” signifies a device for passing electrical
`
`signals across distinct environments (such as differing pressures) without breaching
`
`the environmental integrity. Ex. 1048 ¶¶20-25.
`
`And Dyna has conceded that this feedthrough assembly extends beyond the
`
`seals and bulkhead by indicating the ends with red circles in the Provisional (left)
`
`and by coloring the patent Figure 1 (right):
`
`Resp. at 17
`
`Resp. at 19
`
`
`
`
`Dyna now argues that a PCA must have a rigid structure extending through
`
`the entire bulkhead to meet the PCA limitations, Resp. 53-57, but this is wrong for
`
`at least three reasons. First, the limitations’ plain language only requires the
`
`assembly have pin connector e