UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________________
`
`
`CONOPCO, INC. d/b/a UNILEVER
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
`Patent Owner
`
`_________________________
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00510
`Patent 6,649,155
`
`_________________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`V.
`
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`I.
`BACKGROUND OF THE ’155 PATENT .................................................... 2
`II.
`III. UNILEVER’S INDEX OF GROUNDS AND HEADINGS DO NOT
`MATCH ITS SUBSTANTIVE ARGUMENTS ............................................ 4
`IV. THE BOARD SHOULD DECLINE TO CONSIDER MOST, IF NOT
`ALL, OF THE GROUNDS AND REFERENCES IN UNILEVER’S
`PETITION BECAUSE THEY ARE REDUNDANT AND
`CUMULATIVE .............................................................................................. 5
`A.
`The Art Cited Against The ’155 Patent Is Redundant ......................... 5
`1.
`Bowser, Reid, And Evans Are Horizontally Redundant
`With Respect To Each Of The Challenged Claims ................... 7
`2. Many Proposed Grounds Suffer From Vertical
`Redundancy .............................................................................. 10
`Each Ground Is Cumulative Of A Prior Office Proceeding............... 19
`B.
`THE BOARD SHOULD REJECT UNILEVER’S PETITION
`BECAUSE IT FAILS TO ESTABLISH A REASONABLE
`LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE OF THE CLAIMS
`CHALLENGED IN THE PETITION IS UNPATENTABLE ..................... 21
`A.
`The Board Should Deny Each Ground Of Unilever’s Petition
`Because Unilever’s Cited References Do Not Meet The
`Claimed Cationic Guar Derivative Limitations ................................. 22
`1.
`The Board Should Deny Grounds 1 And 5 Because
`Unilever Has Not Shown That Bowser And Reid
`Inherently Disclose The Claimed Cationic Guar
`Derivative ................................................................................. 22
`The Board Should Deny Grounds 2-4 And 6-9 Because
`Patent Owner Established Unexpected Results Of The
`Cationic Guar Limitations During Prosecution ....................... 26
`The Board Should Deny Grounds 10-13 Because The
`Claimed Ranges Would Not Have Been Obvious To A
`POSA In Light Of Evans’ Broadly Disclosed Ranges ............ 28
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`2.
`
`2.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`The Board Should Deny Grounds 1 And 5 Because Bowser
`And Reid Do Not Disclose Each And Every Limitation Of The
`Challenged Claims ............................................................................. 32
`1.
`The Ranges Of Bowser And Reid Do Not Provide
`Sufficient Specificity To Anticipate The Challenged
`Claims ...................................................................................... 32
`Bowser And Reid Do Not Disclose Each And Every
`Element Of The Challenged Claims As Arranged In The
`Claims ...................................................................................... 34
`The Board Should Deny Grounds 6 And 10 Because A POSA
`Would Have No Motivation To Modify Reid Or Evans To
`Arrive At The Claimed Compositions ............................................... 35
`The Board Should Deny Grounds 2-4 And 6-13 Because
`Unilever Employs Impermissible Hindsight To Arrive At The
`Claimed Compositions ....................................................................... 37
`1.
`Unilever Picks And Chooses The Individual Claimed
`Elements From Numerous Separate Examples In
`Multiple References ................................................................. 37
`The Nandagiri Declaration Is Conclusory And Does Not
`Support Unilever’s Use Of Hindsight ...................................... 39
`The Board Should Deny Grounds 2-4 And 6-13 Because
`Unilever Identifies No Flaws In The Prior Art To Invite
`Improvement ...................................................................................... 40
`Unilever’s Petition Contains Insufficient Reasons For
`Combining The References In Grounds 3-4, 7-9, And 11-13 ............ 40
`The Board Should Reject Grounds 7 And 11 As Failing To
`Establish A Prima Facie Case Of Obviousness ................................. 45
`VI. OBJECTIVE INDICIA OF NON-OBVIOUSNESS .................................... 45
`VII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 46
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`CASES
`Amkor Tech., Inc. v. Tessera, Inc.,
`No. IPR2013-00242, Paper No. 37, Decision Institution of Inter Partes
`Review (P.T.A.B. Oct. 11, 2013) ......................................................................... 7
`
`Page
`
`Atofina v. Great Lakes Chem. Corp.,
`441 F.3d 991 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ................................................................ 32, 33, 34
`
`Berk-Tek LLC v. Belden Techs. Inc.,
`No. IPR2013-00057, Paper No. 21, Decision on Request for Rehearing
`(P.T.A.B. May 14, 2013) ...................................................................................... 6
`
`Broadcom Corp. v. Emulex Corp.,
`732 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 36
`
`Ecolochem, Inc. v. Southern California Edison Co.,
`227 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .......................................................................... 38
`
`Ex parte Levy,
`17 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1461 (B.P.A.I. 1990) ................................................................. 25
`
`Genetics Institute, LLC v. Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Inc.,
`655 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .................................................................... 29, 31
`
`Heart Failure Techs., LLC v. Cardiokinetix Inc.,
`No. IPR2013-00183, Paper No. 12, Decision Denying Institution of Inter
`Partes Review (P.T.A.B. July 31, 2013) ............................................................ 42
`
`Hewlett-Packard Co. v. MCM Portfolio, LLC,
`No. IPR2013-00217, Paper No. 10, Decision Institution of Inter Partes
`Review (P.T.A.B. Sept. 10, 2013) ................................................................ 31, 40
`
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................ 38
`
`In re Ochiai,
`71 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ............................................................................ 41
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`In re Robertson,
`169 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ............................................................................ 22
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ...................................................................................... 41, 42
`
`Leo Pharm. Prods., Ltd. v. Rea,
`726 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 40
`
`Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co.,
`No. CBM2012-00003, Paper No. 7, Order (Redundant Grounds)
`(P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2012) ..............................................................................passim
`
`Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co.,
`No. CBM2012-00003, Paper No. 9, Response to Order (Redundant
`Grounds) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 1, 2012) ................................................................. 9, 10
`
`Net Moneyin, Inc. v. Verisign, Inc.,
`545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 34
`
`Oracle Corp. v. Clouding IP, LLC,
`No. IPR2013-00075, Paper No. 8, Decision Institution of Inter Partes
`Review (P.T.A.B. May 3, 2013) ........................................................................... 7
`
`Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.,
`No. IPR2013-00246, Paper No. 11, Decision Institution of Inter Partes
`Review (P.T.A.B. Oct. 11, 2013) ....................................................................... 43
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(c) ................................................................................................... 28
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ................................................................................... 1, 19, 20, 21
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(a) .................................................................................................. vi
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65 ............................................................................................... 31, 40
`
`
`
`
`
`-iv-
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) ................................................................................ 5, 22, 23
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) ........................................................................................... 1, 21
`
`157 Cong. Rec. S1042 (daily ed. Mar. 1, 2011) (statement of Sen. Kyl) ................ 20
`
`M.P.E.P. § 2112(IV) ................................................................................................ 25
`
`M.P.E.P. § 2131.03 .................................................................................................. 32
`
`
`
`
`
`-v-
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Statement of Material Facts in Dispute
`
`Case IPR2013-00510
`Patent 6,649,155
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner, Conopco, Inc. d/b/a Unilever (hereinafter, “Unilever”), did not
`
`submit a statement of material facts in its Petition. Accordingly, no response is
`
`due pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(a), and no facts are admitted.
`
`
`
`-vi-
`
`7
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Case IPR2013-00510
`Patent 6,649,155
`
`
`The Board should deny Unilever’s Petition in its entirety because of
`
`procedural and substantive defects. First, Unilever argues multiple alternate
`
`grounds for each of the challenged claims, and provides no meaningful distinction
`
`between them. For many of the challenged claims, Unilever argues seven distinct
`
`and separate grounds for each claim, and for one claim, Unilever argues ten
`
`grounds. This runs counter to a petitioner’s obligation to present only its best case
`
`in a petition for inter partes review. Additionally, all but one of Unilever’s six
`
`proffered references were of record during prosecution and thus are cumulative
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). The Board should decline to consider these redundant
`
`and cumulative grounds and references.
`
`Second, in order for the Board to grant Unilever’s Petition, Unilever must
`
`prove that there is a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the claims challenged
`
`in the Petition is unpatentable. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). For several different
`
`reasons, Unilever’s Petition fails to meet this standard for any of the challenged
`
`claims. For example, Unilever: (1) fails to properly establish inherency; (2) relies
`
`on expert testimony that is conclusory; (3) fails to provide sufficient reasons for
`
`combining references; and (4) fails to identify where each element of the claim is
`
`found in the references. If the Board identifies any grounds of Unilever’s Petition
`
`that are not redundant or cumulative, the Petition should be denied because
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00510
`Patent 6,649,155
`
`Unilever has failed to meet its threshold burden to prove that there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition is unpatentable.
`
`In view of the foregoing reasons, the Board should reject Unilever’s Petition
`
`in its entirety.1
`
`II. BACKGROUND OF THE ’155 PATENT
`The ’155 patent relates to shampoo compositions that provide a superior
`
`combination of anti-dandruff and conditioning efficacy. At the time of the
`
`invention of the ’155 patent, there was a consumer need for a shampoo with a
`
`superior combination of anti-dandruff efficacy and conditioning performance as
`
`compared to available products. Exh. 1001, ’155 patent at 1:50-53. This
`
`combination was difficult to achieve. Id. at 1:53-54. The patent teaches that to
`
`obtain such a shampoo, the composition should comprise certain anionic
`
`surfactants, conditioning agents, anti-dandruff particulates, cationic guars, and
`
`water. Id. at 2:60-62. A central concept of the patent is that the cationic guar used
`
`in the composition must have certain ranges of molecular weight and charge
`
`1 Should the Board institute proceedings in this matter, Patent Owner does
`
`not concede the legitimacy of any arguments in the Petition that are not specifically
`
`addressed herein. Patent Owner expressly reserves the right to rebut any such
`
`arguments in its Patent Owner Response.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00510
`Patent 6,649,155
`
`density to achieve superior anti-dandruff efficacy and conditioning. See id. at
`
`2:62-67 (“[u]pon dilution, the anionic surfactants and cationic guars form a
`
`coacervate. The molecular weight and charge density of the cationic guar will
`
`influence the bioavailability and coverage of the anti-dandruff particulate. This is
`
`important for anti-dandruff efficacy and conditioning.”)
`
`The ’155 patent has two independent claims, 1 and 19, which recite
`
`shampoo compositions comprising certain components, including cationic guar
`
`derivatives, wherein the cationic guar derivatives meet certain molecular weight
`
`and charge density limitations. For example, the shampoo composition of claim 1
`
`comprises five components, defined as limitations a) through e), wherein the
`
`cationic guar derivative meets molecular weight and charge density limitations, i)
`
`and ii):
`
`1. A shampoo composition comprising:
`
`a) from about 5% to about 50%, by weight of the
`composition, of an anionic surfactant;
`
`b) from about 0.01% to about 10%, by weight of the
`composition, of a non-volatile conditioning agent;
`
`c) from about 0.1% to about 4%, by weight of the
`composition, of an anti-dandruff particulate;
`
`d) from about 0.02% to about 5%, by weight of the
`composition, of a cationic guar derivative;
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00510
`Patent 6,649,155
`
`
`i) wherein said cationic guar derivative has a molecular
`weight from about 50,000 to about 700,000;
`
`ii) wherein said cationic guar derivative has a charge
`density from about 0.05 meq/g to about 1.0 meq/g;
`
`e) water.
`
`With the exception of claim 19, each of the other claims of the ’155 patent
`
`ultimately depends from claim 1.
`
`III. UNILEVER’S INDEX OF GROUNDS AND HEADINGS DO NOT
`MATCH ITS SUBSTANTIVE ARGUMENTS
`
`In Section VIII of the Petition, Unilever provides an index identifying the
`
`claims challenged in each ground. Petition at 8-9. The index and the headings for
`
`numerous individual grounds are inconsistent with the substantive arguments
`
`presented in the Petition. For example, the index states that Ground 3 challenges
`
`claims 1-11, 19, 20, and 22 based on alleged obviousness over Bowser in view of
`
`Cardin. But Ground 3 only actually addresses claims 6 through 8. See Petition at
`
`25-28. The charts and text covering Ground 3 include no arguments related to any
`
`other claims. Id. As to the other claims, Unilever merely states that these claims
`
`“would have been obvious over Bowser for the reasons set forth in Ground 2.” Id.
`
`at 25-26. As another example, the index identifies Ground 4 as challenging claims
`
`1-5, 7, 9-11, and 19-23 based on alleged obviousness over Bowser in view of
`
`Schwen and Gibson. But Ground 4 only actually addresses claims 21 and 23. Id.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00510
`Patent 6,649,155
`
`at 28-30. The charts and text covering Ground 4 include no arguments related to
`
`any other claims. Id. As to the other claims in Ground 4, Unilever merely states
`
`that these claims “would have been obvious over Bowser for the reasons set forth
`
`in Ground 2.” Id. at 29. Patent Owner considers each ground as covering only
`
`claims substantively addressed in the claim charts and/or text provided for each
`
`ground, and the Board should consider only such claims. See 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.104(b)(4). As such, the Board should consider Grounds 3, 8, and 12 to include
`
`only claims 6-8. Likewise, the Board should consider Grounds 4, 9, and 13 to
`
`include only claims 21 and 23.
`
`IV. THE BOARD SHOULD DECLINE TO CONSIDER MOST, IF NOT
`ALL, OF THE GROUNDS AND REFERENCES IN UNILEVER’S
`PETITION BECAUSE THEY ARE REDUNDANT AND
`CUMULATIVE
`
`Unilever asserts multiple alternative grounds for all of the challenged claims,
`
`and provides no meaningful distinction between them. Additionally, Unilever
`
`relies almost exclusively on the same prior art that the Office considered during
`
`prosecution of the ’155 patent. Accordingly, the Board should decline to consider
`
`these redundant and cumulative grounds and references.
`
`A. The Art Cited Against The ’155 Patent Is Redundant
`Unilever argues multiple alternative grounds of invalidity for each
`
`challenged claim, and for many claims, Unilever argues seven alternate grounds.
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00510
`Patent 6,649,155
`
`The use of redundant art in an IPR petition contradicts regulatory and statutory
`
`mandates, and the Board should not consider redundant grounds. The Board made
`
`such a ruling in its Order (Redundant Grounds) in Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v.
`
`Progressive Casualty Ins. Co., No. CBM2012-00003, Paper No. 7, Order
`
`(Redundant Grounds) at 1-2 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2012). In this Order, the Board
`
`identified numerous references that the petitioner applied in a redundant manner.
`
`The Board noted that the petitioner applied the redundant references “without
`
`relative distinction,” such that the petitioner did not indicate whether any of the
`
`redundant references were any better or worse than the others. Id. at 8 (emphasis
`
`added). For example, regarding the petitioner’s application of multiple references
`
`to various claims of the patent at issue, the Board explained that “none of Kosaka,
`
`Black Magic, and Pettersen is stated by Petitioner to be a better reference than the
`
`other two references.” Id. at 9. The Board thus recognized that the alleged
`
`teachings were cumulative and essentially interchangeable because the petitioner
`
`did not “articulate any relative strength [or weakness] for any one of the three
`
`references.” Id. Consequently, the Board required the petitioner to choose only
`
`one of the three references. Id. at 9-10.
`
`The Board has ruled in a similar manner in other decisions. See Berk-Tek
`
`LLC v. Belden Techs. Inc., No. IPR2013-00057, Paper No. 21, Decision on
`
`Request for Rehearing at 4-5 (P.T.A.B. May 14, 2013) (“If the petitioner makes no
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00510
`Patent 6,649,155
`
`meaningful distinction between certain grounds, the Board may exercise discretion
`
`by acting on one or more grounds and regard the others as redundant”… “allowing
`
`multiple grounds without meaningful distinction by the petitioner is contrary to the
`
`legislative intent”); Oracle Corp. v. Clouding IP, LLC, No. IPR2013-00075, Paper
`
`No. 8, Decision Institution of Inter Partes Review at 13-14 (P.T.A.B. May 3, 2013)
`
`(denying various grounds of unpatentability because they were redundant); Amkor
`
`Tech., Inc. v. Tessera, Inc., No. IPR2013-00242, Paper No. 37, Decision Institution
`
`of Inter Partes Review at 32-33 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 11, 2013) (same).
`
`In the instant Petition, Unilever has applied references in a cumulative and
`
`redundant manner, and has not provided any meaningful distinction between them.
`
`The Board should decline to consider Unilever’s redundant grounds and references.
`
`1.
`
`Bowser, Reid, And Evans Are Horizontally Redundant
`With Respect To Each Of The Challenged Claims
`
`The Board has identified two types of redundancy – horizontal and vertical.
`
`Horizontal redundancy exists when multiple similar references are applied, not in
`
`combination to complement each other, but rather as distinct and separate
`
`alternatives. Liberty Mutual, CBM2012-00003, Paper No. 7, Order at 3. When a
`
`petitioner uses such distinct and separate alternatives to allegedly address the same
`
`claim limitations, and does not explain why one reference more closely satisfies
`
`the claim limitation at issue in some respects than another reference, the petitioner
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00510
`Patent 6,649,155
`
`has applied the references in a redundant manner. Id. The Board defined
`
`horizontal redundancy as follows:
`
`[Horizontal redundancy] involves a plurality of prior art
`references applied not in combination to complement
`each other but as distinct and separate alternatives. All of
`the myriad references relied on provide essentially the
`same teaching to meet the same claim limitation, and the
`associated arguments do not explain why one reference
`more closely satisfies the claim limitation at issue in
`some respects than another reference, and vice versa.
`Because the references are not identical, each reference
`has to be better in some respect or else the references are
`collectively horizontally redundant.
`
`Id. at 3.
`
`The Board’s unwillingness to consider references presented in a horizontally
`
`redundant manner demonstrates its aversion to art that is cumulative of other art
`
`presented to it, where the multiple references are essentially interchangeable and
`
`used to allegedly disclose the same claim features. In Liberty Mutual, the Board
`
`declined to consider numerous proposed grounds, finding them to include art that
`
`was horizontally redundant. See generally id. at 4-12.
`
`Unilever’s proposed rejections for independent claims 1 and 19 rely on
`
`multiple references as allegedly disclosing all or the majority of the independent
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00510
`Patent 6,649,155
`
`claim elements. For example, Unilever asserts, based on both alleged explicit and
`
`alleged inherent disclosures, that Bowser purportedly anticipates claims 1 and 19.
`
`See Petition at 10-19. As distinct and separate alternatives, Unilever also proposes
`
`grounds of rejection for claims 1 and 19 that rely on Reid as well as Evans. See id.
`
`at 31-38, 45-49.
`
`Unilever’s explanations of the alleged disclosures of these references as
`
`applied to the independent claims are substantively the same, further confirming
`
`the redundant, interchangeable nature of the references. For example, with respect
`
`to claims 1 and 19, Unilever alleges that Bowser, Reid, and Evans each disclose
`
`shampoo compositions with the claimed components. While not identical, as
`
`applied to claims 1 and 19 of the ’155 patent, the disclosures of the references are
`
`substantively the same, with the references allegedly disclosing similar aspects
`
`used to accomplish similar objectives. Unilever does not articulate any relative
`
`strengths or weaknesses for these references. Accordingly, Bowser, Reid, and
`
`Evans as applied to claims 1 and 19 of the ’155 patent are substantively the same,
`
`making the references essentially interchangeable.
`
`Even if Unilever asserts that the disclosures of Bowser, Reid, and Evans are
`
`not identical, they are still horizontally redundant. The Board has held that
`
`references may still be applied in a redundant manner even if their teachings are
`
`not identical. See, e.g., Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co.,
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00510
`Patent 6,649,155
`
`No. CBM2012-00003, Paper No. 9, Response to Order (Redundant Grounds) at 5
`
`(P.T.A.B. Nov. 1, 2012). Although the disclosures of Bowser, Reid, and Evans
`
`may not be identical, as shown above, Unilever has nevertheless applied them in a
`
`redundant manner: they are used to allegedly account for the same features of
`
`claims 1 and 19 of the ’155 patent.
`
`Unilever applies Bowser, Reid, and Evans in a horizontally redundant
`
`manner. The Board should decline to consider the redundant grounds. This
`
`applies equally to the proposed grounds of unpatentability for dependent claims 2-
`
`18 and 20-23.
`
`2. Many Proposed Grounds Suffer From Vertical Redundancy
`The Board has identified a second type of redundancy called vertical
`
`redundancy. Vertical redundancy exists when additional references are added to a
`
`base reference or combination of references without any apparent or explained
`
`need for the addition (i.e., the base reference or combination of references is
`
`already alleged to disclose all elements of the claim, and no weaknesses are
`
`identified for the base reference or combination of references). See, e.g., Liberty
`
`Mutual, CBM2012-00003, Paper No. 7, Order at 12. In Liberty Mutual, the Board
`
`defined vertical redundancy as follows:
`
`[Vertical redundancy] involves a plurality of prior art
`applied both
`in partial combination and
`in
`full
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00510
`Patent 6,649,155
`
`
`combination. In the former case, fewer references than
`the entire combination are sufficient to render a claim
`obvious, and in the latter case the entire combination is
`relied on to render the same claim obvious. There must
`be an explanation of why the reliance in part may be the
`stronger assertion as applied in certain instances and why
`the reliance in whole may also be the stronger assertion
`in other instances. Without a bi-directional explanation,
`the assertions are vertically redundant.
`
`Id. at 3.
`
`If one of the alternative grounds is better from all perspectives, then the
`
`Board should only consider the stronger ground and not burden the Patent Owner
`
`and the Board with the weaker ground. Further, if there is no difference in the
`
`grounds, the Petitioner should only assert one of the grounds. Id. at 12. “Only if
`
`the Petitioner reasonably articulates why each ground has strength and weakness
`
`relative to the other should both grounds be asserted for consideration.” Id.
`
`In the instant petition, Unilever asserts vertically redundant grounds for
`
`many of the challenged claims. For example, in Ground 10, Unilever argues that
`
`Evans renders the subject matter of claim 7 obvious. Ground 11 then adds Bowser
`
`to the combination used in Ground 10 against claim 7. Further, in Ground 12,
`
`Unilever contends that Evans in view of Cardin renders claim 7 obvious. This
`
`constitutes impermissible vertical redundancy because Unilever separately adds
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00510
`Patent 6,649,155
`
`Bowser or Cardin to the base reference of Evans without any apparent or explained
`
`need for the addition. In other words, Unilever already alleges that a base
`
`reference discloses all elements of the claim, and does not identify any weaknesses
`
`for the base combination. The Board should decline to consider the vertically
`
`redundant grounds in Unilever’s Petition.
`
`The following chart shows that horizontal redundancies exist for each of the
`
`claims. Vertical redundancies are shown with multiple Grounds in the same box. 2
`
`
`2 Unilever states that Ground 7 is obviousness over Reid and Bowser. The
`
`Petition does not make clear whether this ground should be interpreted as Reid in
`
`view of Bowser or Bowser in view of Reid. Similarly, Unilever states that Ground
`
`11 is obviousness over Evans and Bowser. The Petition does not make clear
`
`whether this ground should be interpreted as Evans in view of Bowser or Bowser
`
`in view of Evans. For purposes of this Preliminary Response, Patent Owner
`
`construes Grounds 7 and 11 as including both interpretations.
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`19
`
`

`

`Claim
`#
`
`2nd Proposed
`1st Proposed Ground
`Ground
`Ground 1 & 2: Bowser Ground 5 & 6: Reid
`
`Case IPR2013-00510
`Patent 6,649,155
`
`3rd Proposed Ground
`Ground 10: Evans
`
`Ground 7: Bowser in
`
`Ground 7: Reid in
`
`Ground 11: Evans in
`
`1
`
`view of Reid
`
`view of Bowser
`
`view of Bowser
`
`Ground 11: Bowser in
`
`view of Evans
`
`Ground 1 & 2: Bowser Ground 5 & 6: Reid
`
`Ground 10: Evans
`
`Ground 7: Bowser in
`
`Ground 7: Reid in
`
`Ground 11: Evans in
`
`2
`
`view of Reid
`
`view of Bowser
`
`view of Bowser
`
`Ground 11: Bowser in
`
`view of Evans
`
`Ground 1 & 2: Bowser Ground 5 & 6: Reid
`
`Ground 10: Evans
`
`Ground 7: Bowser in
`
`Ground 7: Reid in
`
`Ground 11: Evans in
`
`3
`
`view of Reid
`
`view of Bowser
`
`view of Bowser
`
`Ground 11: Bowser in
`
`view of Evans
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`20
`
`

`

`Claim
`#
`
`2nd Proposed
`1st Proposed Ground
`Ground
`Ground 1 & 2: Bowser Ground 5 & 6: Reid
`
`Case IPR2013-00510
`Patent 6,649,155
`
`3rd Proposed Ground
`Ground 10: Evans
`
`Ground 7: Bowser in
`
`Ground 7: Reid in
`
`Ground 11: Evans in
`
`4
`
`view of Reid
`
`view of Bowser
`
`view of Bowser
`
`Ground 11: Bowser in
`
`view of Evans
`
`Ground 1 & 2: Bowser Ground 5 & 6: Reid
`
`Ground 10: Evans
`
`Ground 7: Bowser in
`
`Ground 7: Reid in
`
`Ground 11: Evans in
`
`5
`
`view of Reid
`
`view of Bowser
`
`view of Bowser
`
`Ground 11: Bowser in
`
`view of Evans
`
`6
`
`Ground 3: Bowser in
`
`Ground 8: Reid in
`
`Ground 12: Evans in
`
`view of Cardin
`
`view of Cardin
`
`view of Cardin
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`21
`
`

`

`Claim
`#
`
`2nd Proposed
`1st Proposed Ground
`Ground
`Ground 1 & 2: Bowser Ground 5 & 6: Reid
`
`Case IPR2013-00510
`Patent 6,649,155
`
`3rd Proposed Ground
`Ground 10: Evans
`
`7
`
`8
`
`Ground 3: Bowser in
`
`Ground 7: Reid in
`
`Ground 11: Evans in
`
`view of Cardin
`
`view of Bowser
`
`view of Bowser
`
`Ground 7: Bowser in
`
`Ground 8: Reid in
`
`Ground 12: Evans in
`
`view of Reid
`
`view of Cardin
`
`view of Cardin
`
`Ground 11: Bowser in
`
`view of Evans
`
`Ground 3: Bowser in
`
`Ground 8: Reid in
`
`Ground 12: Evans in
`
`view of Cardin
`
`view of Cardin
`
`view of Cardin
`
`Ground 1 & 2: Bowser Ground 5 & 6: Reid
`
`Ground 10: Evans
`
`Ground 7: Bowser in
`
`Ground 7: Reid in
`
`Ground 11: Evans in
`
`9
`
`view of Reid
`
`view of Bowser
`
`view of Bowser
`
`Ground 11: Bowser in
`
`view of Evans
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`22
`
`

`

`Claim
`#
`
`2nd Proposed
`1st Proposed Ground
`Ground
`Ground 1 & 2: Bowser Ground 5 & 6: Reid
`
`Case IPR2013-00510
`Patent 6,649,155
`
`3rd Proposed Ground
`Ground 10: Evans
`
`Ground 7: Bowser in
`
`Ground 7: Reid in
`
`Ground 11: Evans in
`
`10
`
`view of Reid
`
`view of Bowser
`
`view of Bowser
`
`Ground 11: Bowser in
`
`view of Evans
`
`Ground 1 & 2: Bowser Ground 5 & 6: Reid
`
`Ground 10: Evans
`
`Ground 7: Bowser in
`
`Ground 7: Reid in
`
`Ground 11: Evans in
`
`11
`
`view of Reid
`
`view of Bowser
`
`view of Bowser
`
`Ground 11: Bowser in
`
`view of Evans
`
`Ground 11: Bowser in
`
`Ground 5 & 6: Reid
`
`Ground 10: Evans
`
`12
`
`view of Evans
`
`Ground 7: Reid in
`
`Ground 11: Evans in
`
`view of Bowser
`
`view of Bowser
`
`Ground 11: Bowser in
`
`Ground 5 & 6: Reid
`
`Ground 10: Evans
`
`13
`
`view of Evans
`
`Ground 7: Reid in
`
`Ground 11: Evans in
`
`view of Bowser
`
`view of Bowser
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`23
`
`

`

`Claim
`#
`
`1st Proposed Ground
`Ground 11: Bowser in
`
`
`
`2nd Proposed
`Ground
`
`14
`
`view of Evans
`
`Ground 11: Bowser in
`
`
`
`15
`
`view of Evans
`
`Ground 11: Bowser in
`
`
`
`16
`
`view of Evans
`
`Ground 11: Bowser in
`
`
`
`17
`
`view of Evans
`
`Ground 11: Bowser in
`
`
`
`18
`
`view of Evans
`
`Case IPR2013-00510
`Patent 6,649,155
`
`3rd Proposed Ground
`Ground 10: Evans
`
`Ground 11: Evans in
`
`view of Bowser
`
`Ground 10: Evans
`
`Ground 11: Evans in
`
`view of Bowser
`
`Ground 10: Evans
`
`Ground 11: Evans in
`
`view of Bowser
`
`Ground 10: Evans
`
`Ground 11: Evans in
`
`view of Bowser
`
`Ground 10: Evans
`
`Ground 11: Evans in
`
`view of Bowser
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`24
`
`

`

`Claim
`#
`
`2nd Proposed
`1st Proposed Ground
`Ground
`Ground 1 & 2: Bowser Ground 5 & 6: Reid
`
`Case IPR2013-00510
`Patent 6,649,155
`
`3rd Proposed Ground
`Ground 10: Evans
`
`Ground 7: Bowser in
`
`Ground 7: Reid in
`
`Ground 11: Evans in
`
`19
`
`view of Reid
`
`view of Bowser
`
`view of Bowser
`
`Ground 11: Bowser in
`
`view of Evans
`
`Ground 1 & 2: Bowser Ground 5 & 6: Reid
`
`Ground 10: Evans
`
`Ground 7: Bowser in
`
`Ground 7: Reid in
`
`Ground 11: Evans in
`
`20
`
`view of Reid
`
`view of Bowser
`
`view of Bowser
`
`Ground 11: Bowser in
`
`view of Evans
`
`Ground 4: Bowser in
`
`Ground 9: Reid in
`
`Ground 13: Evans in
`
`21
`
`view of Schwen and
`
`view of Schwen and
`
`view of Schwen and
`
`Gibson
`
`Gibson
`
`Gibson
`
`Ground 1 & 2: Bowser Ground 5 & 6: Reid
`
`Ground 10: Evans
`
`Ground 7: Bowser in
`
`Ground 7: Reid in
`
`Ground 11: Evans in
`
`22
`
`view of Reid
`
`view of Bowser
`
`view of Bowser
`
`Ground 11: Bowser in
`
`view of Evans
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`25
`
`

`

`Claim
`#
`
`1st Proposed Ground
`Ground 4: Bowser in
`
`2nd Proposed
`Ground
`Ground 9: Reid in
`
`Case IPR2