UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`________________________
`
`
`
`NANOCO TECHNOLOGIES, LTD.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
`
`Patent Owner
`
`________________________
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00528
`Patent No. 6,322,901
`________________________
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
` 
`
`ii 
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00528 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`I. 
`OVERVIEW .................................................................................................... 1 
`II. 
`III.  COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS FOR PETITIONER
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.106 ................... 4 
`IV.  MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8) ............................................... 4 
`V. 
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 6 
`A. “Monodisperse particle population” ................................................................. 6 
`B. “Short-chain polymer terminating in a moiety having affinity for a
`suspension or dispersion medium” .................................................................. 8 
`C. “The first semiconductor material and the second semiconductor
`material are the same or different” .................................................................. 8 
`D. “An overcoating uniformly deposited on the core” ......................................... 9 
`E. Other terms ..................................................................................................... 10 
`VI.  PERSON OF SKILL IN THE ART .............................................................. 10 
`VII. 
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)) ................. 11 
`A. Statement Of The Precise Relief Requested And The Reasons
`Therefore (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(A)) ................................................................ 11 
`B. Ground 1: Hines Anticipates Claims 1, 2, 4-20, 24, 31-33, 35-37, 39-
`42, 44, 45, and 47-49. .................................................................................... 12 
`C. Ground 2: Danek Anticipates Claims 1-3, 6-20, 24, 31-33, 35-39, and
`41-43. ............................................................................................................. 22 
`D. Ground 3 - Rodriguez-Viejo Anticipates Claims 1-20, 24, 31-33, 35-
`45, and 47-50. ................................................................................................ 30 
`E. Ground 4 - Peng Anticipates Claims 1-14, 16, 18-20, 24, 31-33, 35-45,
`47-50. ............................................................................................................. 36 
`F. Ground 5 - Murray Anticipates Claims 1-3, 6-14, 16, 18-20, 24, 31-33,
`35-45, and 47-50. ........................................................................................... 42 
`
` 
`
`ii 
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00528 
`
`G. Ground 6 - The Combination of Kortan and Murray Render Claims 1-
`3, 6-20, 24, 31-33, 35-39, and 41-43 Obvious. ............................................. 48 
`H. Ground 7 - The Combination of any of Hines, Danek, Rodriguez-
`Viejo, Peng, or Murray/Kortan with either of Coffer or
`Premachandran Renders Claim 21 Obvious. ................................................. 54 
`VIII.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 57 
` 
`
` 
`
`iii 
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`IPR2015-00528 
`
`
` 
`
`Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus.,
`807 F.2d 955 (Fed. Cir. 1986) .............................................................................. 10
`
`
`In re Petering,
`301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962) ........................................ 16
`
`
`In re Rambus Inc.,
` 694 F.3d 42 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................................. 6
`
`In re Trans Texas Holdings Corp.,
` 498 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .............................................................................. 6
`
`KSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
` 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007) ........................................................................................... 10
`
`Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp.,
` 334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .............................................................................. 6
`
`Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner,
` 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) .................................................... 16
`
`
` 
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`IPR2015-00528 
`
`
`Exhibit
`Number
`1001
`
`Description
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,322,901 (“the ‘901 Patent”).
`
`Declaration of Margaret Hines
`
`File History of Inter Partes Reexamination of U.S. Patent No.
`6,861,155 (“the ‘155 Patent”).
`
`File History of Inter Partes Reexamination of U.S. Patent No.
`7,125,605 (“the ‘605 Patent”).
`
`Hines et al., “Synthesis and Characterization of Strongly Luminescing
`ZnS-Capped CdSe Nanocrystals,” Journal of Physical Chemistry,
`1996, 100, 468-471 (“Hines”).
`
`Danek et al. “Preparation of II-VI quantum dot composites by
`electrospray organometallic chemical vapor deposition,” J. Cryst.
`Growth, 1994, 145, 714-720 (“Danek”).
`
`1007 Murray et al. “Synthesis and Characterization of Nearly Monodisperse
`CdE (E = S, Se, Te) Semiconductor Nanocrystallites,” J. Am. Chem.
`Soc. 1993, 115, 8706-15 (“Murray”).
`
`Tischchenko, et al., Solid State Communications, Vol. 96, 1995, 795-
`798 (“Tischchenko”).
`
`and
`“Cathodoluminescence
`al.,
`et
`Rodriguez-Viejo
`Photoluminescence of Highly Luminescent CdSe/ZnS Quantum Dot
`Composites,” App. Phys. Let., 1997, 70, 2132-2134 (“Rodriguez-
`Viejo”).
`
`Peng et al., “Epitaxial Growth of Highly Luminescent CdSe/CdS
`Core/Shell Nanocrystals with Photostability and electronic
`Accessibility,” J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1997 (119) 7019-29 (“Peng”).
`
`
` 
`
`v
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00528 
`
`Exhibit
`Number
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`Description
`
`Kortan et al. “Nucleation and Growth of CdSe on ZnS Quantum
`Crystallite Seeds, and Vice Versa, in Inverse Micelle Media,” J. Am.
`Chem. Soc. 1990, 112, 1327-32 (“Kortan”).
`
`Premachandran et al., “The Enzymatic Synthesis of Thiol-Containing
`Polymers to Prepare Polymer-CdS Nanocomposites,” Chem. Mater.,
`1997, 1342-47 (“Premachandran”).
`
`Coffer et al., “Characterization of quantum-confined CdS
`nanocrystallites stabilized by deoxyribonucleic acid
`(DNA),”
`Nanotechnology 1992 69-76 (“Coffer”).
`
`File History of the ‘901 Patent.
`
`
` 
`
`vi 
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00528 
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Nanoco Technologies Ltd. (“Petitioner”) petitions for Inter Partes Review,
`
`seeking cancellation of claims 1-13, 15-21, 24, 31-33, 35-45 and 47-50 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,322,901 (the ‘901 Patent), which is owned by the Massachusetts
`
`Institute of Technology (“Patent Owner”). A copy of the ‘901 Patent is attached as
`
`Exh. 1001.
`
`II. OVERVIEW
`
`The ‘901 Patent claims coated nanocrystals (also known as quantum dots, or
`
`QDs) capable of light emission. The claimed nanocrystals are small particles (e.g.,
`
`about 23 Å to about 55 Å in diameter) of semiconductor material. Exh. 1001, 4: 50-
`
`57.1 When the nanocrystals are illuminated by a primary light source, the
`
`nanocrystals can absorb some of the primary light and emit secondary light having
`
`a frequency that corresponds to the band gap of the nanocrystal. Exh. 1001, 4: 24-
`
`27. The band gap of the nanocrystal, and therefore the frequency of emitted light, is
`
`a function of the size of the nanocrystal. Exh. 1001, 4: 27-29. Since the perceived
`
`color of light is determined by its frequency, different sized nanocrystals emit light
`
`of different colors. Exh. 1002, Hines Declaration, ¶ 19-20. Larger nanocrystals
`
`emit light more toward the red end of the light spectrum and smaller nanocrystals
`
`                                                            
`1 Citations to patent text are shown as “column number:lines” (e.g. 4:50-57).
`
` 
`
`1 
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00528 
`
`emit light more toward the blue end of the light spectrum. Exh. 1001, 8: 1-11.
`
`The claimed nanocrystal compositions have a core nanocrystal of a first
`
`semiconductor material and an overcoating of a second semiconductor material. The
`
`core nanocrystals are purported to be members of a monodisperse particle
`
`population, meaning that the distribution of particle sizes within the population is
`
`narrow. The core nanocrystals are synthesized according to a procedure described
`
`in an article published in the Journal of the American Chemical Society -- Murray et
`
`al. “Synthesis and Characterization of Nearly Monodisperse CdE (E = S, Se, Te)
`
`Semiconductor Nanocrystallites,” J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1993, 115, 8706-15
`
`(“Murray,” attached as Exh. 1007).
`
`The subject matter of the challenged claims of the ‘901 Patent was already
`
`known or was obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application
`
`leading to the ‘901 Patent was filed. The prior art references discussed below either
`
`anticipate or render obvious (either alone or in combination with other references)
`
`each of the claims of the ‘901 Patent.
`
`The challenged claims of the ‘901 Patent are very similar to claims that the
`
`Patent Trial and Appeals Board already found invalid in the prior inter partes
`
`reexaminations of two patents claiming priority to the ‘901 Patent. Those
`
`Reexaminations resulted in the cancellation of claims similar to, and in many cases
`
`narrower than, the challenged claims of the ‘901 Patent. The inter partes
`
` 
`
`2 
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00528 
`
`reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,861,155 (“the ‘155 Patent;” Reexamination File
`
`History attached as Exh. 1003) resulted in the cancellation of all of its claims. The
`
`inter partes reexamination of the 7,125,605 (“the 605 Patent;” Reexamination File
`
`History attached Exh. 1004) resulted in the cancellation (or narrowing amendment)
`
`of all of its originally issued claims. The reexaminations of the ‘155 and ‘605 Patents
`
`are final after an appeal to the PTAB.
`
`As an example of how similar certain claims of the ‘901 Patent are to
`
`cancelled claims of the ‘155 Patent, compare claim 1 of the ‘155 Patent and claim 1
`
`of the ‘901 Patent—both claims are directed to nanocrystals comprising a core of a
`
`first semiconductor material and an overcoating of a second semiconductor material,
`
`wherein the core is a member of a monodisperse particle population that emits light
`
`in a spectral range of no greater than 60 nm FWHM. Compare Exh. 1001, claim 1
`
`with Exh. 1003, p. 1816 (claim 1 of the ‘155 Patent). The cancelled claim includes
`
`all the limitations contained within claim 1 of the ‘901 Patent and also includes
`
`additional limitations. The cancelled claim is therefore narrower in scope, making
`
`it less likely to read on the prior art than claim 1 of the ‘901 Patent. The PTAB
`
`found claim 1 of the ‘155 Patent anticipated by one reference (“Hines,” discussed
`
`below) and obvious in view of a combination of two additional references (“Kortan”
`
`and “Murray”). Exh. 1003, pp. 107 and 124.
`
`The ‘901 Patent was the subject of an ex parte reexamination, Control No.
`
` 
`
`3 
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00528 
`
`90/010,736. Petitioners respectfully submit that the Examiner was wrong in not
`
`cancelling the claims of the ‘901 Patent for the reasons submitted herein.
`
`Additionally, the Examiner’s decision is directly contrary to the PTAB-confirmed
`
`decisions for the ‘155 Patent and ‘605 Patent.
`
`III. COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS FOR PETITIONER
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(A) AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.106
`
`Petitioners certify that (1) the ‘901 Patent is available for inter partes review
`
`and (2) Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting review of any claim of
`
`the ‘901 Patent on the grounds identified herein. This Petition is in accordance with
`
`37 CFR § 42.106(a). The undersigned authorizes the Commissioner to charge the
`
`fee specified by 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) to Deposit Acct. No. 501922, referencing
`
`attorney docket number 038-0096. In addition, the undersigned representative
`
`authorizes the Commissioner to charge any additional fees which may be required,
`
`or credit any overpayment, to Deposit Account No. 501922. Proof of Service of this
`
`petition pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e) and 42.105(a) is provided in the attached
`
`certificate of service. Concurrently filed herewith is a powers of attorney and exhibit
`
`list per § 42.10(b) and § 42.63(e), respectively.
`
`IV. MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8)
`
`The Real Parties-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) are: Nanoco
`
`Technologies Ltd. (Petitioner).
`
` 
`
`4 
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00528 
`
`Notice of Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)): There are no on-going
`
`judicial or administrative matters that would affect, or be affected by, a decision in
`
`the proceeding. One judicial matter brought by Patent Owner, Nanosys, Inc. v.
`
`Nanoco Technologies Ltd. and Sigma-Aldrich Co., No. 3:9-cv-258-DF (W.D. Wis.)
`
`was voluntarily dismissed on July 23, 2009. Petitioner was never served in that
`
`action.
`
`Designation of Lead and Back-Up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)):
`
`
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`Back-up Counsel
`
`Back-up Counsel
`
`
`
`Russell T. Wong
`Reg. No. 32,322
`NanocoIPR@counselip.com
`(832) 446-2420
`
`Scott Reese
`Reg. No. 47,891
`scott@lewisreese.com
`(281) 601-1640
`James H. Hall
`Reg. No. 66,317
`jhall@counselip.com
`(832) 446-2493
`
`Notice of Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)): Service of any
`
`documents on Petitioner via mail or hand-delivery may be made on Petitioner’s lead
`
`counsel at: Wong, Cabello, Lutsch, Rutherford & Brucculeri, LLP, 20333 SH 249
`
`Suite 600 Houston, Texas 77070. The fax number for Petitioner’s lead counsel is
`
` 
`
`5 
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00528 
`
`(832) 446-2424. Petitioner consents to electronic service by e-mail when sent to all
`
`of the e-mail addresses noted above for lead and backup counsel.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b), the challenged claims must be
`
`given their broadest reasonable constructions in light of the specification of the ‘901
`
`Patent. That is the same standard that applied in the reexaminations. See In re Trans
`
`Texas Holdings Corp., 498 F.3d 1290, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Also, claim terms that
`
`are used in claims of multiple patents within a patent family should be interpreted
`
`consistently from patent to patent within that family, unless there is a compelling
`
`reason not to do so. See In re Rambus Inc., 694 F.3d 42, 48 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (‘‘unless
`
`otherwise compelled . . . the same claim term in the same patent or related patents
`
`carries the same construed meaning.’’), quoting Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp.,
`
`334 F.3d 1314, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Thus, claim constructions from the
`
`reexaminations of the ‘155 and ‘605 Patents inform the construction of the terms of
`
`the ‘901 Patent.
`
`A.
`
` “Monodisperse particle population”
`
`Several claims of the ‘901 Patent recite a “monodisperse particle population.”
`
`But the ‘901 Patent does not define that term by providing any quantitative limits on
`
`what constitutes “a monodisperse particle population.” Exh. 1002, Hines Dec. ¶¶ 7-
`
` 
`
`6 
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00528 
`
`8. The broadest reasonable construction of the term “monodisperse particle
`
`population”
`
`therefore
`
`includes populations of particles
`
`that are “nearly
`
`monodisperse” as described in the art when the ‘901 Patent was filed.
`
`During
`
`the ‘155 Reexam,
`
`the Examiner determined
`
`that
`
`the
`
`term
`
`“monodisperse” includes “nearly monodisperse,” as the term “nearly monodisperse”
`
`is used in the relevant prior art. Exh. 1003, pp. 1459-60. The Examiner
`
`acknowledged that the ‘155 Patent states: “For the purposes of the present invention,
`
`monodisperse particles deviate less than 10% in rms diameter in the core, and
`
`preferably less than 5% in the core.” Id. at 1460. But the Examiner also recognized
`
`that characteristic is not required for the term monodisperse, because the
`
`independent claim 1 of the ‘155 Patent requires a monodisperse population and
`
`dependent claims 7 and 8 further limit claim 1 by requiring that the cores have
`
`diameters having no greater than 10 % rms and no greater than 5 % rms, respectively.
`
`Id. Under the doctrine of claim differentiation, the “monodisperse population” of
`
`claim 1 must be broader than the limitations of claims 7 and 8.
`
`Likewise, claim 1 of the ‘901 Patent recites a monodisperse particle
`
`population and dependent claims 7 and 8 further limit claim 1 by requiring that the
`
`cores have diameters having no greater than 10 % rms and no greater than 5 % rms,
`
`respectively. Therefore, the construction of “monodisperse” in the ‘901 Patent
`
`should be construed in the same way it was construed in the ‘155 Patent, to include
`
` 
`
`7 
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00528 
`
`“nearly monodisperse.”
`
`B.
`
`“Short-chain polymer terminating in a moiety having affinity for
`a suspension or dispersion medium”
`
`Claim 21 recites a nanocrystal comprising an organic layer on the outside
`
`surface, wherein the organic layer comprises a short-chain polymer terminating in a
`
`moiety having affinity for a suspending medium. The ‘901 Patent does not provide
`
`any guidance about what types of polymers are suitable or what size of polymers
`
`would be considered “short chain” polymers. Exh. 1002, Hines Dec., ¶¶ 9-10.
`
`Indeed, during the ‘155 Reexamination, the Examiner determined that any
`
`polymer-coated nanocrystal having an affinity for a suspending medium meets the
`
`limitation “short-chain polymer terminating in a moiety having affinity for a
`
`suspension or dispersion medium.” Exh. 1003, pp. 1461-1462. That construction
`
`should apply to the ‘901 Patent as well because both the ‘155 and the ‘901 Patent
`
`lack any disclosure defining “short-chain polymer.”
`
`C.
`
`“The first semiconductor material and the second semiconductor
`material are the same or different”
`
`Each of the independent claims of the ’901 Patent recites coated nanocrystals
`
`having a core comprising a first semiconductor material and an overcoating
`
`comprising a second semiconductor material wherein the first and second
`
`semiconductor materials are the same or different. If the first and second
`
` 
`
`8 
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00528 
`
`semiconductor materials are the same, then there is no difference between the core
`
`and the overcoating, and therefore, the claim reads on a simple homogeneous
`
`nanocrystal of a single semiconductor material. Exh. 1002, Hines Dec. ¶ 11. For
`
`example, a nanocrystal having a CdSe core and a CdSe overcoating is simply a CdSe
`
`nanocrystal. Id.
`
`During the ‘155 Reexam, the Examiner recognized that if the first and second
`
`semiconductor materials are the same, then the limitation literally reads on a
`
`nanocrystal of a single semiconductor material. See Exh. 1003, pp. 1100-1101. The
`
`Patent Owner responded by deleting the language “the same or” from the
`
`independent claims of the ‘155 Patent. See, e.g., Exh. 1003, p. 945. Claims not
`
`requiring the first and second semiconductor materials to be different are therefore
`
`properly construed as
`
`including nanocrystals comprising only a single
`
`semiconductor material. See Exh. 1002, ¶ 11.
`
`D.
`
`“An overcoating uniformly deposited on the core”
`
`Claims 1, 10, 32, and 44 recite an overcoating “uniformly deposited on the
`
`core.” The ‘901 Specification does not provide any definition of “uniformly
`
`deposited” or any guidance concerning how a POSITA would determine that an
`
`overcoating is “uniformly deposited.” Exh. 1002, Hines Dec. ¶ 12. However, claims
`
`26 and 27 which are dependent on claims 1 and 10 through claim 25 further limit the
`
`overcoating to “0 to about 5.3 monolayers” (Claim 26) and “less than about one
`
` 
`
`9 
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00528 
`
`monolayer” (Claim 27). Consequently, a “uniformly deposited” overcoating
`
`includes less than a monolayer, i.e., an overcoating that does not completely cover
`
`the core. Therefore, the term “uniformly deposited” does not distinguish one
`
`overcoating from any other and should therefore encompass any overcoating.
`
`E. Other terms
`
`Other terms in the challenged claims should be construed according to their
`
`plain and ordinary meaning and “should be given their broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and consistent with
`
`the disclosure.” Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`VI. PERSON OF SKILL IN THE ART
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) is presumed to be aware of all
`
`pertinent art, thinks along conventional wisdom in the art, and is a person of ordinary
`
`creativity. KSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742 (2007); Custom
`
`Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986). With
`
`respect to the ‘901 Patent, a POSITA would typically have an advanced degree (i.e.,
`
`a Masters or Ph.D.) in chemistry, materials science, or a related discipline. Exh.
`
`1002, Hines Dec., ¶ 6. As evidenced by the references described herein, the subject
`
`matter of the challenged claims was well known to a POSITA at least as of
`
`November 13, 1997, the filing date of the ‘901 Patent, and in many instances more
`
` 
`
`10 
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00528 
`
`than a year before that.
`
`VII. IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B))
`
`A.
`
`Statement Of The Precise Relief Requested And The Reasons
`Therefore (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(A))
`
`Petitioners request inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-21, 24, 31-
`
`33, 35-45 and 47-50 of the ‘901 Patent. The specific statutory grounds on which the
`
`challenge to each claim is based, and the patents or printed publications relied upon
`
`for each ground, are set forth in the following table. Copies of the references relied
`
`upon are filed herewith. In support of the proposed grounds for unpatentability, this
`
`Petition is accompanied by a declaration of a technical expert, Dr. Margaret Hines
`
`(Exh. 1002), which explains what the art would have conveyed to a POSITA.
`
`
`
`Ground 35 U.S.C.
`
`Reference(s)
`
`1
`
`2
`
`102(b) Hines
`
`102(b)2
`
`
`
`Danek
`
`Claims
`
`1, 2, 4-20, 24, 31-33, 35-37, 39-42,
`
`44, 45, and 47-49.
`
`1-3, 6-20, 24, 31-33, 35-39, and 41-
`
`43.
`
`                                                            
`2 Petitioner also asserts in the alternative under § 103 that Danek (i) in view of
`
`Murray renders claims 3 and 7 obvious and (ii) in view of the knowledge of one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art 16 obvious.
`
` 
`
`11 
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00528 
`
`Ground 35 U.S.C.
`
`Reference(s)
`
`102(a) Rodriguez-Viejo
`
`Claims
`
`1-13, 14-20, 24, 31-33, 35-45, and
`
`47-50.
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`102(a)
`
`Peng
`
`1-14, 16, 18-20, 24, 31-33, 35-45, and
`
`47-50.
`
`102(b)3 Murray
`
`1-3, 6-14, 16, 18-20, 24, 31-33, 35-
`
`45, and 47-50.
`
`103
`
`Kortan/Murray
`
`1-3, 6-20, 24, 31-33, 35-39, and 41-
`
`103
`
`Premachandran4 or
`Coffer
`
`43.
`
`21
`
`B. Ground 1: Hines Anticipates Claims 1, 2, 4-20, 24, 31-33, 35-37,
`39-42, 44, 45, and 47-49.
`
`Hines (Exh. 1005) has a publication date of 1996 and is 102(b) prior art to the
`
`‘901 Patent. Hines teaches ZnS-capped CdSe semiconductor “nanocrystals
`
`containing a core of nearly monodisperse CdSe of 27−30 Å diameter with a ZnS
`
`                                                            
`3 Petitioner also asserts in the alternative under § 103 that Murray, in view of the
`
`knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, renders claim 3 obvious.
`
`4 Combined with any of Hines, Danek, Rodriguez-Viejo, Peng, Murray or
`
`Murray/Kortan.
`
` 
`
`12 
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00528 
`
`capping 6 ± 3 Å thick,” as specifically stated in the Hines abstract and elsewhere in
`
`Hines.
`
`During the ‘155 and ‘605 Reexams, Hines was the basis for cancelling (i)
`
`Claims 1, 2, 4-16, 18-34, 36-42, 60, 61, 71-73, 94, 96, 97, and 151 of the ‘155 Patent
`
`and (ii) Claims 1-13, 16-19, 22-26, 33, 34, 37, 43, 46, 48, 53, 58-70, and 75 of the
`
`‘605 Patent. Exh. 1003, pp. 103-113 and Exh. 1004, pp. 106-110. During those
`
`reexaminations, the PTAB affirmed the Examiner’s finding that (1) Hines discloses
`
`a range of core diameter sizes, i.e., 27-30 Å diameter; and (2) that distribution equals
`
`only ± 1.5 Å around a median of 28.5 Å, which is equal to a size distribution of only
`
`±5% deviation from the median of 28.5 Å (i.e., 1.5/28.5 = 0.05). See, e.g., Exh. 1003,
`
`pp. 1071-112. Thus, the PTAB has previously decided that Hines teaches a
`
`monodisperse particle population that has no greater than 5% rms deviation in core
`
`size.
`
`The following claim chart shows that Hines discloses each and every element
`
`of the challenged claims.
`
`Claim of the ‘901 Patent
`1.05 A coated nanocrystal
`capable of light emission,
`comprising:
`
`                                                            
`5 Paragraph numbering of “1.1” means “claim 1, element 1.” Element “0” refers
`
`Hines
`and
`“Synthesis
`entitled
`the
`is
`Hines
`Characterization of Strongly Luminescing ZnS-
`Capped CdSe Nanocrystals.” The ZnS-Capped
`
`to the preamble.
`
` 
`
`13 
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00528 
`
`Hines
`CdSe Nanocrystals are capable of light emission.
`Exh. 1005 abstract and entirety of reference.
`Hines teaches “nanocrystals containing a core of
`nearly monodisperse CdSe of 27−30 Å
`diameter.” Exh. 1005 abstract and entirety of
`reference. The median of the range of 27−30 Å
`is 28.5 Å. See discussion at Exh. 1003, pp. 107-
`112. The high and low ends of that range (i.e., 27
`Å and 30 Å, respectively) deviate from the
`median by 1.5 Å. Id. That deviation range, ± 1.5
`Å, corresponds to ± 5 % (i.e., 1.5/28.5 = 0.05), a
`measurement that the ‘901 Patent says shows a
`monodisperse population. Id. CdSe is the first
`semiconductor material.
`
`During the Inter partes Reexamination of the ‘155
`Patent, the PTAB agreed with Petitioners that
`Hines teaches cores that are members of a
`monodisperse particle population. Id.
`
`The CdSe(ZnS) materials described in Hines are
`overcoated with ZnS, which
`is a second
`semiconductor material. Exh. 1005, Abstract.
`The fluorescence of the ZnS capped QDs is stable
`for months and quenching experiments show that
`solvents, such as pyridine, that normally quench
`the fluorescence of the CdSe particles do not
`quench the ZnS-coated particles. Exh. 1005, p. 5,
`col. 1. This indicates that the ZnS overcoating
`protects the CdSe core. Exh. 1005, p. 5, col. 2.
`The coating is “uniformly deposited” because
`any coating on the particles meets that limitation
`as defined in the ‘901 Patent.
`
`During the Reexam of the ‘155 Patent, the PTAB
`acknowledged that Hines describes “ZnS-capped
`(‘the
`overcoating…second
`semiconductor
`material”) CdSe nanocrystals (the ‘core…first
`
`Claim of the ‘901 Patent
`
`1.1 a core comprising a first
`semiconductor material, said
`core being a member of a
`monodisperse particle
`population; and
` 
`
`1.2 an overcoating uniformly
`deposited on the core
`comprising a second
`semiconductor material,
`
`
`
` 
`
`14 
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00528 
`
`Claim of the ‘901 Patent
`
`1.3 wherein the first
`semiconductor material and
`the second semiconductor
`material are the same or
`different,
`
`1.4 and wherein the
`monodisperse particle
`population is characterized in
`that when irradiated the
`population emits light in a
`spectral range of no greater
`than about 60 nm full width at
`half max (FWHM).
`
`
`2. The coated nanocrystal of
`claim 1, wherein the spectral
`range is not greater than about
`40 nm full width at half max
`(FWHM).
`4. The coated nanocrystal of
`claim 1, wherein the coated
`nanocrystal exhibits
`photoluminescence having
`
`Hines
`semiconductor material’).” Exh. 1003, p. 103
`(quotation marks and ellipses in original).
`
`See 1.1 and 1.2 above. (Note: references to prior
`claims or elements are to those claims or
`elements as discussed for the same prior art
`reference).
`
`illustrates an emission
`Figure 3 of Hines
`spectrum of CdSe core nanocrystals and ZnS-
`coated CdSe nanocrystals. That spectrum has a
`FWHM of 39±2 nm. Exh. 1002, ¶¶ 13-14.
`
`
`During the Reexamination of the ‘155 Patent,
`Patent Owner’s own expert, Dr. Murray,
`determined that the emission spectrum illustrated
`in Figure 3 has a FWHM of 40±1 nm, which is in
`statistical
`agreement with Dr. Hines’
`measurement of 39±2 nm. Exh. 1003, p 1319.
`
`See 1.4.
`
`Hines states that the ZnS-capped nanocrystals
`“exhibit
`strong
`and
`stable
`band-edge
`luminescence with a 50 % quantum yield at room
`temperature.” Exh. 1005, abstract and p. 4, col.
`2.6 See also, Exh. 1003, p. 107 (PTAB affirming
`
`                                                            
`See MPEP 2131.03 (stating that a specific example in the prior art, which is
`6
`
`within a claimed range anticipates the range. “[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges
`
`or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one
`
` 
`
`15 
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00528 
`
`Claim of the ‘901 Patent
`quantum yields of greater than
`30%.
`
`5. The coated nanocrystal of
`claim 4, wherein the coated
`nanocrystal exhibits
`photoluminescence having
`quantum yields in the range of
`about 30% to 50%.
`6. The coated nanocrystal of
`claim 1, wherein the spectral
`range is selected from the
`spectrum in the range of about
`470 nm to about 620 nm.
`
`7. The coated nanocrystal of
`claim 1, wherein the
`monodisperse particle
`population is characterized in
`that it exhibits no more than
`about 10% rms deviation in
`the diameter of the core.
`
`
`Hines
`rejection of claim 4 of the ‘155 Patent, which
`recites quantum yield greater than 30%).
`
`See Claim 4.
`
`Figure 3 of Hines shows that the emission
`spectrum of the CdSe particles and the ZnS-
`capped CdSe particles is about 500 nm to about
`600 nm. Exh. 1005 at p. 5; see also Exh. 1003, p.
`107 (PTAB affirming rejection of claim 6 of the
`‘155 Patent, which recites the spectral range has
`a peak in the range of about 470 nm to about 620
`nm).
`As explained above with regard to claim element
`1.1, Hines teaches nanocrystal cores with a
`diameter range of 27-30 Å, which corresponds to
`a population of nanocrystal cores with a median
`size of 28.5 and a deviation of ± 5 %.
`
`During the Reexam of the ‘155 Patent, the PTAB
`agreed with Petitioners that Hines teaches cores
`that are members of a monodisperse particle
`population with no more than about a 5 % rms
`deviation. See discussion at Exh. 1003, pp. 107-
`112.
`As explained above with regard to claim element
`1.1, Hines teaches nanocrystal cores with a
`diameter range of 27-30 Å, which corresponds to
`
`8. The coated nanocrystal of
`claim 7, wherein the
`monodisperse particle
`                                                            
`of them is in the prior art.” Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775,
`
`227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ
`
`275, 280 (CCPA 1962)) (emphasis in original)).
`
` 
`
`16 
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00528 
`
`Hines
`a population of nanocrystal cores with a median
`size of 28.5 Å and a deviation of ± 5 %.
`
`During the Reexam of the ‘155 Patent, the PTAB
`agreed with Petitioners that Hines teaches cores
`that are members of a monodisperse particle
`population with no more than about a 5 % rms
`deviation. See discussion at Exh. 1003, pp. 107-
`112.
`The CdSe core described in Hines is a member of
`a monodisperse population of 27−30 Å diameter.
`Exh. 1005, abstract and entirety of reference.
`The range disclosed in Hines is within the
`claimed range of 20 Å to about 125 Å and thus
`anticipates this claim. See also Exh. 1003, p. 107
`(PTAB affirming rejection of claim 9 of the ‘155
`Patent, which recites the diameter of the core is
`in the range of about 20 Å to about 125 Å.”).
`See 1.0.
`