In the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`____________
`
`Before the Patent and Trial Appeal Board
`____________
`
`Rapak LLC,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Scholle Corporation,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00847
`Patent 8,488,799
`____________
`
`
`37 CFR §1.132 Declaration of Dr. Robert Kimmel
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR §1.132, the undersigned declares the following:
`
`1. My name is Robert Kimmel. I am over the age of 18, I am competent to
`
`make this Declaration, and I have personal direct knowledge of the facts set
`
`forth in this Declaration.
`
`2.
`
`I received my Bachelor’s Degree, Master’s Degree, Materials Engineer
`
`degree and Doctorate in Materials Engineering from the Massachusetts
`
`Institute of Technology. I am employed by Clemson University, where I am
`
`Associate Professor of Packaging Science, Director of the Packaging
`
`Science Program, and Director of the Clemson University Center for
`
`
`
`Scholle Corporation: Exhibit 2007-1
`Rapak LLC v. Scholle Corporation
`IPR2014-00847
`
`

`

`Flexible Packaging. My current curriculum vitae, including my university
`
`and teaching experience, industrial experience, honors and awards, and
`
`publications, is attached to this Declaration as Exhibit A.
`
`3.
`
`I have examined U.S. Pat. No. 8,488,799 (“Thurman ‘799”) and its
`
`prosecution history. One of the problems to be solved by the the invention
`
`disclosed by Thurman ‘799 is “to provide an improved self sealing bag in
`
`box system with an improved cap assembly.” C1:L40-41. As shown in Fig.
`
`2, the self-sealing bag in box system is a “container assembly 10 [which]
`
`includes container body 12, spout 14 and cap assembly 16.” C2:L51-53. As
`
`also shown in Fig. 2, the spout 14 has a base flange that is larger than the
`
`opening in the bag. This allows the panel of the container surrounding the
`
`opening to be welded to the base flange, which is inserted into the bag
`
`opening from the inside of the bag. The body of the spout extends through
`
`the bag opening and is provided with grasping flanges that engage with the
`
`“spout engagement channel” of the cap assembly. See C2:L51-C3:L3.
`
`Thurman ‘799 discloses a separate assembly that can be snapped onto the
`
`spout of a container. E.g., C3:L28-30. The claimed invention is therefore
`
`intended to be used as part of a two-part assembly and specifically requires a
`
`“spout engagement channel.” C5:L13-14.
`
`37 CFR §1.132 Declaration of Dr. Robert Kimmel
`
`
`2
`Scholle Corporation: Exhibit 2007-2
`Rapak LLC v. Scholle Corporation
`IPR2014-00847
`
`

`

`4.
`
`The Background of the Invention makes clear that the prior art included a
`
`container and a cap assembly as well as a separate hose which contained the
`
`valve. C1:L19-35; see also, Fig. 1 (showing the “prior art” hose connection).
`
`This had many drawbacks including the cost of many separate components
`
`and the potential failure required by many separate connection. Id. Thurman
`
`‘799 taught an improved cap assembly which eliminated the separate
`
`hose/valve combination by putting the valve, retaining ring and body
`
`together into one assembly that was configured to mount to a spout of a
`
`container.
`
`5.
`
`I have examined Thurman ‘799 and its prosecution history to determine the
`
`proper meaning of the term “recessed circumferential channel.” I have
`
`reviewed the dictionary definition of “recessed” shown at
`
`www.ahdictionary.com and the meaning of “channel” as adopted by the
`
`Board. I have found nothing to indicate that the inventors intended that this
`
`phrase have a meaning other than the ordinary and customary meaning.
`
`6.
`
`I have examined Thurman ‘799 and its prosecution history to determine the
`
`proper meaning of the term “spout engagement channel.” I have also
`
`reviewed the definition of the term as adopted by the Board of: “a passage
`
`configured to engage and retain a spout.” I agree with the Board’s
`
`construction. This definition is supported by the definition of channel as
`
`37 CFR §1.132 Declaration of Dr. Robert Kimmel
`
`
`3
`Scholle Corporation: Exhibit 2007-3
`Rapak LLC v. Scholle Corporation
`IPR2014-00847
`
`

`

`discussed above in ¶4, by the specification of the ‘799 patent and the claim
`
`language itself. The patent specification describes the spout engagement
`
`channel: “[t]he bottom surface 52 of the body 40 further includes a spout
`
`engagement channel 58 which is configured to engage and retain a
`
`spout…”. C2:L28-30. Further, figures 3 and 4 of the ‘799 patent support
`
`this construction by showing that the spout engagement channel is defined
`
`by circumferential flanges 60 and 62 which “are concentrically positioned
`
`with respect to the opening and with respect to each other.” C2:L34-36. The
`
`spout engagement channel formed by flanges 60 and 62 and the spout are
`
`designed to deform elastically when they are engaged so as to form a
`
`hermetic seal. C2:L31-32
`
`7.
`
`I have examined Thurman ‘799 and its prosecution history to determine the
`
`proper meaning of the term “retaining ring.” I have reviewed the dictionary
`
`definitions of “retaining” and “ring” shown at www.ahdictionary.com, as
`
`well as the definition of “retaining ring” found at
`
`www.americanring.net/products/rings_retaining_overview.aspx. I have
`
`found nothing to indicate that the inventors intended that this phrase have a
`
`meaning other than the ordinary and customary meaning.
`
`8.
`
`I have examined U.S. Pat. No. 8,628,056 (“LaBean ‘056”). LaBean ‘056
`
`discloses a dual sealing system mounted in a housing “for use with a probe
`
`37 CFR §1.132 Declaration of Dr. Robert Kimmel
`
`
`4
`Scholle Corporation: Exhibit 2007-4
`Rapak LLC v. Scholle Corporation
`IPR2014-00847
`
`

`

`to allow the probe to access an interior space from an exterior environment.”
`
`C2:L6-10. Although LaBean ‘056 lists many examples of possible uses of
`
`the sealing system, I cannot find any specific information included in the
`
`specification or the drawings that would teach a user of the LaBean device
`
`how to mount the device in a container. In my opinion, one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would infer from an examination of the drawings that the device
`
`was intended to be force fit into a hole in a rigid container or secured to the
`
`exterior of a container wall using the flange at the exterior end of the
`
`housing (28 in the drawings). I have seen nothing in LaBean ‘056 suggesting
`
`that it would be suitable for use as a separate assembly that mounts over a
`
`spout of a container as discussed above. Supra, ¶3.
`
`9.
`
`I have compared LaBean ‘056 Fig. 3 and the annotated version of Fig. 3
`
`shown in Rapak’s Petition (Petition p. 14). Contrary to Rapak’s assertion, I
`
`do not see any “recessed circumferential channel;” the area pointed to in
`
`Rapak’s version of Fig. 3 is neither recessed nor is it a channel. Indeed, what
`
`Rapak labels as a “recessed circumferential channel” is a portion of the
`
`inside surface of the housing, not a groove recessed into the surface of the
`
`housing as required by Thurman ‘799, which allows “the body engaging
`
`tab” of the retaining ring to extend “into the recessed circumferential
`
`channel of the body.” Thurman ‘799. C5:L35-37.
`
`37 CFR §1.132 Declaration of Dr. Robert Kimmel
`
`
`5
`Scholle Corporation: Exhibit 2007-5
`Rapak LLC v. Scholle Corporation
`IPR2014-00847
`
`

`

`
`
`10. Further, based on my comparison of Fig. 3 of LaBean ‘056 and Rapak’s
`
`version of Fig. 3, I conclude that spacer 60 and housing 22 are two separate
`
`components of LaBean’s sealing system. The spacer is not a primary feature
`
`of a body as claimed, but rather a secondary feature that performs as a
`
`retaining ring for the second valve membrane and is therefore not a body.
`
`11. My conclusion is supported in the LaBean specification, including at
`
`C5:L23-31, C4:L31-43, and C5:L66-C6:L5. To the extent that it is possible
`
`to correlate LaBean ‘056 Fig. 3 with Claim 1 of Thurman ‘799, housing 22
`
`of LaBean ‘056 corresponds to the “body” of Claim 1. Therefore, what
`
`Rapak identifies as the claimed membrane engaging flange of the body of
`
`the cap assembly is in fact a valve seat of spacer 60 rather than of the body,
`
`and the “opening” of LaBean ‘056 is defined by spacer 60 rather than by the
`
`inner surface of the body.
`
`12.
`
`I have examined U.S. Pat. No. 5,409,144 (“Brown ‘144”). Brown ‘144
`
`discloses a dispenser comprising a valve integrated into an opening in the
`
`body of a container. E.g., Abstract; C2:L47-50. A spout is not mentioned;
`
`indeed, there is no need for a spout since the dispenser is integral with the
`
`container wall. I have seen nothing in Brown ‘144 suggesting that it would
`
`37 CFR §1.132 Declaration of Dr. Robert Kimmel
`
`
`6
`Scholle Corporation: Exhibit 2007-6
`Rapak LLC v. Scholle Corporation
`IPR2014-00847
`
`

`

`be suitable for use as a separate assembly that mounts over a spout of a
`
`container.
`
`13.
`
`I have compared Fig. 43 of Brown ‘144 and the annotated version of Fig. 43
`
`shown in Rapak’s Petition (Petition p. 29). It is clear that element 2s in Fig.
`
`43 is not the body of a separate assembly that mounts to a spout of a
`
`container, but instead is the container itself; Fig. 43 (as well as the other
`
`figures in Brown ‘144) all disclose configurations where a valve is
`
`integrated into an opening in a container. Since there is no disclosed body as
`
`claimed, Brown ‘144 cannot disclose any elements of the claims of Thurman
`
`‘799 that require a body, including, for example, positioning of the retaining
`
`ring with respect to the top surface of the body (Claim 1), and attachment of
`
`a cap to the assembly body (Claim 2).
`
`14. During the prosecution of the application that led to Thurman ‘799,
`
`applicant pointed out other significant differences between the intended
`
`purpose and function of the disclosures of Brown (U.S. Patent 6,273,296 to
`
`Brown that was cited by the examiner). In my opinion, the same arguments
`
`apply to Brown ‘144.
`
`15. The valves in the Brown disclosures are coupled directly to squeeze
`
`containers. When the container is squeezed, pressure is applied to the
`
`contents and the contents push against the valve membrane which opens
`
`37 CFR §1.132 Declaration of Dr. Robert Kimmel
`
`
`7
`Scholle Corporation: Exhibit 2007-7
`Rapak LLC v. Scholle Corporation
`IPR2014-00847
`
`

`

`outward and discharges product. When the pressure is released, the
`
`membrane returns inward and reseals. In contrast, product is discharged
`
`from the Thurman ‘799 assembly by lowering a bag having the assembly
`
`over a probe. The probe extends through the sealing membrane and into the
`
`bag, forcing the sealing membrane to move inwardly. The contents are
`
`discharged through the force of gravity. Thurman ‘799 Prosecution History
`
`pp. 80-81. The LaBean ‘056 sealing system also operates by inserting a
`
`probe through the valve membranes, thereby moving them inwardly.
`
`16.
`
`I have compared Rapak’s proposed rationales for combining LaBean ‘056,
`
`the admitted prior art (“AAPA”), and Brown ‘144, found on pages 25-28 of
`
`the Petition. In my opinion, none of these proposed rationales is reasonable.
`
`In particular, since LaBean ‘056 fails to disclose the need for a spout or use
`
`with a spout, one of ordinary skill would have no reason to give it a “more
`
`distinct” spout engagement channel.
`
`17. Further, since Brown ‘144 doesn’t have a “top surface of the body,” one of
`
`ordinary skill would have no reason to change the positioning of the LaBean
`
`‘056 retaining ring based on the position of the retaining ring in Brown ‘144.
`
`18. Further, I can find no evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`recognize any lack of “optimum range” of the ring in LaBean ‘056 as
`
`37 CFR §1.132 Declaration of Dr. Robert Kimmel
`
`
`8
`Scholle Corporation: Exhibit 2007-8
`Rapak LLC v. Scholle Corporation
`IPR2014-00847
`
`

`

`disclosed, hence there would be no reason to change the size/dimensions of
`
`the retaining ring.
`
`19. Further, since cap 168 in Brown ‘144 attaches to the container rather than to
`
`the body of a separate assembly, one of ordinary skill would have no reason
`
`to associate Brown ‘144 with LaBean ‘056.
`
`20. Further, Brown ‘144 operates in an entirely opposite manner to LaBean
`
`‘056. Examining all of these factors, I can find no evidence that one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would recognize any need to change the structure of
`
`LaBean ‘056 as disclosed.
`
`21.
`
`I have also examined Dr. Sheehan’s declaration regarding the rationales for
`
`combining LaBean ‘056, AAPA, and Brown ‘144. With all due respect to
`
`Dr. Sheehan, he seems to recite the same conclusions as are found in
`
`Rapak’s Petition, without further explanation of the bases for reaching those
`
`conclusions.
`
`22.
`
`I have examined U.S. Pat. Pub. 2006/0249536 (“Hartman ‘536”). Hartman
`
`‘536 discloses a valve unit mounted directly in a container opening. E.g.,
`
`¶0007. Since the valve unit is disposed directly in the container opening, it
`
`would not have the need for a separate valve/cap assembly that would attach
`
`to a container spout.
`
`37 CFR §1.132 Declaration of Dr. Robert Kimmel
`
`
`9
`Scholle Corporation: Exhibit 2007-9
`Rapak LLC v. Scholle Corporation
`IPR2014-00847
`
`

`

`23.
`
`I have examined the disclosure of Hartman ‘536 relating to entry member
`
`49. The stated purpose of entry member 49 is to control the amount of
`
`pressure necessary to open the valve 23. ¶0029. But if entry member 49 is
`
`intended to control the amount of pressure necessary to open the valve 23, it
`
`would appear that this purpose would be at odds with the purpose of the
`
`“inwardly sloping protective flange” of Thurman ‘799 Claim 1, which is to
`
`“direct a probe toward the pierceable surface.” Entry member 49 appears in
`
`Figs. 1, 2 and 7 of Hartman ‘536. In each of these figures the interior surface
`
`of entry member 49 is shown to be vertical. One of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have understood that this configuration provides the maximum
`
`frictional interaction between entry member 49 and the surface of cannula
`
`portion 15, thus enabling the stated purpose of entry member 49.
`
`24.
`
`In my discussion above of Rapak’s proposal to combine LaBean ‘056 with
`
`Brown ‘144, I pointed out that in Brown ‘144, the valve is mounted directly
`
`in the container wall. Therefore, an assembly body is not needed.
`
`Furthermore, the Sealing System of LaBean ‘056 operates in an entirely
`
`opposite manner from the Dispensing Valve of Brown ‘144. Supra 13-15.
`
`This same reasoning and observations apply to Rapak’s proposed
`
`combination of Hartman ‘536 with Brown ‘144.
`
`37 CFR §1.132 Declaration of Dr. Robert Kimmel
`
`
`10
`Scholle Corporation: Exhibit 2007-10
`Rapak LLC v. Scholle Corporation
`IPR2014-00847
`
`

`

`25.
`
`I have compared Rapak’s proposed rationales for combining Hartman ‘536,
`
`the admitted prior art (“AAPA”), and Brown ‘144, found on page 57 of the
`
`Petition. In my opinion, none of these proposed rationales is reasonable. In
`
`particular, Rapak suggests that adding a spout engagement channel from
`
`AAPA would improve the combination of Hartman ‘536 and Brown ‘144 by
`
`providing a secure but detachable connection between the cap assembly and
`
`a spout of the container. However, as I have noted above, neither Hartman
`
`‘536 nor Brown ‘144 has a separate assembly that mounts to a spout of a
`
`container, so additional engineering would be required to accomplish this
`
`combination; moreover, since Hartman ‘536 valve unit 24 is already secured
`
`in place by valve unit support 32 and/or container housing 28, see ¶0030 and
`
`Figs. 1 and 2, I can think of no purpose to be served by adding a spout
`
`engagement channel for engaging with a non-existent and unnecessary
`
`spout.
`
`26.
`
`I have also examined Dr. Sheehan’s declaration regarding the rationales for
`
`combining Hartman ‘536, AAPA, and Brown ‘144. With all due respect to
`
`Dr. Sheehan, he seems to recite the same conclusions as are found in
`
`Rapak’s Petition, without further explanation of the bases for reaching those
`
`conclusions.
`
`37 CFR §1.132 Declaration of Dr. Robert Kimmel
`
`
`11
`Scholle Corporation: Exhibit 2007-11
`Rapak LLC v. Scholle Corporation
`IPR2014-00847
`
`

`

`27.
`
`I declare that all statements made herein on my own knowledge are true and
`
`that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true,
`
`and further that these statements were made with the knowledge that willful
`
`false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or
`
`imprisonment, or both, under section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States
`
`Code, and that such willful false statements may jeopardize the validity of
`
`the application or any patent issuing thereon.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Robert Kimmel, Sc. D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`January 20, 2015
`
`Date
`
`
`
`
`
`37 CFR §1.132 Declaration of Dr. Robert Kimmel
`
`
`12
`Scholle Corporation: Exhibit 2007-12
`Rapak LLC v. Scholle Corporation
`IPR2014-00847
`
`

`

`Office
`232 Poole Agricultural Center, Box 340316
`Dept. of Food, Nutrition and Packaging Sciences
`Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634-0316
`864.656.6534 kimmel@clemson.edu
`
`
`
`Home
`14 Red Fern Trail
`Simpsonville, SC 29681
`M: 864.313.0922
`
`
`Exhibit A
`ROBERT M. KIMMEL, Sc. D.
`ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF PACKAGING SCIENCE
`DIRECTOR, Clemson University Center for Flexible Packaging
`
`
`EDUCATION
`
`Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA
`1968
`
`Sc. D. in Materials Engineering
`Dissertation: Effects of High Pressure on Amorphous Polymers
`Materials Engineer
`M. S. (unspecified) Concentrations in polymer science, textile technology
`Thesis: Birefringence and Orientation States in Polyacrylonitrile
`B. S. in Materials Engineering
`Thesis: Temperature Dependence of Birefringence Effects in Acrylonitrile Polymers
`
`1967
`1965
`
`1964
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNIVERSITY AND TEACHING EXPERIENCE
`
`1999 – present Clemson University, Clemson, SC
`2010 - present Director, Packaging Science Program, Department of Food, Nutrition and Packaging Sciences
`2006 -- 2010
`Chair, Department of Packaging Science
`2004 – present Director, Center for Flexible Packaging
`Associate Professor (tenured 2005): Co-founder and director of Clemson Center for Flexible
`Packaging. Developed and teach Packaging Science capstone courses "Package Design and
`Development" and “Packaging Career Preparation”; developed core undergraduate/graduate courses
`“Converting for Flexible Packaging” and “Applications of Polymers in Packaging”; developed and
`taught 800 level graduate courses “Flexible Packaging,” “Semi-rigid Packaging.” Short courses:
`“Materials for Confectionary Packaging,” “Understanding Plastics Packaging,” "Analyzing Plastics
`Patents."
`Research: Environmental impact of grocery carrier bags. Sustainable package design. Development
`of bag-in-container packaging for large volumes of liquids. Development of polymeric packaging
`for MREs. Effects of norbornene and octene content on the properties of LLDPE/COC blends as
`heat seal layers; Gelatin as an active layer in multi-layer packages; Unique barrier films using
`“Smart Blending "chaotic advection; Adaptation of materials characterization techniques to
`collaborative discovery-based learning in the undergraduate Packaging Science curriculum.
`Food Packaging Design Conference, Orlando, FL, Lecturer
`Celanese Chemical Group Middle Management Development Program, Lecturer
`NSF Summer Institute for College Teachers on Applied Polymer Science, Cleveland, Lecturer
`Massachusetts Institute of Technology
`Teaching Assistant: full responsibility as instructor for graduate course in polymer science required
`for all textile technology graduate students
`
`INDUSTRIAL EXPERIENCE
`
`1999 - present Reedy River Associates, Simpsonville, SC, President. Consulting to the plastics and packaging
`industries. Expert witness for plastics and packaging (infringement, validity, trade dress, breach of
`contract, antitrust—plaintiff and defendant experience). Projects to develop and quantify product
`development and market entry strategies for major international plastics producers to introduce new
`materials into industrial and consumer packaging. Technical consulting to major polymer, plastics
`and packaging materials suppliers, converters and end users.
`
`1999
`1978
`1973
`1967
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Scholle Corporation: Exhibit 2007-13
`Rapak LLC v. Scholle Corporation
`IPR2014-00847
`
`

`

`INDUSTRIAL EXPERIENCE (continued)
`
`1968 - 1998
`1994 - 1998
`
`Dr. Robert M. Kimmel
`Page 2
`
`Hoechst NA Holdings and its predecessor companies
`Business Manager, Hoechst Research & Technology, Greer, SC. Managed group of 9 to create
`three corporate R&D projects in multi-layer, semi-rigid and rigid plastic packaging, focused on high
`barrier PET resins, bottles and films, with estimated sales potential >$500MM. Based on a jointly-
`developed strategy, the target business unit created a new organization and product line to which
`these projects were transferred and commercialized.
`Department Head, New Films Business Development, Hoechst AG, Wiesbaden, Germany.
`Managed department of 20 conducting basic and applied research in new polymers, films and
`casings. Established and led applications lab and new business development team to support LCP
`laminates for printed circuit boards.
`Business Manager, Packaging and Specialties Films, Hoechst Celanese Corporation, Greer,
`SC. Global business team leader and directly responsible for 40 people in sales, marketing and
`technical service for Hostaphan® polyester film to the Packaging and Industrial
`Converting markets in North America, Latin America and Europe. Grew business >6X to >$50MM,
`with 60% of sales from new products. Co-authored and secured approval for three business
`strategies. Created, secured approval and implemented the Hostaphan packaging strategy, including
`building a new team hired from the industry, a $2MM applications laboratory, and an award-
`winning advertising/publicity program. Justified and secured approval for >$100MM in capital
`investment for new product lines. Established and managed global product and market development
`of Hostaphan 4400 ultra-clear films for pressure-sensitive labels and Hostaphan 2600 improved
`adhesion packaging film, which won AIMCAL Technology of the Year in its first year of
`commercial sales and numerous industry awards for specific packages. Principal representative to
`five major trade associations, including Flexible Packaging Association, Tag and Label
`Manufacturers Association, AIMCAL and Screen Printing Association.
`Process Research Manager, Polyester Film, American Hoechst Corporation. Managed
`department of 45 people, including films process research and R&D pilot line (24/7), engineering,
`facilities, accounting, and safety.
`Industry Manager, Packaging and Specialties Films, American Hoechst Corporation.
`Product Specialist, Packaging and Specialties Films, Celanese Plastics Company.
`Project Manager, Polyester Bottle Resin, Celanese Plastics Company. Responsible for process
`development, pilot manufacturing and manufacturing strategy development for the entry of Celanese
`into polyester bottle resin
`Product Specialist, Packaging and Specialties Films, Celanese Plastics Company
`Group Leader Application/Product Development, Celanese Plastics Company. Applied
`polyester film research, including new shrink film product line.
`Sr. Research Scientist/Team Leader, Celanese Research Company, Summit. NJ. Research in
`polyester films, polyester resins, graphite fibers and composites, acrylonitrile fibers and films,
`acetate fibers, and polymer physics. Pioneered new thermal analysis techniques now considered
`standard. Team leader for multi-disciplinary group supporting the polyester film business.
`Research Scientist, U.S. Army Natick Labs - Ballistic Materials Lab, Natick, MA
`
`Member of Scientific Committee, 19th IAPRI World Conference on Packaging, Melbourne
`Member of Scientific Committee and presenter, 26th IAPRI Symposium on Packaging, Espoo,
`Finland
`Member of Scientific Committee, 18th IAPRI World Conference on Packaging, San Luis Obispo
`Member of Scientific Committee, 25th IAPRI Symposium on Packaging, Berlin, Germany
`Member of Scientific Committee and attendee, 17th IAPRI World Conference on Packaging,
`Tianjin, China
`Symposium chair, 24th IAPRI Symposium on Packaging, Greenville, SC
`16th IAPRI World Conference on Packaging, Bangkok, Thailand
`Seminar at Korea University; Keynote speaker at YonSei Packaging Forum; Keynote speaker at
`The 20th KOPAST International Seminar on Packaging Science & Technology, Seoul, Korea
`Visits to ESIEC, France; Clemson Brussels Center; European companies
`Scholle Corporation: Exhibit 2007-14
`Rapak LLC v. Scholle Corporation
`IPR2014-00847
`
`1991 - 1994
`
`1987 - 1991
`
`1985 -1987
`
`1979 - 1985
`1977 - 1979
`1975 - 1977
`
`1975
`1973 - 1975
`
`1968 - 1973
`
`2012
`2011
`2010
`
`2009
`2008
`2008
`
`2007
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1965
`
`INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE AND LANGUAGES
`
`2014
`2013
`
`

`

`Dr. Robert M. Kimmel
`Page 3
`
`INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE AND LANGUAGES (cont.)
`
`
`2007
`
`2005
`
`2004
`
`2004
`
`2003
`
`2002
`
`2001
`1991 – 1996
`
`1991 - 1994
`
`1988 - 1992
`
`1988 – 1990
`
`23rd IAPRI Symposium on Packaging, Windsor, UK
`Visits to packaging science schools in Europe; seminar at Korea University, Seoul
`14th IAPRI World Conference on Packaging, Stockholm, Sweden
`Invited speaker Masterfoods international innovation conference, Tokyo, Japan
`Tours of Great Britain food and packaging companies; visit to Faraday Association
`13th IAPRI World Conference on Packaging, East Lansing, MI
`12th IAPRI World Conference on Packaging, Warsaw, Poland
`Responsible for global coordination of a U.S.-Germany-Japan development partnership for LCP
`films.
`Managed a new films business development department, including marketing and semi-works
`manufacturing, while living in Germany for three years
`Member of negotiating team and later technical and marketing coordination teams for three way
`U.S.-Germany-Japan polyester film joint venture.
`Managed successful anti-dumping case against Japanese and Korean polyester film producers,
`including testifying before the International Trade Commission.
`Global business team leader for Hoechst Celanese Packaging and Specialty Films
`
`1987 – 1991
`
`Extensive business travel in Western Europe and Japan; personal/business travel in Eastern Europe, Middle East,
`Asia.
`Languages (with varying degrees of fluency): German, French, Hebrew
`
`HONORS AND AWARDS
`
`2000--present
`2002
`
`1975-76
`1967
`
`1966
`
`1964
`
`1960-64
`1960
`
`Listed in Who’s Who in America and Who’s Who in American Education
`Invited presenter NSF Showcase-2002 ASEE Annual Meeting
`The Fiber Society Lecturer
`Rohm & Haas Fellow
`American Can Fellow
`Susich Award in Fiber Rheology
`National Merit Scholar
`First Place winner, Mass. State Science Fair “Graft Copolymers of polystyrene and polymethyl
`methacrylate with natural rubber”
`
`
`PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS
`
`
`Institute of Packaging Professionals
`Society of Plastics Engineers
`
`COMMUNITY SERVICE
`Volunteer, instructional technology, Woodland Elementary School, 1997-2004, Greer, SC,
`Graduate of Leadership Greenville, 1988-89, Greenville, SC
`Co-founder and chairman, Suzuki Academy of Talent Education, 1984-89, Greenville, SC
`
`
`
`Scholle Corporation: Exhibit 2007-15
`Rapak LLC v. Scholle Corporation
`IPR2014-00847
`
`

`

`Dr. Robert M. Kimmel
`Page 4
`
`PUBLICATIONS
`
`
`Peer-reviewed Report/Book
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`R.M. Kimmel, Kay D. Cooksey and A. Littman, “Life Cycle Assessment of Grocery Bags in
`Common Use in the United States” (2015) Clemson, SC:. Clemson University Press. 182 pgs. (in
`preparation for publication)
`
`
`Refereed Journal Articles
`
`C. Ifezue, K. Cooksey, D. Darby, R. Kimmel and W. Whiteside, “The Effect Of Bio-Based Films
`On Quality And Shelf Life Of Fresh Celery” J. Food Quality, in review
`
`K. W. Kim, B.J. Min, Y.T. Kim, R. M. Kimmel, K. Cooksey, S.I. Park “Antimicrobial activity
`against foodborne pathogens of chitosan biopolymer films of different molecular weights“,LWT-
`Food Sci. Tech 44 565-569 (2011)
`
`H. J. Bae, H. J. Park, D. O. Darby, R. M. Kimmel and W. S. Whiteside “Development and
`characterization of pet/fish gelatin-nanoclay composite/LDPE laminate: gelatin-nanoclay film as a
`functional barrier layer” Pkg. Tech. Sci., 22, 371-383 (2009)
`
`H. J. Bae, Park, H. J., Hong, S. I., Byun, Y. J., Darby, D. O., Kimmel, R. M., Whiteside, W. S..
`“Effect of clay content, homogenization rpm, ph, and ultrasonification on mechanical and barrier
`properties of fish gelatin/montmorillonite nanocomposite films" LWT -- Food Science and
`Technology. 42, 1179–1186.(2009)
`
`H. J. Bae, D. O. Darby, R.. M. Kimmel, H. J. Park, W. S. Whiteside, "Effects of transglutaminase
`induced crosslinking on properties of fish gelatin-nano clay composite film", J. Food Chem., 114
`180-189 (2009)
`
`Y.T. Kim, S.H, Ko, J.H.Lee, R.M.Kimmel, “Application of background emission observed in 1, 1’
`oxalyldiimiddazole derivatives chemiluminescence reaction,” Analytical Chemistry, 2008 in review(cid:71)
`.
`R.A. Hurley, R. M. Kimmel, D. D. Darby, K. Cooksey, L. Bix "Design and Build of an
`accelerometer to determine package orientation over time" NIPHLE Annual Conference: Norfolk,
`VA (2008)
`
`Y-T. Kim, Y-S. Hong, R. M. Kimmel, J-H Rho, C-H. Lee “New Approach for characterization of
`biopolymer film using proton behavior determined by low field 1H NMR” J. Agri. Food Chem., 55
`10678-84 (2007)
`
`V. Chougule, R. M. Kimmel and D. A. Zumbrunnen “Novel Barrier Films using Smart Blending
`Technology for Reducing Flavor Migration in Packaging Applications” in preparation
`
`V. Chougule, R. M. Kimmel and D. A. Zumbrunnen “Barrier, mechanical and thermal properties of
`PE-EVOH blends with novel morphologies produced with a continuous chaotic advection blender”
`in preparation
`
`
`Y. T. Kim and R. M. Kimmel “A novel method to determine antioxidation activity of gelatin
`biopolymer film incorporating ascorbic acid, phytic acid and BHA using a Resazulin Simulation
`System” J. Agricultural and Food Chemistry in revision (2008)
`
`M. B. Barker and R. M. Kimmel. "Effects of octene and norbornene content on blends of cyclo-
`olefinic copolymers with linear low density polyethylene. I. Physical Properties" in preparation.
`
`
`
`
`Scholle Corporation: Exhibit 2007-16
`Rapak LLC v. Scholle Corporation
`IPR2014-00847
`
`

`

`Dr. Robert M. Kimmel
`Page 5
`
`PUBLICATIONS (continued)
`
`Refereed Journal Articles (continued)
`
`M. B. Barker, I. Luzinov and R. M. Kimmel. "Effects of octene and norbornene content on blends of
`cyclo-olefinic copolymers with linear low density polyethylene. II. Structural Characterization" in
`preparation.
`
`R. M. Kimmel. “Undergraduate Labs in Applied Polymer Science – A Case Study” Proc. 2002
`ASEE Ann. Conf. (2002)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`R. M. Kimmel. “Polyester Film” J. Microgr. 12, 15-23 (1982)
`
`R. M. Kimmel “A Primer on Plastic” Graphic Arts Monthly 55, 132, 135-136 (1983)
`
`W. Whitney and R. M. Kimmel. “Griffith Equation and Carbon Fiber Strength” Nature Physical
`Science 237, 93-94 (1972).
`
`R. M. Kimmel and D. R. Uhlmann. “Activation-energy Spectra for Retraction of Hot-Stretched
`Polystyrene and Shear Creep in Polymethyl Methacrylate” J. Appl. Phys. 42, 4926-4930 (1971).
`
`R. M. Kimmel and D. R. Uhlmann. “Effects of Pressure on Amorphous Polymers: Thermodynamic
`Properties of Densified Polymethyl Methacrylate” J. Appl. Phys. 42, 4917-4925 (1971).
`
`R. M. Kimmel and D. R. Uhlmann. “Effects of High Pressure on Amorphous Polymers. II.
`Annealing of Densified Polymethyl Methacrylate” J. Appl. Phys. 42, 1892-1896 (1971).
`
`R. M. Kimmel and D. R. Uhlmann. “Effects of High Pressure on Amorphous Polymers:
`Densification of Polymethyl Methacrylate” J. Appl. Phys. 41, 2917-2927 (1970).
`
`R. M. Kimmel and D. R. Uhlmann. “Activation Energy Spectra for Nonlinear Relaxation Processes”
`J. Appl. Phys. 41, 592-596 (1970)
`
`R. M. Kimmel and D. R. Uhlmann. “On the Energy Spectrum of Densified Silica Glass.” Phys.
`Chem. Glasses 10, 12-17 (1969).
`
`R. M. Kimmel and D. R. Uhlmann. “Activation Energy Spectra for Relaxation in Amorphous
`Materials. I. Volume Relaxation in Polystyrene and Polyvinyl Acetate” J. Appl. Phys. 40, 4254-
`4260 (1969).
`
`R. M. Kimmel and R. D. Andrews. “Birefringence Effects in Acrylonitrile Polymers. II. The Nature
`of the 140°C Transition” J. Appl. Phys. 36, 3063-3071 (1965).
`
`R. D. Andrews and R. M. Kimmel. “Solid State Structure and Glass Transitions in Polyacrylonitrile:
`the Hetero-bonded Solid Sta