`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`CLARIANT CORPORATION
`
`PETITIONER
`
`V.
`
`CSP TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`
`PATENT OWNER
`
`____________
`
`CASE IPR 2014-00375
`
`PATENT 8,528,778
`
`____________
`
`EXPERT DECLARATION OF DR. TIM OSSWALD RELATING
`TO INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,528,778
`
`
`000001
`
`CSP Ex. 2001
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`V.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1
`I.
`II. QUALIFICATIONS AND MATERIALS CONSIDERED ................................. 1
`A. Qualifications ....................................................................................................... 1
`B. Materials Considered .......................................................................................... 4
`III. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ................................................. 5
`IV. BASIC LEGAL PRINCIPLES .................................................................................... 6
`A. General Principles ............................................................................................... 6
`B.
`Anticipation ......................................................................................................... 6
`C. Nonobviousness .................................................................................................. 7
`TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW .................................................................................. 8
`A. General Background Information .................................................................... 8
`B.
`Clariant’s Early Vial Products ........................................................................... 9
`C. Kodak Film Vials .............................................................................................. 10
`VI. BACKGROUND RELATING TO THE ’778 PATENT ................................... 12
`A.
`The Inventions Claimed By The ’778 Patent ............................................... 12
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ...................................................................................... 13
`VIII. REBUTTAL TO MR. SHEEHAN’S OPINIONS THAT THE
`ASSERTED CLAIMS ARE ANTICIPATED BY HEKAL WO ’108 .............. 13
`IX. THE ASSERTED CLAIMS ARE NOT OBVIOUS OVER WHEELER
`’475 IN VIEW OF HEKAL ’108, HEKAL ’937 OR SACHERER ’064 ........... 30
`REVISION OR SUPPLEMENTATION ............................................................... 38
`
`X.
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`000002
`
`CSP Ex. 2001
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`I have been retained as an expert witness for the Inter Partes Review
`
`(“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,528,778 (“the ’778 Patent; Ex. 1001) filed by Clariant
`
`(“Petitioner”). I have been asked to provide my opinions and views on the materials
`
`that I have reviewed in this case related to the ’778 Patent and the scientific and
`
`technical knowledge regarding the same subject matter before the priority date of the
`
`claims of the ’778 Patent. I have been asked to render opinions for this IPR as to the
`
`patentability of claims 1-7 (the “Challenged Claims”) of the ’778 Patent.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS AND MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`A. Qualifications
`2.
`I am currently a Professor at the University of Wisconsin in the
`
`Department of Mechanical Engineering, where I am the co-Director of the Polymer
`
`Engineering Center. I am also an Honorary Professor of Plastics Technology at the
`
`University of Erlangen-Nuremberg in Germany.
`
`3.
`
`I earned both a Bachelor of Science Degree (1981) and a Master of
`
`Science Degree (1982) in Mechanical Engineering from the South Dakota School of
`
`Mines & Technology. I also earned a Ph.D. (1987) in Mechanical Engineering from
`
`the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. My doctoral research was in the field
`
`of polymer processing.
`
`4.
`
`From 1987 to the present I have held a variety of professional and
`
`academic positions. I was a consultant for the Dynamit Nobel Research Center in
`
`
`
`
` 1
`
`000003
`
`CSP Ex. 2001
`
`

`

`
`
`Leverkusen, Germany, as well as a Humboldt Fellow at the Institute for Plastics
`
`Processing at the Technical University of Aachen, Germany, between 1987 and 1989.
`
`In 1989, I joined the Mechanical Engineering Department at the University of
`
`Wisconsin-Madison as an Assistant Professor. I became a Full Professor in 1999.
`
`5.
`
`I am a member of numerous professional societies and organizations.
`
`For example, the Society of Plastics Engineers, the Scientific Alliance of the
`
`University Professors of Polymer Technology and the German Technical Journalists
`
`Organization (DFJV).
`
`6.
`
`For over 25 years, I have conducted research and taught classes in the
`
`field of mechanical engineering, and more specifically regarding polymers and
`
`polymer processing. My research has focused on polymer and polymer composites
`
`processing, polymer and polymer composites materials science, and engineering
`
`design with polymers and polymer composites. Furthermore, I regularly serve as a
`
`consultant to the plastics industry and have extensive experience dealing with the
`
`design and manufacture of plastic parts, such as for automotive applications,
`
`packaging and consumer goods.
`
`7.
`
`At the University of Wisconsin-Madison, I teach a variety of courses,
`
`including Manufacturing Processes, Introduction to Competitive Manufacturing,
`
`Engineering Design with Polymers and Modeling and Simulation in Polymer
`
`Processing.
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`000004
`
`CSP Ex. 2001
`
`

`

`
`
`8.
`
`In addition to my teaching and research duties at the University of
`
`Wisconsin-Madison, every summer I teach the course Modeling and Simulation in Polymer
`
`Processing at the University of Nuremberg-Erlangen in Germany. I have also taught the
`
`courses Materials Science of Polymers for Engineers and Polymer Processing at the EAFIT
`
`University and the National University in Colombia.
`
`9.
`
`Over the years, my research and teaching have led to the issuance of
`
`many patents, honors and awards. For example, in 2001, I was the recipient of the
`
`VDI-K Dr.-Richard-Escales-Prize, in 2006, I was named Honorary Professor of the
`
`University of Erlangen-Nuremburg in Germany, and in 2011, I received an Honorary
`
`Professorship at the National University of Colombia.
`
`10.
`
`I have also published over 200 papers in the field of polymer engineering
`
`and have authored 10 books in the area: Polymer Materials Science for Engineers (Hanser
`
`Publishers, 1st Edition 1996, 2nd Edition 2003, 3rd Edition 2012), Polymer Processing
`
`Fundamentals (Hanser Publishers, 1998), Injection Molding Handbook (Hanser Publishers,
`
`1st Edition 2001, 2nd Edition 2006), and Compression Molding (Hanser Publishers, 2003),
`
`Polymer Processing – Modeling and Simulation (Hanser Publishers, 2006), Plastics Handbook
`
`(Hanser Publishers 2006), Kunststoff-Taschenbuch (Hanser Publishers 2006), Plastics
`
`Testing and Characterization (Hanser Publishers 2007), Understanding Polymer Processing
`
`(Hanser Publishers 2010) and Understanding Plastics Rheology (to be published by Hanser
`
`Publishers 2012). Some of my books have been translated into Chinese, Japanese,
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`000005
`
`CSP Ex. 2001
`
`

`

`
`
`Spanish, Italian and Russian. I am also the series editor for the Plastics Pocket Power
`
`Series of Hanser Publishers.
`
`11. My academic and professional background and qualifications are further
`
`elaborated in my curriculum vitae attached as Exhibit A. This curriculum vitae
`
`includes a list of all publications that I have authored in the previous ten (10) years. A
`
`list of cases in which I have testified as an expert at trial or by deposition in the last
`
`four years can be found in the attached Exhibit A.
`
`12.
`
`I am being compensated at my customary rate of $500 per hour for my
`
`work on this case. I am being compensated for my travel time at my customary rate
`
`of $250 per hour. In addition, I am being reimbursed for my reasonable expenses
`
`incurred in connection with my work on this case. My compensation is independent
`
`of the content of my opinions and does not depend on the outcome of this litigation.
`
`B. Materials Considered
`13.
`
`In developing my opinions for this Declaration, I have relied upon my
`
`education, knowledge and experience. In addition, I have also considered materials
`
`cited in this Declaration and the materials and items listed below:
`
`• United States Provisional Patent Application No. 60/417,533;
`
`• United States Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0084735;
`
`• United States Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0000930;
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`000006
`
`CSP Ex. 2001
`
`

`

`
`
`• The ’778 Patent and prosecution history of it and the patents and prosecution
`
`histories of applications related to the ’778 patent;
`
`• Hekal WO ’108 Patent;
`
`• Wheeler ’475 Patent;
`
`• Abrams ’056 Patent;
`
`• Sacherer ’064 Patent;
`
`• Ostrowski ’880 Patent;
`
`• Hekal ’937 Patent;
`
`• Clariant’s IPR Petition and exhibits attached thereto;
`
`• Mr. Sheehan’s Declaration in support of Clariant’s IPR Petition and exhibits
`
`attached thereto; and
`
`• PTAB Decision instituting IPR relating to the ’778 Patent.
`
`14.
`
`I reserve the right to consider, rely on, and supplement this report in
`
`view of additional information that is provided to me in this IPR, including further
`
`information submitted by Clariant or its expert.
`
`III. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`15.
`I understand that a person having ordinary skill in the art may be defined
`
`by factors such as: (a) the levels of education and experience of the inventor and other
`
`persons actively involved in the field; (b) the types of problems encountered in the
`
`
`
`
` 5
`
`000007
`
`CSP Ex. 2001
`
`

`

`
`
`field; (c) prior art solutions to those problems; (d) rapidity with which innovations are
`
`made; and (e) the sophistication of the technology.
`
`16.
`
`It is my opinion that a person having ordinary skill in the art relevant to
`
`the ’778 Patent would have engineering training reflected by a bachelor’s degree in the
`
`field of mechanical engineering or materials science engineering and 5 years of
`
`industrial experience designing products manufactured by injection molding, or
`
`equivalent experience or education.
`
`IV. BASIC LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`17.
`I have been provided certain legal principles by counsel relating to
`
`validity. In conducting my analysis set forth in this report, I have been guided by
`
`these principles as set forth below.
`
`A.
`18.
`
`General Principles
`
`I understand that Petitioner has the burden to prove unpatentability by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence.
`
`B.
`19.
`
`Anticipation
`
`I understand that the anticipation analysis is a two-step process. The
`
`first step is to construe the claims of the patent. The second step is to compare the
`
`claims to the prior art.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is anticipated if, as viewed by a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art, a single prior art reference discloses each and every claim
`
`
`
`
` 6
`
`000008
`
`CSP Ex. 2001
`
`

`

`
`
`limitation. I further understand that the single prior art reference must disclose the
`
`claim limitations in the manner that they are arranged in the claim(s).
`
`21.
`
`I understand that there are two ways that a limitation can be present in a
`
`prior art reference: expressly and inherently. Inherent anticipation requires that the
`
`missing element is necessarily present, not merely probably or possibly present, in the
`
`prior art reference.
`
`C. Nonobviousness
`22.
`
`I understand that the obviousness inquiry requires a determination of
`
`whether the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious to a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject matter pertains. I understand that
`
`a person having ordinary skill in the art is a person of ordinary creativity.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that the nonobivousness analysis involves consideration of
`
`four factors: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the
`
`prior art and the claims; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) the existence
`
`of objective indicia of nonobviousness such as commercial success, long felt but
`
`unresolved need, failure of others, skepticism of those skilled in the art, copying, and
`
`praise for the claimed invention.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that determining the differences between the claimed
`
`invention and the prior art as a whole requires construing the claims of the patent and
`
`considering both the invention and the prior art as a whole.
`
`
`
`
` 7
`
`000009
`
`CSP Ex. 2001
`
`

`

`
`
`25.
`
`I further understand that a claimed invention composed of several
`
`elements is not obvious merely because each of the elements may have been
`
`independently known in the prior art. That is because I understand that it is
`
`impermissible to use the claimed invention as an instruction manual or template to
`
`piece together the teachings of the prior art so that the claimed invention is rendered
`
`obvious. In other words, I understand that one cannot use hindsight reconstruction
`
`to pick and choose among isolated disclosures in the prior art to deprecate the
`
`claimed invention. As such, even if the collective prior art discloses all of the claim
`
`limitations, it is important to proffer evidence indicating why a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would combine the references in such a way as to arrive at the claimed
`
`invention.
`
`V. TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW
`General Background Information
`A.
`26. Many different types of seals exist in the prior art. The type of seal that
`
`one would use in a given container and lid assembly will depend on the intended
`
`purpose or use of the container. While numerous sealing arrangements existed in the
`
`prior art, none involved the precise combination of elements claimed in the ’778
`
`Patent.
`
`27.
`
`Plastics engineers have used several closing or sealing mechanisms for a
`
`long time. The simplest one, for example, is a press-fit mechanism, where one part is
`
`forced fit into another part and held together by a combination of compressive hoop
` 8
`
`
`
`
`000010
`
`CSP Ex. 2001
`
`

`

`
`
`stresses and friction. In a press fit assembly an oversized shaft or cylinder is fitted
`
`into a hole in the mating part, as schematically depicted in Figure 1. A common
`
`example of this type of assembly is that of LEGO® toys.
`
`Figure 1. Press fit assembly (Compression)
`
`
`
`28.
`
`In his report, Mr. Sheehan copies Figure 8 from United States Patent
`
`Number 6,299,033. Mr. Sheehan asserts that this figure illustrates that “[s]ome
`
`assemblies use even more seals [i.e., more than two seals].” Ex. 1008, Sheehan Decl. ¶
`
`23.) Mr. Sheehan does not assert if any of the depicted seals disclose all the claim
`
`limitations of the ’778 Patent claims. In fact, Mr. Sheehan fails to indicate why these
`
`seals are relevant at all to his analysis.
`
`B. Clariant’s Early Vial Products
`29. Mr. Sheehan asserts in his report that “Clariant has been designing and
`
`developing sealed container and lid assemblies for a number of years.” (Ex. 1008,
`
`Sheehan Decl. ¶ 30.) Contrary to Mr. Sheehan’s opinions, however, before recently
`
`launching the accused product at-issue in the related litigation, I am not aware of any
`
`product of Clariant or its predecessors that contained the precise container and lid
`
`assembly claimed by the ’778 Patent.
`
`
`
`
` 9
`
`000011
`
`CSP Ex. 2001
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`30.
`
`For example, in or about July of 2001, Petitioner had their HDI Product.
`
`That product, which in previous litigation between the parties was found to infringe
`
`CSP’s patents, did not contain at least the required “lip of the top of the container
`
`includes an outwardly facing extension” or “snap-fit configuration” claimed by the
`
`’778 Patent.
`
`
`
`31.
`
`Petitioner and Mr. Sheehan did not seek and the Board did not institute
`
`review relating to any alleged Clariant product. Mr. Sheehan’s discussion of the
`
`infringing HDI vial is, therefore, irrelevant.
`
`C. Kodak Film Vials
`32. Based on a micro CT analysis, Mr. Sheehan asserts in his report that
`
`Kodak film vials disclose “a flexible lip seal member for an inner seal together with a
` 10
`
`000012
`
`CSP Ex. 2001
`
`

`

`
`
`snap-fit for an outer seal.” I disagree with his opinion for at least the reasons set
`
`forth below.
`
`33. There are fundamental differences between the Kodak film vial and the
`
`invention claimed in the ’778 Patent. First, the container and the lid of the Kodak
`
`film vial are made of different materials. In this type of vial, and other types of
`
`containers such as Tupperware containers, the container portion is made of a more
`
`rigid polymer, such as high-density polyethylene, and the lid portion is made of a
`
`more flexible low-density polyethylene. This allows the lid to be pulled tightly over
`
`the container portion with ease. Similarly, in such an arrangement the lid is removed
`
`from the container by peeling it off, as the cap or lid is bent away from the container.
`
`Secondly, in the Kodak film vial the lid is not attached to the container with a hinge.
`
`The lid, therefore, closes on the container differently than the claimed hinged
`
`containers of the ’778 Patent. The fact that the container and lid are made of
`
`completely different materials, however, makes it impossible to integrate the
`
`container and lid into a single part using a hinge. Hence, the fact that two different
`
`materials are used, the whole design points away from a lid hinged to the container.1
`
`Finally, there are numerous other differences between the Kodak film vial and the
`
`claimed invention of the ’778 Patent, including that it does not include a desiccant.
`
`For at least all of these reasons, the Kodak film vial is irrelevant.
`
`1 Petitioners did not even include the Kodak film vial or any “early Clariant vial” as
`part of any grounds for unpatentability. These references are therefore completely
`irrelevant for this additional reason.
`
`
`
` 11
`
`000013
`
`CSP Ex. 2001
`
`

`

`
`
`VI. BACKGROUND RELATING TO THE ’778 PATENT
`The Inventions Claimed By The ’778 Patent
`A.
`34. On its face, the ’778 Patent states that it was filed as Application
`
`Number 13/533,233 on June 26, 2012 and issued on September 10, 2013.2
`
`35. The ’778 Patent generally relates to a resealable container and lid
`
`assembly that has a lip snap seal and that can be used for the storing and packaging
`
`of moisture sensitive items. As the ’778 Patent discloses, this resealable container
`
`and lid assembly can be used to store a variety of moisture sensitive items, including,
`
`for example, candy, breath-freshening strips, drug delivery strips, and diagnostic test
`
`strips. See e.g., Ex. 1001, ’778 Patent cols. 1-2. Because the sealing mechanism
`
`described in the ’778 Patent can be used to protect a variety of different moisture-
`
`sensitive
`
`items, e.g., breath-freshening strips and diagnostic test strips, the
`
`specification of the ’778 Patent discloses several containers of different shapes and
`
`configurations that can incorporate the claimed sealing mechanism. See, e.g., Ex.
`
`1001, ’778 Patent Figs. 1-14. The ability to reseal the container and lid is an
`
`important feature because, in use, a container that holds, for example diagnostic test
`
`strips, needs to be opened and closed multiple times during its life.
`
`
`2 Mr. Sheehan incorrectly asserts that the ’778 Patent was filed as Application No.
`11/171,171 on June 30, 2005 and issued on May 26, 2009. Ex. 1008, Sheehan Decl. ¶
`44.
`
`
`
` 12
`
`000014
`
`CSP Ex. 2001
`
`

`

`
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`36.
`
`For purposes of this IPR only, I have applied the claim construction
`
`adopted by the Board in its Decision to institute Inter Partes Review.
`
`VIII. REBUTTAL TO MR. SHEEHAN’S OPINIONS THAT THE
`ASSERTED CLAIMS ARE ANTICIPATED BY HEKAL WO ’108
`37. Mr. Sheehan asserts that International Publication No. WO 96/33108 to
`
`Hekal (“Hekal WO ’108”) anticipates the asserted claims of the ’778 Patent. More
`
`specifically, Mr. Sheehan asserts that the element depicted as number 74 in Figure 1
`
`of Hekal ’108 is “a flexible lip seal member” that “is designed to be sufficiently
`
`deflective so as to provide a sealing position….” See, e.g., Ex. 1008, Sheehan Decl. at
`
`52-53.) I disagree.
`
`38. Hekal WO ’108 is entitled “Desiccant Material Included In A Closed
`
`Container.” Ex. 1015, Hekal WO ‘108. It is generally directed towards the use of
`
`desiccants to protect a container’s contents from moisture.
`
`39.
`
`Figure 1 of Hekal WO ’108 depicts a container. However, because
`
`Hekal WO ’108 is generally directed towards the use of desiccants to protect a
`
`container’s contents from moisture, the specification of Hekal WO ’108 does not
`
`describe the sealing mechanism, if any, depicted in Figure 1. For example, Hekal
`
`WO ’108 does not describe or illustrate the element depicted by number 74 in Figure
`
`1 as being “flexible” or “designed to be sufficiently deflective so as to provide a
`
`sealing position.”
`
`
`
`
` 13
`
`000015
`
`CSP Ex. 2001
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`40. Given that the sealing relationship was not the focus and the sparse
`
`discussion of the structural aspects of the container disclosed in Hekal WO ’108, it is
`
`unclear that one of ordinary skill in the art would look to this patent for its purported
`
`sealing disclosure. Even if one of ordinary skill in the art did look to this patent, it
`
`appears that Figure 1 of Hekal WO ’108 was taken from United States Patent No.
`
`4,783,056 to Abrams (the “Abrams ’056 Patent”). See Ex. 1016, ’056 Abrams Patent
`
`at Fig. 5. Mr. Sheehan’s assertion that Hekal WO ’108 anticipates is based on its
`
`incorporation of the Abrams ’056 Patent by reference into its disclosure. Hekal WO
`
`’108 at 4. Thus, assuming one of ordinary skill in the art did look to Hekal WO ’108
`
`for a disclosure of a sealing relationship, they would have to look at the Abrams ’056
`
`Patent.
`
`41. The Abrams ’056 Patent does not disclose the invention of the ’778
`
`Patent as recited in the asserted claims. The Abrams ’056 Patent is generally directed
`
`towards a process for making an aseptic vial and cap. The disclosed vials and caps
`
`“are used to collect samples, e.g., in the dairy industry.” Ex. 1016, Abrams ’056
`
`Patent, col. 1, lns. 22-25.
`
`42. To be clear, the Abrams ’056 Patent discloses a cap that has a rim and
`
`“annular seal 74” that “project[s] from the interior surface 70 of the vial cap 14.”
`
`Abrams ’056 Patent at col. 5, lns. 50-55. The annular seal 74 and the rim of the cap
`
`create a “gap 81.” Id. at col. 5, lns. 63-67. “The seal 74, the gap 81 and the cap rim
`
` 14
`
`000016
`
`CSP Ex. 2001
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`combine to form an annular region for interlocking with the interlocking annular
`
`region on the vial.” Id.
`
`43.
`
`Importantly, the Abrams ’056 Patent explains that the relationship
`
`between the annular seal, the cap rim and the annular region of the vial as a
`
`“guiding” and “nesting” relationship:
`
`The end surface 79 [of the annular seal 74] is angled so as to guide the
`
`upper edge 62 of the vial wall into the annular gap 81 formed between
`
`the seal 74 and the outer cap rim.
`
`***
`
`The annular ridge 63 of the vial 12 is designed to fit within the gap 81,
`
`with the 21° tapered surface 67 of the ridge 63 nesting with the 21°
`
`tapered surface 87 of the cap rim.
`
`***
`
`When the cap 14 is being seated on the vial 12, the radius 76 formed on
`
`the end of the annular seal 74, together with the end surface 79 of the
`
`seal 74 facilitates the guiding of the cap 14 onto the vial 12….
`
`After the seal 74 has been guided within the vial 12, the annular ridge 63
`
`fits within the gap 81, adjacent the wall section 85. The angled surface
`
`87 nests against the angled surface 67 of the annular ridge 63 and helps
`
`prevent the cap 14 from inadvertently becoming unseated from the vial
`
`12.
`
` 15
`
`000017
`
`CSP Ex. 2001
`
`

`

`
`
`Id. at col 6., lns. 2-5, 22-25; col. 8, lns. 28-40 (underline added).
`44. The figure below graphically depicts the “guiding” and “nesting” closing
`
`and sealing mechanism as described by the Abrams ’056 Patent.
`
`
`45. The Abrams ’056 Patent describes the necessary elements required to
`
`guide the annular ridge on a vial into a gap within the cap of the container during
`
`closing, resulting in an annular ridge on the vial that is nested within the gap of the
`
`cap, creating a sealed container. Id. at col 6., lns. 2-5, 22-25; col. 8, lns. 28-40. For
`
`this application, the required seal is achieved without deflecting the seal element 74.
`
`Id. After closing the annular ridge 63 becomes nested in that gap, and the seal
`
`element 74 is not deflected, as shown above. Id.
`
`
`
`
` 16
`
`000018
`
`CSP Ex. 2001
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`46. Mr. Sheehan provides no analysis or explanation for how the disclosed
`
`“nesting” and/or “guiding” relationship of the Abrams ’056 Patent is a disclosure of,
`
`for example, “a flexible lip seal member” “wherein the flexible lip seal member is
`
`designed to be sufficiently deflective so as to provide a sealing position” or
`
`“deflected in the closed position” as claimed in the ’778 Patent.
`
`47. The Abrams ’056 Patent does not state or show the lip seal member 74
`
`is flexible or deflective. Abrams ’056 therefore never discloses that element 74 is “a
`
`flexible lip seal member” that “is designed to be sufficiently deflective so as to
`
`provide a sealing position.” As discussed above, Abrams ’056 discloses a nesting
`
`relationship and that “annular ridge 63 fits within the gap 81.”
`
`48. Although there is no disclosure that element 74 is flexible or deflective,
`
`Mr. Sheehan contends that element 74 must nevertheless be the claimed flexible and
`
`deflective lip seal. Ex. 1008, Sheehan Decl. ¶ 53. Mr. Sheehan apparently contends
`
`that Abrams ’056 inherently discloses that item 74 is flexible and deflects.
`
`49. Mr. Sheehan’s inherent disclosure opinion is based on example
`
`measurements cobbled together from different parts of Abrams ’056’s specification
`
`that he believes discloses a lip of the container that is approximately 40% wider than
`
`the gap on the lid.
`
`50. Mr. Sheehan states that “when the cap 14 is closed onto the container
`
`body 12, the interference fit between the sealing bead of the lip seal member 74 and
`
`the interior side of the container body 12 causes the lip seal member 74 to flex and
` 17
`
`000019
`
`CSP Ex. 2001
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`deflect radially inwardly.” Mr. Sheehan’s opinion that there is an “interference fit” is
`
`based on his selection of different exemplary dimensions from different parts of the
`
`specification. Specifically, Mr. Sheehan contends that the thickness of the top of the
`
`container is 0.044” and that the gap between the skirt of the lid and the annular seal
`
`74 is 0.032”. Mr. Sheehan admits that according to his calculations the top of the
`
`container would be 37% larger than the gap it is intended to rest in.
`
`51.
`
`First, I disagree with Mr. Sheehan that the Abrams ’056 Patent discloses
`
`a thicker container lip than the gap in the lid. The Abrams ’056 Patent expressly
`
`states that the container lid should nest and fit within the gap. Second, one of skill in
`
`the art would not pick and choose exemplary dimensions from the specification and
`
`conclude that the container lip should be 40% larger than the gap in the lid.
`
`52. One of ordinary skill in the art would not expect that a container having
`
`a lip approximately 40% larger than the gap would properly close or seal. If the
`
`container lip is approximately 40% larger than the gap between item 74 and the skirt
`
`of the lid, the lid would deform beyond the yield strength of the plastic when the lid
`
`and container are forced together. A finite element analysis (FEA) model was
`
`generated with the dimensions of the container-lid arrangement of the ’056 Abrams
`
`Patent (Figure 1) as asserted by Mr. Sheehan.
`
`53.
`
`Specifically, a finite element analysis was performed to simulate the
`
`closing of the cap on the vial described in the Abrams ’056 patent as asserted by Mr.
`
`Sheehan. A FEA model was performed using the commercial software program
` 18
`
`000020
`
`CSP Ex. 2001
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`ANSYS using standard mechanical properties for polypropylene and as the boundary
`
`condition for forced displacement of the lid. Only the top 0.75 inches of the vial was
`
`used in the FEA model and the geometry of the cap and vial was represented using
`
`10-noded tetrahedral elements and 20-noded bricks.
`
`FEA model of the ’056 Patent vial
`
`
`
`54. The stress-strain behavior of a typical polypropylene is presented in the
`
`figure below. This specific polypropylene, which yields at a stress of about 34 MPa,
`
`was used in the FEA analysis discussed below.
`
` 19
`
`000021
`
`CSP Ex. 2001
`
`

`

`
`
`Stress-strain curve for a typical polypropylene.3
`
`
`
`55. During the simulation the cap had a forced downward displacement
`
`along the vertical axis. This displacement occurs until the inner top surface of the cap
`
`meets the upper surface of the vial. The strains and stresses are then monitored as a
`
`result of the forced cap displacement. During closing, the strains and stresses are
`
`computed by ANSYS using successive small time steps. The stresses within the
`
`system are then used to compute the overall force required to close the cap.
`
`56. The figure below presents four snapshots of the simulated assembly
`
`process of the Abrams ’056 Patent with a container lip and lid assembly as asserted
`
`by Mr. Sheehan.
`
`
`3 Osswald, T.A., and Menges, G., Materials Science of Polymer for Engineers, 3rd
`Edition, Hanser Publishers, Munich (2012).
` 20
`
`
`
`(a)
`
`000022
`
`CSP Ex. 2001
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`(d)
`
`Simulated assembly process
`
`57. The various snapshots show different stages during the closing process.
`
`Snapshot (a) presents the point of maximum closing force (80N), as the sharp corner
`
`on the vial top tries to slide along the inclined surface on the cap, as the vial walls are
`
`compressed inwardly. During this stage the stresses within the system reach a
`
`maximum 40MPa, which is above the yield stress of the polypropylene used in the
`
`model. The subsequent snapshots show various stages during the closing process.
`
`The colors shown in the snapshots above represent the stresses within the system,
`
` 21
`
`000023
`
`CSP Ex. 2001
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`which were between 0 and 59MPa. It is clear from this FEA that that cap in this
`
`system would be significantly damaged during closing due to the excessively high
`
`stresses.
`
`58. Hence, the model and analysis show that the container and lid assembly
`
`that Mr. Sheehan contends is disclosed in the Abrams ’056 Patent is not feasible.
`
`59.
`
`For example, if the container lip is 37% larger than the gap it is intended
`
`to fit into as asserted by Mr. Sheehan, the container lip would damage and deform
`
`the lid. See analysis and snapshots above. The model and analysis show that the lid
`
`would be deformed and damaged to the point that the lid would not seal properly.
`
`60.
`
`Furthermore, the container and lid as asserted by Mr. Sheehan would
`
`not be resealable as required by the claims of the ’778 Patent. As shown in the figure
`
`below, the container and cap are deformed and damaged and would not be
`
`resealable.
`
`Stress field within the ’056 Patent vial when the lid is forced onto the container.
`
`61.
`
`In addition to all of the reasons set forth above, the dimensions set forth
`
`by Mr. Sheehan also cannot be correct because such a vial would not be closeable.
`
`
`
` 22
`
`000024
`
`CSP Ex. 2001
`
`

`

`
`
`The analysis above was simulated without friction, yet the maximum force required
`
`to force the lid onto the container was 80N (18 lb).
`
`62. These forces are much higher
`
`than, for example,
`
`the forces
`
`recommended by Military Standard 1472F4, which recommends a design standard
`
`maximum force of 23N (5.2 lb) for a pushing force delivered by a downward motion
`
`of a male thumb. Ex. 2008. Hence, the force to close the vial of the Abrams ’056
`
`Patent using the dimensions set forth by Mr. Sheehan is approximately four times
`
`higher than the maximum force recommended by the military design standard.
`
`63. With friction the force required to close the container and lid assembly
`
`alleged by Mr. Sheehan could be as high as 284N (64 lb)5 when using a friction
`
`coefficien