APPENDIX A
`
`Ice Ban America, Inc. & Earth Friendly Chemicals, Inc.
`v. Patent of Sears Ecological Applications Co., LLC,
`Appeal 2010-009574, Control 95/000,136,
`2010 WL 4913983 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 30, 2010) 
`
`IPR 2013-00154
`Patent No. 7,335,996
`
`TSMC Request for Reconsideration
`Under 37 C.F.R. 42.71(c) - Appendix A
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1
`
`
`2010 WL 4913983 (Bd.Pat.App. & Interf.)
`
`
`Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences
`Patent and Trademark Office (P.T.O.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`*1 Ice Ban America, Inc. & Earth Friendly Chemicals, Inc. Requesters
`v.
`Patent of Sears Ecological Applications Co., LLC Patent Owner and Appellant
`
`Appeal 2010-009574
` Reexamination
` Control 95/000,136 Patent 6,299,793 B1 Technology Center 3900
`
`November 30, 2010
`
`
`For Patent Owner:
`MARJAMA MULDOON BLASIAK & SULLIVAN LLP
`205 SOUTH CLINTON STREET
`SUITE 300
`SYRACUSE, NY 13202
`For Third Party Requesters:
`
`JAMES J. KELLY
`OBLON SPIVAK MCCELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT
`1940 DUKE STREE
`ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
`
`Before RICHARD TORCZON, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ
`Administrative Patent Judges
`DELMENDO
`Administrative Patent Judge
`
`
`
`The Patent Owner (Sears Ecological Applications Co., Inc.) appeals from the Examiner's final decision to reject claims 1-3 and
`7 (Appeal Brief filed July 30, 2008, hereinafter “App. Br.,” Right of Appeal Notice, hereinafter “RAN,” mailed May 10,
`
`DECISION ON APPEAL[FN1]
`
`© 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
`
`IPR 2013-00154
`Patent No. 7,335,996
`
`TSMC Request for Reconsideration
`Under 37 C.F.R. 42.71(c) - Appendix A
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
`2008).[FN2] We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 315(a).
`
`We AFFIRM.
`
`
`PRELIMINARY MATTERS
`
`
`We heard the Patent Owner's oral arguments on November 3, 2010, a transcript of which will be entered into the electronic
`record in due course. Following oral arguments, the Patent Owner filed a facsimile submission on November 11, 2010, styled as
`“APPELLANTS' CLARIFICATION OF EVIDENTIARY RECORD ON APPEAL.”In that submission (pp. 1-2), the Patent
`Owner asserted, inter alia, that it had submitted certain new evidence in response a new argument in the Examiner's Answer
`mailed on April 15, 2009 (Defective Rebuttal Brief filed on May 15, 2009), but the Examiner had refused its entry (Notification
`of Defective Rebuttal Brief mailed on May 29, 2009).
`
`The Patent Owner's facsimile submission is inappropriate. The briefing in this appeal ended upon the Patent Owner's filing of
`the revised Rebuttal Brief. Procedural matters such as the propriety of the Examiner's refusal to enter new evidence should have
`been raised by way of a timely petition pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.181. Because we have jurisdiction over an appeal from a final
`rejection under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 315(a), but not over such petitionable matters - the time period for raising such matters
`having long lapsed, we decline to consider the Patent Owner's submission, including arguments based on evidence not properly
`entered into the record.
`
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`
`The Patent Owner informs us that the patent under reexamination (hereinafter the “'793 Patent”) has been the subject of a
`patent infringement action (“APPELLANTS' NOTICE OF ARGUMENTS TO BE PRESENTED AT ORAL HEARING
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 41.47(E)(2)” filed on October 19, 2010, hereinafter “APPELLANTS' NOTICE,” at 7).[FN3] Ac-
`cording to the Patent Owner, a jury “returned a unanimous verdict that the Defendants had failed to prove any of the claims of
`the '793 Patent were invalid as obvious and/or anticipated by” the same prior art references applied in the current reexamina-
`tion(id.).
`
`*2 Additionally, the Patent Owner points out that the '793 Patent is the parent of two other continuation-in-part (CIP) patents,
`namely United States Patents 6,436,310 B1 and 6,440,325 B1 issued to the same inventors on August 20, 2002 and August 27,
`2002, respectively (hereinafter '310 and '325 Patents). The '310 and '325 CIP Patents were involved in an interference pro-
`ceeding against United States Patent Applications 10/266,975 and 10/690,894 filed October 8, 2002, and October 22, 2003,
`respectively (Interference No. 105,405). In that interference proceeding, this Board held, inter alia, that certain claims of the
`'310 and '325 Patents (which differ from the claims now before us), were unpatentable over United States Patent 5,876,621
`issued to Richard Sapienza on March 2, 1999. Sears Ecological Applications Co., LLC v. MLI Associates, LLC, Interference
`No. 105,405 (Final Decision on Preliminary Motions, Paper 127 at 48-68). On appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 146, the district court
`ruled that the term “water-balance” appearing in the claims of the '310 and '325 Patents closed a specified “aqueous solution” to
`“unrecited components except for incidental impurities found in the recited components” and reversed the Board's decision as
`to this rejection. Sears Ecological Applications Co., LLC v. MLI Associates, LLC, 652 F.Supp.2d 244, 263 (N.D.N.Y. 2009).
`
`The invention of the '793 Patent relates to a “de-icing and anti-icing composition” (claim 1). According to the Patent Owner, the
`
`© 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
`
`IPR 2013-00154
`Patent No. 7,335,996
`
`TSMC Request for Reconsideration
`Under 37 C.F.R. 42.71(c) - Appendix A
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Page 3
`
`invention is marketed and sold under the “Ice B'Gone® II” brand of de-icers (App. Br. 5). Claim 1, which is an original patent
`claim, is reproduced in its entirety below:
`1. A de-icing and anti-icing composition comprising an aqueous solution which contains a low molecular weight carbo-
`hydrate and a chloride salt in which the constituents are present in the following concentration:
`
`
`
`
`
`© 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
`
`
`
`1,776,181
`5,817,252
`GB 796,633
`
`Sept. 16, 1930
`Oct. 6, 1998
`June 18, 1958
`
`Weight %
`Carbohydrate
`3 to 60
`Chloride salt
`5 to 35
`Water
`Balance
`and where said carbohydrate has a molecular weight in the range of about 180 to 1500, and is at least one selected from the
`group consisting of glucose, fructose and higher saccharides based on glucose and/or fructose and mixtures thereof.
`(App. Br., App'x A).
`
`The Examiner relied on the following as evidence of unpatentability (Examiner's Answer mailed April 15, 2009, hereinafter
`“Ans.,” 3):
`
`Collins
`Hu
`Pilgrim
`
`*3 The Patent Owner relied on the following (App. Br., Evidence App'x):
`
`Declaration of E. Bruce Nauman dated July 5, 2006 (Ex. B1);
`
`File History of Collins (Ex. B2);
`
`Declaration of E. Bruce Nauman dated April 5, 2007 (Ex. B3);
`
`Declaration of L. David Minsk dated April 5, 2007 (Ex. B4);
`
`Declaration of John Dellaportas dated April 6, 2007 (Ex. B5); and
`
`The Encyclopedia Americana, “Glucose” (Frederick Converse Beach et al. eds., publication date unknown) (Ex. B6).
`
`The Examiner rejected the claims as follows (Ans. 5):
`I. Claims 1-3 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Pilgrim;
`II. Claims 1, 2, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Collins; and
`III. Claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Collins in view of Hu.
`
`IPR 2013-00154
`Patent No. 7,335,996
`
`TSMC Request for Reconsideration
`Under 37 C.F.R. 42.71(c) - Appendix A
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
`We uphold Rejection I. Because our affirmance of Rejection I addresses the unpatentability of all appealed claims, we do not
`reach Rejections II and III.
`
`
`ISSUES
`
`
`With respect to Rejection I based on Pilgrim, the Patent Owner has argued the claims together (App. Br. 25-28). Accordingly,
`we confine our discussion to claim 1, which we select as representative of the appealed claims. See37 C.F.R. § 41.67(c)(1)(vii).
`
`The Examiner found that Pilgrim describes, either explicitly or inherently, every limitation recited in claim 1 (Ans. 5, 15;
`Request for Inter Partes Reexamination filed on March 14, 2006 at 4-9). According to the Examiner, the appealed “claims,
`due to the non-exclusive term ‘comprising[,]’ are open to the inclusion of other, non-recited components … including [Pil-
`grim's] undissolved calcium hydroxide” (Ans. 15).
`
`The Patent Owner asserts that “Pilgrim cannot anticipate … since none of the compositions comply with the claimed ‘water -
`balance’ limitation, which the District Court ruled closes the claimed aqueous solution to unrecited components except for
`incidental impurities found in the recited components” and thus excludes Pilgrim's calcium hydroxide component (“AP-
`PELLANTS' NOTICE” at 6; App. Br. 27). Additionally, the Patent Owner argues that a jury determined “that the Defendants
`[in a patent infringement action involving the ‘793 Patent] had failed to prove that any of the claims … were invalid as obvious
`and/or anticipated by … Pilgrim”(id. at 7). Furthermore, the Patent Owner contends that Pilgrim does not disclose a “de-icing
`and anti-icing composition” (App. Br. 25).
`
`Thus, the dispositive issues are:
`
`(1) Do the two district court decisions cited by the Patent Owner compel reversal of the Examiner's rejection based on Pilgrim?
`
`*4 (2) If not, did the Examiner err in concluding that the language defining the de-icing and anti-icing composition of claim 1,
`when read in light of the '793 Patent Specification as a whole, is open to calcium hydroxide as described in Pilgrim?
`
`(3) Did the Patent Owner show that Pilgrim's disclosed composition containing relatively small amounts of calcium hydroxide
`cannot function as a “de-icing and anti-icing composition”?
`
`
`
`
`FINDINGS OF FACT (“FF”)
`
`1. Although not identical to the current claims on appeal, the claims of the CIP '310 and '325 Patents involved in Inter-
`ference 105,405 also recited a “de-icing and anti-icing composition comprising an aqueous solution,” in which the last
`specified component was recited as “Water Balance” ('310 Patent, claim 1; '325 Patent, claim 1).
`2. The district court framed the issue in Interference 105,405 as follows: “[W]hether, when read in light of the specification
`and claims stated in the '310 and '325 patents, the term [‘water-balance’] closes the aqueous solution to unrecited com-
`ponents other than incidental impurities and/or harmless ingredients associated with the commercial sources of the recited
`components” (emphasis added).Sears, 652 F.Supp.2d at 261.
`3. Based on its review of the working examples of the '310 and '325 Patents, the district court ruled that “the broadest
`
`© 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
`
`IPR 2013-00154
`Patent No. 7,335,996
`
`TSMC Request for Reconsideration
`Under 37 C.F.R. 42.71(c) - Appendix A
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 5
`
`reasonable construction of the term ‘water-balance’ viewed through the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art
`indicates that the aqueous solution is closed to unrecited components except for incidental impurities found in the recited
`components” (emphasis added).Sears, 652 F.Supp.2d at 263.
`4. The district court did not address the issue of whether the term “comprising” in “de-icing and anti-icing composition
`comprising” opens the claimed de-icing composition to unrecited components.
`5. The district court did not indicate whether it considered the descriptions in the '310 and '325 Patents as a whole, in-
`cluding the disclosures that a colorant, which is an unclaimed component, may be further included in the supposed-
`ly-closed aqueous solution (and thus the overall de-icing and anti-icing composition) ('310 Patent, Example I; '310 Patent
`claim 10; '325 Patent, Example I).
`6. The district court made no finding that a colorant is one of the “incidental impurities found in the recited compo-
`nents.”Sears, 652 F.Supp.2d at 263.
`7. The '793 Patent Specification does not define “comprising” to mean “consisting of” or indicate other closed language.
`8. The '793 Patent Specification states (col. 9, ll. 42-47):
`While the present invention has been particularly shown and described herein with reference to various preferred
`modes it will be understood by one skilled in the art that various changes in detail may be effected therein without
`departing from the spirit and scope of the invention as defined by the claims.
`*5 9. Claim 3 of the '793 Patent states that the composition of claim 1 “further includes a colorant to provide visual aid in
`applying the composition to a surface” (col. 10, ll. 1-3, claim 3).
`10. The '793 Patent states (col. 9, ll. 38-41): “Colorants may also be used to enable applicators to see where the deicer has
`been deposited. Non-toxic colorants which may be used include caramel solutions and food grade dyes.”
`11. Pilgrim discloses “anti-freeze mixtures or to freezing point depressants to lower the freezing point of water” (p. 1, col.
`1, ll. 8-10).
`12. Pilgrim teaches that the composition is especially useful for use in radiators but states that “its use is not to be construed
`as being limited thereto” (p. 1, col. 1, ll. 10-14).
`13. Pilgrim describes a mixture of 16 parts by weight NaCl, 8-48 parts by weight of cane sugar, and 1-4 parts by weight of
`calcium hydroxide (p. 1, col. 1, ll. 42-47).
`14. Pilgrim further teaches that 1 part by weight of the solid mixture is combined with 3 parts of water for protection
`against most extreme degrees of cold (p. 1, col. 2, ll. 48-50, 78-82).
`15. Mr. Naumann states that he is the Patent Owner's expert consultant (Ex. B1, ¶ 1).
`16. Mr. Naumann states that an “antifreeze is quite different from a deicer or anti-icer” in terms of intended use (Ex. B1, ¶
`27).
`17. Mr. Naumann further states that a two-phase mixture is “unsatisfactory as an anti-icer or deicer … because of the need
`to spray the product” (Ex. B3, ¶ 10).
`18. Mr. Minsk states that he is also the Patent Owner's expert consultant (Ex. B4, ¶ 1).
`19. Mr. Minsk testifies that “[d]eicing is the technique of applying a chemical freezing point depressant in either liquid or
`solid form on snow or ice that has formed a bond to the pavement surface that is strong enough to resist removal by con-
`ventional snowplows or ice scrapers,” while “[a]nti-icing is the practice of applying an ice-control chemical to a pavement
`before precipitation begins falling, or at least during the very early stages of an ice or snow event before traffic has com-
`pacted any snow, or any ice has formed” (Ex. B4, ¶¶ 15, 17; emphasis added).
`20. Mr. Minsk states that “freezing-point depression” or “freezing-point depressant” is an important characteristic for ice
`control chemicals for roadways (Ex. B4, ¶ 20).
`
`PRINCIPLES OF LAW
`
`© 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
`
`IPR 2013-00154
`Patent No. 7,335,996
`
`TSMC Request for Reconsideration
`Under 37 C.F.R. 42.71(c) - Appendix A
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Page 6
`
`
`“During reexamination, as with original examination, the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable construction con-
`sistent with the specification …. Therefore, we look to the specification to see if it provides a definition for claim terms, but
`otherwise apply a broad interpretation.”In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citation
`omitted).
`
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`
`*6 The Patent Owner's reliance on the two district court decisions in this appeal is misplaced.
`
`We first address the Patent Owner's argument that a jury determined that the defendants in the '793 Patent litigation failed to
`prove invalidity of the claims over Pilgrim. “In civil litigation, a challenger who attacks the validity of patent claims must
`overcome the presumption of validity [under 35 U.S.C. § 282] with clear and convincing evidence that the patent is invalid.”In
`re Swanson, 540 F.3d 1368, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2008).“If this statutory burden is not met, “‘[c]ourts do not find patents ‘valid,’
`only that the patent challenger did not carry the ‘burden of establishing invalidity in the particular case before the court.’”'Id.
`(quoting Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1429 n. 3 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). By contrast, “[i]n PTO examinations and reex-
`aminations, the standard of proof - a preponderance of the evidence - is substantially lower than in a civil case.”Swanson, 540
`F.3d at 1377 (citation omitted). Also, “unlike in district courts, in reexamination proceedings ‘[c]laims are given ‘their
`broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with the specification ….’”'Swanson, 540 F.3d at 1377-78 (internal citations
`omitted). Thus, “[t]he two forums take different approaches in determining validity and on the same evidence could quite
`correctly come to different conclusions.”Ethicon, 849 F.2d at 1428. Moreover, the PTO was not a party to the patent in-
`fringement action and thus cannot be estopped by its holdings. In re Trans Texas Holdings Corp., 498 F.3d 1290, 1297-98 (Fed.
`Cir. 2007). Therefore, we are not bound by the findings and conclusions of the court in the patent infringement litigation.
`
`As to the district court decision concerning the two CIP patents, there can be no question that the court decision is binding on
`the two parties (the Patent Owner and MLI Associates, LLC) as law of the case in each of those CIP patents, which are not at
`issue here. While similar, the claims of the two CIP patents differ from those of the '793 Patent (FF 1). Based on MLI's ar-
`guments and facts relied upon in court, the court framed the issue as whether the term “water-balance” closes the aqueous
`solution to “unrecited components other than incidental impurities and/or harmless ingredients associated with the commercial
`sources of the recited components” (FF 2). As will be discussed below, that question is different from, and not coextensive with,
`the issues decided here (FF 3-6). The court decision cannot have an estoppel or preclusive effect on a different proceeding of a
`different patent involving different relevant facts. In addition, as in the patent infringement action, the Director did not par-
`ticipate in the court action, and therefore the agency is not bound by the decision as to this reexamination. Indeed, the Patent
`Owner's argument that the court decision should be binding here is directly contrary to the express provisions of 35 U.S.C. §
`146, which states that the Director was not a necessary party in the court action and the court decision merely “authorize[s the
`Director] … to issue such patent on filing in the [PTO] of a certified copy of the judgment and on compliance with the re-
`quirements of law.”
`
`*7 Next, we turn to the substantive merits of the case, starting with claim interpretation. As we indicated, a dispositive issue in
`this case is whether the claim language “de-icing and anti-icing composition comprising an aqueous solution which contains …
`Water Balance [in weight %]” excludes calcium hydroxide (dissolved and/or undissolved), as described in Pilgrim.
`
`
`© 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
`
`IPR 2013-00154
`Patent No. 7,335,996
`
`TSMC Request for Reconsideration
`Under 37 C.F.R. 42.71(c) - Appendix A
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Page 7
`
`By using the open-ended term “comprising,” the inventors of the '793 Patent signaled to one skilled in the relevant art that the
`claimed composition reads on compositions that include unrecited components in addition to the recited “aqueous solution.” In
`re Baxter, 656 F.2d 679, 686 (CCPA 1981).
`
`That, of course, does not end our inquiry. We have also looked to the Specification of the '793 Patent for any enlightenment that
`would have indicated to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventors intended to use the term “comprising” following the
`claimed “de-icing and anti-icing composition” in a closed fashion contrary to normal convention. Even assuming that the
`component “aqueous solution” is closed to calcium hydroxide, the Patent Owner has failed to direct us to any description in the
`'793 Patent that would support the conclusion that the term “comprising” following “de-icing and anti-icing composition”
`closes the claimed composition to only the “aqueous solution” (FF 4, 7) Absent any indication that “comprising” actually meant
`“consisting of” (closed), we are obligated under the law to give the term its broadest reasonable construction - i.e., its normal
`construction.
`
`Moreover, the written description of the '793 Patent as a whole does not support the notion that one skilled in the relevant art
`would have understood the recited “aqueous solution which contains … Water Balance” to be closed except for “unrecited
`components other than incidental impurities and/or harmless ingredients associated with the commercial sources of the recited
`components” (FF 2). For one thing, dependent claim 3, which under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 4, necessarily further limits claim 1,
`recites that the “composition … further includes a colorant” (emphasis added) (FF 9).[FN4] The term “further” indicates that the
`colorant is a component distinct from and in addition to a carbohydrate, chloride salt, and water. While the '793 Patent Speci-
`fication states that “caramel solutions” may be used as a colorant, it also mentions “food dyes” and does not limit the scope of
`“colorant” in any way (FF 8, 10). As the Patent Owner has failed to direct us to any evidence that the colorant is necessarily part
`of “incidental impurities and/or harmless ingredients associated with the commercial sources of the recited components” of the
`“aqueous solution,” we conclude that one skilled in the relevant art would have understood that the claimed de-icing and an-
`ti-icing composition comprising an “aqueous solution … Water Balance” is open to unrecited components.
`
`*8 Relying on the district court interference decision involving the CIP patents, the Patent Owner appears to be arguing that the
`recitation “aqueous solution which contains … Water Balance” should be limited to what are shown in the working examples of
`the '793 Patent. While appealing, we decline to do so because such an approach is contrary to the clear command of the Federal
`Circuit. Trans Texas, 498 F.3d at 1299 (“Even if the examples are so limited (which the PTO disputes), Trans Texas's argument
`conflicts with our decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).”); In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320,
`1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]his court counsels the PTO to avoid the temptation to limit broad claim terms solely on the basis of
`specification passages.”). Moreover, such a construction is contrary to the Specification of the '793 Patent itself, which em-
`phasizes that the “scope of the invention as defined by the claims” should not be limited to “various preferred modes” (FF 8).
`
`Having concluded that the claimed “de-icing and anti-icing composition” does not exclude calcium hydroxide, we turn to the
`teachings of Pilgrim. It is undisputed that Pilgrim describes a composition containing 16 parts by weight of NaCl, 8-48 parts by
`weight of a carbohydrate having a molecular weight within the claimed range (cane sugar), and 1-4 parts by weight of calcium
`hydroxide (FF 11-13). It is also undisputed that Pilgrim discloses mixing 1 part by weight of the resulting solid mixture with 3
`parts by weight water (FF 14).
`
`While Pilgrim does not say that the final composition can be used as a “de-icing and anti-icing composition,” it does teach other
`uses and states that the composition can be used as a freezing point depressant to lower the freezing point of water (FF 11).
`
`© 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
`
`IPR 2013-00154
`Patent No. 7,335,996
`
`TSMC Request for Reconsideration
`Under 37 C.F.R. 42.71(c) - Appendix A
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Page 8
`
`According to Mr. Minsk, the freezing point depressant property is an important characteristic of ice control chemicals for
`roadways (FF 20). Additionally, the calcium hydroxide content of Pilgrim's composition may be as low as 1 part by weight of
`total solids (FF 14). Thus, it would reasonably appear that the prior art composition would inherently or necessarily have the
`recited “de-icing and anti-icing” characteristic in view of the substantial identity in terms of components between the claimed
`composition and the prior art composition. That substantial identity, coupled with Pilgrim's explicit disclosure of freezing point
`depressants, is sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the Patent Owner. The Patent Owner, however, failed to meet its burden.
`In re Schreiber, 128 F. 3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citing In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
`
`*9 We have considered the relied-upon portions of the testimonies of the Patent Owners' experts but find them unconvincing
`(FF 15-20). None of the relied-upon testimonies demonstrate that Pilgrim's mixture containing 1 part by weight of calcium
`hydroxide, when diluted with water, cannot be used as a de-icer and anti-icer. While Mr. Naumann states that a two-phase
`mixture is unsatisfactory as an anti-icer or de-icer to be sprayed (FF 17), the claimed composition is not limited to single-phase,
`sprayable compositions and, in fact, reads on de-icers and anti-icers applied by hand on sidewalks. Nor has the Patent Owner
`shown that 1 part by weight of calcium hydroxide necessarily renders the composition unsuitable as a sprayable de-icer and
`anti-icer. Indeed, Mr. Naumann's testimony (FF 17) appears to be at odds with Mr. Minsk's testimony (FF 19), which states that
`a de-icer can be in the form a solid.
`
`For these reasons, we discern no error in the Examiner's rejection based on Pilgrim.
`
`
`DECISION
`
`
`The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-3 and 7 is AFFIRMED.
`
`Requests for extensions of time in this inter partes reexamination proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.956. See37 C.F.R.
`§ 41.79.
`
`
`AFFIRMED
`
`
`FN1. The one-month time period for filing a request for rehearing, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.79, and the two-month time
`period for filing an appeal, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304 (see37 C.F.R. § 1.983(b)(1)), both begin to run from the “MAIL
`DATE” shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
`
`FN2. Claims 4-6 and 8, which are directed to embodiments in which the aqueous solution also contains a thickener, have been
`indicated as patentable (RAN, PTOL-2066).
`
`FN3. In contrast to our disposition of the Patent Owner's improper submission on November 11, 2010, we have considered the
`Patent Owner's arguments in “APPELLANTS' NOTICE OF ARGUMENTS TO BE PRESENTED AT ORAL HEARING
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 41.47(E)(2)” filed on October 19, 2010, because they are based on two district court decisions
`rendered after the briefing period ended.
`
`FN4. When pressed at oral argument, the Patent Owner's counsel confirmed that claim 3 does not simply duplicate claim 1.
`
`© 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
`
`IPR 2013-00154
`Patent No. 7,335,996
`
`TSMC Request for Reconsideration
`Under 37 C.F.R. 42.71(c) - Appendix A
`
`

`
`Page 9
`
`
`
`
`
`2010 WL 4913983 (Bd.Pat.App. & Interf.)
`
`END OF DOCUMENT
`
`
`
`© 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
`
`IPR 2013-00154
`Patent No. 7,335,996
`
`TSMC Request for Reconsideration
`Under 37 C.F.R. 42.71(c) - Appendix A