Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 13
`Entered: May 28, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MICROBOARDS TECHNOLOGY, LLC d/b/a AFINIA,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`STRATASYS INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-00288
`Patent 8,349,239 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before DONNA M. PRAISS, KRISTINA M. KALAN, and
`JON B. TORNQUIST, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TORNQUIST, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 13
`Entered: May 28, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MICROBOARDS TECHNOLOGY, LLC d/b/a AFINIA,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`STRATASYS INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-00288
`Patent 8,349,239 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before DONNA M. PRAISS, KRISTINA M. KALAN, and
`JON B. TORNQUIST, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TORNQUIST, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00288
`Patent 8,349,239 B2
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`Microboards Technology, LLC d/b/a Afina (“Petitioner”) filed a
`
`Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) to institute an inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 4,
`5, 7, 15, 17, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 8,349,239 B2 (“the ’239 patent”).
`Stratasys Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 8,
`“Prelim. Resp.”) to the Petition.
`
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an
`inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the
`claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons discussed below, we
`determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of
`prevailing with respect to any of the challenged claims of the ’239 patent.
`Accordingly, we do not authorize institution of an inter partes review.
`A. Related Proceeding
`
`The parties represent that the ’239 patent currently is being asserted
`against Petitioner in Stratasys Inc. v. Microboards Technology, LLC d/b/a
`Afina, Civil Action No. 13-cv-03228 (D. Minn.). Pet. 2; Paper 6, 1.
`B. The ’239 Patent
`The ’239 patent is titled “Seam Concealment for Three-Dimensional
`
`Models” and is directed to a method of making three-dimensional objects
`using extrusion-based digital manufacturing systems. Ex. 1001, 1:6–10.
`Specifically, the ’239 patent is directed to a method of generating contour
`tool paths that define an interior region of a layer of the three-dimensional
`model, with at least one of the starting point or stopping point of the contour
`tool path located within the interior region of the layer. Id. at 1:53–58.
`“This effectively conceals the seam that is formed at the intersection of the
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00288
`Patent 8,349,239 B2
`
`starting and stop points, which can increase the aesthetic and functional
`qualities of the resulting 3D model.” Id. at 3:4–7.
`
`Figures 2 and 3 of the ’239 patent are depicted below:
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00288
`Patent 8,349,239 B2
`
`Figure 2 is a top view of a layer of a 3D model being built with an
`
`extrusion-based system. Id. at 2:17–18. Figure 3 is an expanded view of
`section 3 taken in Figure 2, “illustrating a seam of the layer with an open-
`square arrangement.” Id. at 2:19–21. In Figure 2, “layer 36 includes
`perimeter path 38, which is a road of a modeling material that is deposited”
`by an extrusion head “along contour path 40.” Id. at 5:54–56. Perimeter
`path 38 includes exterior surface 46, which is the outward-facing surface
`that may be observable when the 3D model is completed. Id. at 6:8–10.
`Interior region 50 is “confined within perimeter path 38, and may be filled
`with additional modeling material deposited along additionally generated
`tool paths.” Id. at 6:12–16.
`
`The ’239 patent discloses that conventional contour tool paths have
`start and stop points (points 58 and 60 of Figure 3, respectively) that are
`collinear with the outer ring of the contour tool path, with the stop point next
`to the start point. Id. at 6:39–51. In this conformation, material deposited at
`point 60 may “bump into” the modeling material previously deposited at
`start point 58, forming a bulge at seam 64. Id. at 6:52–59. Or, if not enough
`modeling material is deposited between points 58 and 60, a gap may form at
`the seam, increasing the porosity of the 3D model. Id. at 6:59–62.
`
`To avoid creating a bulge or gap at seam 64, the ’239 patent discloses
`a method wherein the start and stop points are adjusted to points 52 and 54
`of Figure 3, respectively. Id. at 7:3–6. “This allows any variations in the
`extrusion process when starting and stopping the deposition to occur at a
`location that is within interior region 50 rather than adjacent to exterior
`surface 46.” Id. at 7:6–10.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00288
`Patent 8,349,239 B2
`
`Figure 15, set forth below, discloses another embodiment of this
`
`process using a “step-over arrangement.” Id. at 2:57–59.
`
`
`
`In Figure 15, the extrusion head deposits material from point 1052 until it
`reaches point 1092, substantially forming perimeter path 1038a. Id. at
`12:17–22. “At this point, while continuing to deposit the modeling
`material,” the extrusion head “steps over from perimeter path 1038a to begin
`forming perimeter path 1038b at point 1094.” Id. at 12:22–25. This step-
`over arrangement, with seam 1064 extending “inward within interior region
`1050,” is said to eliminate the formation of bulges, and reduce or eliminate
`the transmission of gases and/or liquids through seam 1064. Id. at 12:31–35.
`C. Illustrative Claims
`Claims 1 and 15 are independent. Claims 2, 4, 5, and 7 depend from
`
`claim 1; claims 17 and 18 depend from claim 15. Claims 1 and 15 are
`illustrative of the claimed methods and are reproduced below:
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00288
`Patent 8,349,239 B2
`
`
` 1. A method for building a three-dimensional model with an
`extrusion-based digital manufacturing system, the method
`comprising generating a contour tool path that defines an
`interior region of a layer of the three-dimensional model,
`wherein the contour tool path comprises a start point, a stop
`point, and a step-over arrangement between the start point and
`the stop point, wherein the step-over arrangement is oriented at
`a non-right angle, wherein at least one of the start point and the
`stop point is located within the interior region of the layer, and
`wherein the step-over arrangement reduces surface porosity for
`the three-dimensional model.
`
`Ex. 1001, 14:9–19.
`
`
` 15. A method for building a three-dimensional model with an
`extrusion-based digital manufacturing system, the method
`comprising:
` generating a tool path that comprises:
` a start point for the tool path;
` a stop point for the tool path;
` a contour tool path extending from the start point and
`
` based on a perimeter of a layer of the three-dimensional
`
` model, wherein the generated contour tool path defines
`
` an interior region of the layer; and
` an interior raster path extending from the contour tool path
`
` within the interior region of the layer, wherein the
`
`
` interior raster path ends at the stop point; and
` extruding a material in a pattern based on the generated tool
`path to form the perimeter and at least a portion of the
`interior of the layer of the three-dimensional model.
`
`Id. at 16:9–24.
`
`D. The Prior Art
`Petitioner relies upon the following prior art references, as well as the
`
`Declaration of Thomas A. Campbell, Ph.D. (Ex. 1003):
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00288
`Patent 8,349,239 B2
`
`
`Reference
`Alexander
`Jang
`
`Date
`Publication
`Feb. 22, 2005
`US 6,859,681 B1
`US 2003/0236588 A1 Dec. 25, 2003
`
`Exhibit
`Ex. 1008
`Ex. 1009
`
`
`Ju-Hsien Kao, Process Planning for Additive/Subtractive Solid Freeform
`Fabrication Using Medial Axis Transform, 1–159 (1999) (Ph.D. diss.,
`Stanford Univ.) (Ex. 1005, “Kao”);
`
`P. Kulkarni & D. Dutta, Deposition Strategies and Resulting Part Stiffnesses
`in Fused Deposition Modeling, 121 J. MFG. SCI. & ENG’G. 93 (Feb. 1999)
`(Ex. 1006, “Kulkarni”); and
`
`Jianzhong Ruan et al., 2–D Depsoition (Sic) Pattern and Strategy Study on
`Rapid Manufacturing, PROCEEDINGS OF IDETC/CIE 2006, 1–7 (Ex. 1007,
`“Ruan”).
`
`
`E. The Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner challenges claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 15, 17, and 18 on the
`
`following grounds:
`Reference(s)
`
`Kao
`Kao and Alexander
`Kao and Ruan
`Kao and Kulkarni
`Jang and Kulkarni and/or Kao
`
`
`Basis
`§ 102
`§ 103
`§ 103
`§ 103
`§ 103
`
`Claims Challenged
`1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 15, 17, and 18
`1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 15, 17, and 18
`1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 15, 17, and 18
`1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 15, 17, and 18
`1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 15, 17, and 18
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, “[a] claim in an unexpired patent shall be
`
`given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); In re Cuozzo Speed
`Techs., LLC, 778 F.3d 1271, 1279–83 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In determining the
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00288
`Patent 8,349,239 B2
`
`broadest reasonable construction, we presume that claim terms carry their
`ordinary and customary meaning. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d
`1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). This presumption may be rebutted when a
`patentee, acting as a lexicographer, sets forth an alternate definition of a
`term in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and
`precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`1. An interior raster path
`
`Petitioner contends that the term “an interior raster path” should be
`construed to mean “a tool path that is used to fill [in] a portion of an interior
`region defined by a perimeter.” Pet. 17. Patent Owner contends that
`Petitioner’s construction is too broad because a raster path is but one
`example of a tool path that is used to fill in an interior region. Prelim. Resp.
`6–7. According to Patent Owner, the established meaning of “raster path” is
`a “back and forth path.” Id. at 8.
`
`The ’239 patent Specification, as well as the art cited by Petitioner,
`supports Patent Owner’s proposed construction. For example, the ’239
`patent Specification describes the deposition of modeling material in a
`“back-and-forth raster pattern.” Ex. 1001, 11:3–4, Fig. 11. Likewise, Ruan
`describes a “raster pattern,” or “zigzag path” in which the “tip of the nozzle
`is moved back and forth parallel to referenced directions.” Ex. 1007, 2; see
`also Ex. 1005, 108 (“Common patterns for generating deposition paths
`include raster patterns – paths are parallel to a pre-determined direction.”).
`
`Patent Owner does not account, however, for the term “interior” in its
`construction. We agree with Petitioner that, in the context of the ’239
`patent, this term means “an interior region defined by a perimeter.” See Ex.
`1001, 10:65–11:4, 11:29–34. Accordingly, we construe “interior raster
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00288
`Patent 8,349,239 B2
`
`path” as “a back and forth path used to fill in a portion of an interior region
`defined by a perimeter.”
`
`2. Additional Claim Terms
`
`Petitioner provides the following additional proposed constructions
`(Pet. 17–19):
`
`Term
`A contour tool path
`
`An interior region of a layer of the
`three-dimensional model
`A step-over arrangement between
`the start point and the stop point
`
`Oriented at a non-right angle
`
`Proposed Construction
`A tool path that defines a
`perimeter of a 3D model for the
`given layer
`An area defined by a contour
`path
`The junction where the tool path
`moves from a perimeter path to
`an interior path
`The orientation is at an angle
`that is not ninety degrees
`
`
`Patent Owner does not propose any construction for these terms.
`
`On this record, we are persuaded that the proposed constructions are
`consistent with the Specification and represent the broadest reasonable
`construction. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s constructions for purposes
`of this decision.
`
`B. Anticipation by Kao
`
`Petitioner contends that Kao anticipates claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 15, 17,
`and 18 of the ’239 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Pet. 19–34. In support
`of this argument, Petitioner relies upon the testimony of Dr. Campbell. Ex.
`1003.
`Kao is directed to the use of solid freeform fabrication (SFF)
`
`techniques to produce complex solid objects through successive 2D layer
`deposition. Ex. 1005, 2. Kao focuses on the use of spiral deposition paths,
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00288
`Patent 8,349,239 B2
`
`and discloses two different strategies for generating such paths: constant-
`offsetting and adaptive-offsetting. Id. at 8–9, 108 (“For extrusion-based
`deposition processes, spiral path patterns are often preferred for producing
`isotropic deposits.”), 115–116.
`
`In the constant-offsetting approach, the distance between the paths is
`kept constant; in the adaptive-offsetting approach, step-over distances are
`varied to accommodate the non-uniform thickness of the region. Id. at 115.
`Table 6.1, set forth below, depicts the results of these two approaches:
`
`Id. at 116. According to Kao, the adaptive-offsetting approach is
`advantageous because it produces smooth “connected spiral deposition
`paths,” whereas the constant-offsetting approach may result in gaps and
`disconnected entities. Id. at 110, 116, 122, Fig. 6.6.
`
`Patent Owner contends that Kao does not anticipate claim 1 because
`Kao does not disclose, inter alia, either “a step-over arrangement” or a start
`or stop point that is within an interior region of the layer (as defined by the
`contour tool path). Prelim. Resp. 14, 19–20. We agree.
`
`With respect to the start and stop points, Petitioner states that “it is
`assumed that the ‘spiral path’ described by Kao would be understood by a
`person of ordinary skill in the art as having a start point and a stop point that
`are radially offset from each other.” Pet. 24. Based on this assumption,
`Petitioner concludes that the “spiral path” of Kao expressly discloses
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00288
`Patent 8,349,239 B2
`
`“wherein at least one of the start point and the stop point is located within
`the interior region of the layer,” as recited in claim 1. Id. (citing Ex. 1003
`¶ 46).
`
`Petitioner’s argument is not persuasive because it relies entirely upon
`unsupported assumptions and the conclusory testimony of Dr. Campbell,
`which is entitled to little, if any, weight. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert
`testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the
`opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). Petitioner’s argument
`also conflicts with Kao’s figures which, on this record, disclose adjoining
`start and stop points, and not points that are radially offset. Thus, we are not
`persuaded that Petitioner has set forth sufficient argument or evidence to
`show that Kao discloses a start or stop point that is located within the
`interior region of a layer.
`
`In support of Petitioner’s argument that Kao discloses a “step-over
`arrangement,” Dr. Campbell testifies as follows:
`For purposes of the proposed anticipation rejection over Kao it
`is assumed that the “sharp turns” described as problematic in
`Kao encompass the very kind of “right angles” shown in Jang
`and which were overcome during original prosecution of the
`’239 Patent by the addition of the claim language “oriented at a
`non-right angle.” Accordingly, Kao’s express teaching of
`providing for “the least amount of sharp turns” in [a] deposition
`path having varying step over distances would be understood by
`one of ordinary skill in the art as [] teaching an arrangement
`wherein “the step-over arrangement is oriented at a non-right
`angle.”
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 44.
`In his testimony, however, Dr. Campbell fails to explain why one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the “varying step-over
`distances” of Kao constitute a step-over arrangement. Id. Dr. Campbell’s
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00288
`Patent 8,349,239 B2
`
`testimony is also inconsistent with Kao’s figures which, as noted by Patent
`Owner, do not show a step-over arrangement, “let alone a non-right angle
`step-over.” Prelim. Resp. 14; Ex. 1005, Table 6.1 (disclosing a tool path
`with varying step-over distances but no step-over arrangement, where the
`tool path transitions from a perimeter path to an interior path). Thus, we are
`not persuaded that Petitioner has set forth sufficient argument or evidence in
`the Petition to show that Kao discloses a step-over arrangement, as recited in
`claim 1.
`
`With respect to claim 15, Petitioner asserts that Kao’s “continuous
`tool path that may spiral in and which is continuous” is “an interior raster
`path extending from the contour tool path.” Pet. 33 (citing Ex. 1005, 115–
`117). This argument is not persuasive because it is premised on a claim
`construction that we do not adopt, i.e., that an interior raster path is any tool
`path used to fill in a portion of an interior area. Moreover, Petitioner offers
`no credible evidence to support its conclusion that Kao contemplates one
`continuous tool path that spirals in, as opposed to individual, continuous
`offset curves (or loops) separated by varying step-over distances. Ex. 1005,
`116; Ex. 1003 ¶ 54 (citing broadly to pages 115–117 of Kao, which do not
`use the term “spiral in”).
`
`Based on the foregoing, we are unpersuaded that Petitioner has
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that independent claims 1 and 15, or
`their respective dependent claims, are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102 by
`Kao.
`
`C. Obviousness over Kao and Alexander
`
`To the extent “Kao is found not to expressly disclose[] the claimed
`start and stop points of the tool path or a raster path extending from the
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00288
`Patent 8,349,239 B2
`
`contour path,” Petitioner contends that these elements, as well as claims 1, 2,
`4, 5, 7, 15, 17, and 18 as a whole, would have been obvious in view of Kao
`and Alexander. Pet. 34.
`
`Alexander is directed to the modeling of parts using “spiral-in, spiral-
`out, and arbitrary direction raster tool paths.” Ex. 1008, 2:36–44; see id. at
`6:65–67, 7:49–50. Figures 3(c) and 7 of Alexander are depicted below:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00288
`Patent 8,349,239 B2
`
`Id. at 3:3–4 (“FIG. 3C is a screen display of a top view of one layer”), 3:27–
`28 (“FIG. 7 is a screen display of a sample layer at height 26 mm” showing a
`combination of toolpaths).
`
`Petitioner contends that Alexander’s spiral-in, spiral-out, and raster
`tool paths, in combination with Kao’s disclosure that deposition paths
`should use the “least amount of sharp turns” and “yield no disconnected
`patterns,” would have rendered obvious a “step-over arrangement that is
`oriented at a non-right angle.” Pet. 36. Petitioner further contends that one
`of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that any of the spiral-in,
`spiral-out, or arbitrary raster tool paths disclosed in Alexander could be used
`for seam concealment and porosity reduction. Id. at 36–37.
`
`In its arguments, Petitioner does not explain why the spiral-in, spiral-
`out, or raster tool paths discussed in Alexander contain or suggest a step-
`over arrangement. Prelim. Resp. 29; Ex. 1005, 116, Table 6.1; Ex. 1008,
`Figs. 3(c), 7; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 62–64. Indeed, the figures of Alexander relied
`upon by Petitioner depict individual, continuous contour paths or loops. Dr.
`Campbell’s Declaration in support of Petitioner’s arguments largely restates
`the arguments made by Petitioner in its Petition. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 62–64. Thus,
`we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown that Alexander discloses or
`suggests a step-over arrangement.
`
`With respect to independent claim 15, Petitioner again contends that
`Kao’s disclosure of “a continuous tool path that may spiral in and which is
`continuous” satisfies “an interior raster path extending from the contour tool
`path within the interior region of the layer.” Pet. 39 (citing Ex. 1005, 115–
`117). As noted above, this argument is not persuasive because we do not
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00288
`Patent 8,349,239 B2
`
`adopt Petitioner’s proposed claim construction equating a raster tool path
`with any tool path used to fill an interior region of the layer.
`
`Based on the record before us, Petitioner has not demonstrated a
`reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 15, 17, and 18 of the ’239
`patent would have been obvious over Kao and Alexander.
`D. Obviousness over Kao and Ruan
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 15, 17, and 18 of the ’239
`patent would have been obvious over Kao and Ruan. Pet. 40–47. Petitioner
`characterizes Ruan as directed to “the study of the effect of 2-D deposition
`patterns on the geometry of deposition results,” and as disclosing that a
`regular 2-D shape can be decomposed into several “cell” similar shapes with
`different deposition strategies applied to each “cell.” Pet. 41 (citing Ex.
`1007, 1).
`
`Ruan focuses on the use of zigzag and spiral-like deposition patterns,
`as depicted in Figure 1 below:
`
`
`Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1007, 2); Ex. 1003 ¶ 74 (Dr. Campbell asserting that the
`tool path in Figure 1(b) “spirals from the interior position to the exterior
`position to form a continuous path”).
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00288
`Patent 8,349,239 B2
`
`Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`coupled Kao’s smooth, connected deposition paths with Ruan’s spiral-like
`deposition paths, to form a step-over arrangement that is oriented at a non-
`right angle. Pet. 44 (citing Ex. 1007, 3, 6; Ex. 1003 ¶ 79).
`
`Patent Owner contends that the patterns of Figure 1 are merely
`“diagrammatic illustrations of the respective patterns” and Petitioner has not
`expressly identified “which line segments shown in Figures 1(a) or (b) might
`correspond to either the contour tool path or a non-right angle step-over
`arrangement on such a path.” Prelim. Resp. 33, 36–37.
`
`We agree with Patent Owner that the Petition does not identify
`sufficiently what portion of Ruan’s Figure 1, or Ruan in general, discloses a
`step-over arrangement. Prelim. Resp. 36–37. Petitioner does not identify,
`through credible arguments or citations to evidence, where the contour tool
`path and step-over arrangement are found in Figure 1 of Ruan, and we
`decline to sift through the record to identify support for such a finding,
`unguided by Petitioner. With respect to Ruan’s spiral deposition patterns in
`general, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Campbell explains why a spiral path
`necessarily discloses or contains a “step-over arrangement.”1 Pet. 44; Ex.
`1003 ¶¶ 78–79. As noted supra, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has set
`forth sufficient argument or evidence in the Petition to show that Kao
`discloses a step-over arrangement, as recited in claim 1. Thus, we are not
`
`
`1 We note that spiral patterns were before the Examiner during prosecution,
`and the claims were allowed over these disclosures. Ex. 1002, MB042–043
`(relying upon Figures 7 (D), (E), and (F) of Jang for rejections under 35
`U.S.C. § 102(b) and § 103(a)); see also 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) (noting that the
`Director may reject a petition because “the same or substantially the same
`prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office”).
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00288
`Patent 8,349,239 B2
`
`persuaded that Petitioner has set forth sufficient argument or evidence in the
`Petition to show that either Kao or Ruan discloses a step-over arrangement.
`
`With respect to independent claim 15, Petitioner again asserts that
`Kao’s disclosure of a “continuous tool path that may spiral in and which is
`continuous . . . teaches the recited element of claim 15 requiring ‘an interior
`raster path extending from the contour tool path within the interior region of
`the layer.’” Pet. 46–47 (citing Ex. 1005, 115–117). For the reasons
`discussed above, we are not persuaded by this argument.
`
`Based on the foregoing, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable
`likelihood that claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 15, 17, and 18 of the ’239 patent would
`have been obvious over Kao and Ruan.
`E. Obviousness over Kao and Kulkarni
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 15, 17, and 18 of the ’239
`patent would have been obvious over Kao and Kulkarni. Pet. 48–55.
`Kulkarni discloses spiral deposition paths that may be laid down in one
`continuous motion. Ex. 1006, 95–96. Several of these paths are depicted in
`Figures 5 and 6 below:
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00288
`Patent 8,349,239 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 5 depicts a variety of spirals; Figures 6(a) and 6(b) respectively
`represent an original contour deposition path and a spiral path generated
`from this contour path. Id.
`
`Petitioner asserts that the spiral path of Figure 5(a) both eliminates
`right angles and provides a “seam crossover where the outer boundary
`transitions into the spiral interior.” Pet. 50 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 91). Petitioner
`further contends that Kulkarni discloses varying the angle of raster paths in
`order to avoid the production of voids and improve product stiffness. Id.
`at 51–52.
`
`Patent Owner contends that Figure 5(a) of Kulkarni merely depicts a
`“conventional spiral path” and neither Petitioner nor Dr. Campbell otherwise
`explains “where the Kulkarni article teaches the non-right angle step-over
`arrangement recited in claim 1.” Prelim. Resp. 44. Patent Owner further
`contends that Petitioner provides no explanation of how or why Kulkarni’s
`disclosure of varying raster pattern angles discloses a non-right angle step-
`over arrangement. Id. at 45.
`
`Figure 5(a) of Kulkarni discloses a single contour path and a separate,
`disconnected interior spiral deposition path. We agree with Patent Owner
`that Petitioner and Dr. Campbell do not explain sufficiently Petitioner’s
`argument that this figure discloses a step-over arrangement, i.e., a junction
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00288
`Patent 8,349,239 B2
`
`where the contour tool path steps-over to an interior path. Prelim. Resp. 44
`(“From even a cursory review of Fig. 5(a), it is readily apparent that nothing
`more than a conventional spiral path is shown.”); Ex. 1003 ¶ 91. We also
`agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner provides insufficient explanation as
`to why Kulkarni’s disclosure of varying interior raster path angles would
`teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art a step-over arrangement.
`Id. at 45.
`
`With respect to claim 15, Petitioner again asserts that Kao’s disclosure
`of “a continuous tool path that may spiral in and is continuous” represents
`“an interior raster path extending from the contour tool path within the
`interior region of the layer.” Pet. 54. For the reasons set forth above, we are
`not persuaded by this argument.
`
`Based on the foregoing, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable
`likelihood that claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 15, 17, and 18 of the ’239 patent would
`have been obvious in view of Kao and Kulkarni.
`F. Obviousness over Jang, Kulkarni, and/or Kao
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 15, 17, and 18 of the ’239
`patent would have been obvious over the combination of Jang, Kulkarni,
`and/or Kao. Pet. 55–59. Jang discloses a method for continuously
`depositing molding material to “form a solid area with few or no path
`interruption[s].” Ex. 1009 ¶ 85. Figure 7D of Jang is set forth below:
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00288
`Patent 8,349,239 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 7D “shows contour offset dispensing paths.” Id. ¶ 56. In Figure 7D,
`a nozzle traces out a first contour path L1 from starting point s1 to ending
`point e1. Id. ¶ 85. The nozzle then moves inward to “a second starting point
`S2 (slightly different in location from s1 or ‘offset’ from s1) for tracing out
`the second path L2, and then off-set to a third starting point S3.” Id.
`
`Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
`motivated to modify the angle of the step-over arrangement depicted in
`Figure 7D of Jang based on either Kao’s disclosure that deposition paths
`should be smooth and yield no disconnected patterns or Kulkarni’s
`disclosure that raster angles can be modified to limit the production of voids
`and improve product stiffness. Pet. 57–58.
`
`We are not persuaded that Petitioner’s explanation of why one of
`ordinary skill in the art would have combined Jang and Kulkarni and/or Kao
`is adequate. In particular, it is not evident from Petitioner’s argument or
`evidence why one of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to design
`rules related to Kao’s adaptive-offsetting approach—which has not been
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00288
`Patent 8,349,239 B2
`
`shown to contemplate a step-over arrangement—to reduce the angle of the
`step-over arrangement in Jang. Nor is it evident what problem in Jang such
`a modification would have solved or overcome, as Figure 7D discloses no
`apparent gaps or disconnected entities. It is also not apparent from
`Petitioner’s argument why the raster path angles of Kulkarni, and the
`problems to be solved related to these angles, are relevant to the step-over
`arrangement and spiral path depicted in Jang. Thus, we are not persuaded
`that Petitioner has provided sufficient reasoning with rational underpinning
`to support the combination of Jang with either Kao or Kulkarni. See KSR
`Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (requiring “some
`articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
`conclusion of obviousness”).
`
`With respect to claim 15, Petitioner contends that, because Kulkarni
`teaches that the tool path should be in a spiral or zig-zag pattern, it would
`have been obvious to combine “the teaching of Jang [] with Kulkarni [] to
`achieve a deposition pattern having a raster path extending from the contour
`path.” Pet. 59 (citing Ex. 1006, 98; Ex. 1003 ¶ 112). We are not persuaded
`by this argument because, although Kulkarni discloses the use of spiral and
`raster deposition patterns, Jang already utilizes one of these patterns (spiral).
`Petitioner also does not explain why, based on the disclosures of Jang and
`Kulkarni, one of ordinary skill would have used both patterns in the same
`tool path. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (“a patent composed of several
`elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its
`elements was, independently, known in the prior art.”).
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00288
`Patent 8,349,239 B2
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood
`
`that claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 15, 17, and 18 of the ’239 patent would have been
`obvious over Jang, Kulkarni, and/or Kao.
`G. Conclusion
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not demonstrated a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to its challenge of claims 1,
`2, 4, 5, 7, 15, 17, and 18 of the ’239 patent.
`III. ORDER
`
`It is hereby:
`
`ORDERED that the Petition is denied as to all challenged claims of
`
`the ’239 patent; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that no inter partes review is instituted.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00288
`Patent 8,349,239 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`William J. Cass
`Herbert M. Bedingfield
`CANTOR COLBURN LLP
`wcass@cantorcolburn.com
`hbedingfield@cantorcolburn.com
`
`Brad D. Pedersen
`PATTERSON THUENTE PEDERSEN, P.A.
`prps@ptslaw.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Walter C. Linder
`FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
`walter.linder@faegrebd.com
`
`
`
`
`23
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
