Paper No. 1
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Owens Coming,
`Petitioner
`
`go
`
`CertainTeed Corporation,
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 7,781,046
`Issued: August 24, 2010
`Filed: April 13, 2009
`Husnu M. Kalkanoglu and Stephen A. Koch
`
`Inventors:
`
`Title: SHINGLE WITH REINFORCEMENT LAYER
`
`In ter Partes Review No. 2 014-013 9 7
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`FAST FELT 2026, pg. 1
`Owens Corning v. Fast Felt
`IPR2015-00650
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,781,046
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Compliance with Requirements of an Inter Partes Review Petition .............. 1
`
`A.
`
`Certification that the Patent May Be Contested via Inter Partes
`Review by the Petitioner ....................................................................... 1
`
`B.
`
`Fee for Inter Partes Review (§ 42.15(a)) ............................................... 1
`
`C. Mandatory Notices (37 CFR § 42.8(b)) ................................................ 1
`Real Party in Interest (§ 42.8(b)(1)) ............................................ 1
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Other Proceedings (§ 42.8(b)(2)) ................................................ 2
`
`Lead and Backup Lead Counsel (§ 42.8(b)(3)) .......................... 2
`
`Service on Petitioner ................................................................... 2
`
`D. Proof of Service (§§ 42.6(e) and 42.105(a)) ......................................... 2
`
`II.
`
`Identification of Claims Being Challenged (§ 42.104(b)) ............................... 2
`
`III.
`
`Relevant Information Concerning the Contested Patent ................................. 3
`
`A. Background of the Technology ............................................................. 3
`The Basic Asphalt Shingle Coated on Both Sides with
`Asphalt and Granules Had Been Known for Decades ................ 3
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The Prior Art Disclosed a Generally Longitudinal Second
`Thickness Layer For Reinforcement in the Nailing Zone .......... 6
`3. The Prior Art Taught Thin Reinforcement Material ................. 10
`Laminated Shingles Including Multiple Reinforcement
`Layers Were Known ................................................................. 13
`
`4.
`
`B.
`
`General Overview Of The ’046 Patent ................................................ 15
`The ’046 Patent Recognizes the Basic Asphalt Shingle
`1.
`Was Known ............................................................................... 16
`2. Only a Rear Exterior Surface Reinforcement Layer Is
`Disclosed in the ’046 Patent ..................................................... 16
`The Reinforcement Layer Is "Adhered" to the Surface
`in All the Claims ....................................................................... 19
`
`3.
`
`FAST FELT 2026, pg. 2
`Owens Corning v. Fast Felt
`IPR2015-00650
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,781,046
`
`4. The Reinforcing Layer Provides Strength and Stability ........... 19
`
`Co
`
`Prosecution History and Effective Filing Date of the ’046 Patent ...... 20
`
`2.
`
`1.
`
`Prosecution of the ’046 Patent .................................................. 20
`Prosecution of Related Patent Applications .............................. 20
`a) U.S. Appl. No. 10/871,911 .............................................. 21
`b) U.S. Appl. No. 12/857,868 .............................................. 22
`3. Effective Filing Date of the Claims .......................................... 25
`
`Do
`
`Person of ordinary skill ....................................................................... 26
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Construction of Terms Used in the Claims ......................................... 26
`Elements (a)-(d) of Claim 1 ...................................................... 26
`"said shingle" ............................................................................ 27
`"adhered to said shingle" .......................................................... 30
`"reinforcement... layer" .......................................................... 33
`"substantially thinner" .............................................................. 33
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`IV.
`
`Precise Reasons for Relief Requested ........................................................... 35
`
`No
`
`Claims 1-9 Are
`
`Unpatentable Over Venrick 1939 ............................. 35
`Anticipates Claim 1 ............................................ 35
`
`Venrick 1939
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Venrick 1939
`
`Venrick 1939
`
`Venrick 1939
`
`Venrick 1939
`
`Venrick 1939
`
`Venrick 1939
`
`Venrick 1939
`
`Anticipates Claim 2 ............................................ 39
`Anticipates Claim 3 ............................................ 40
`Anticipates Claim 4 ............................................ 40
`Anticipates Claim 5 ............................................ 41
`Anticipates Claim 6 ............................................ 41
`Anticipates Claim 7 ............................................ 42
`Anticipates Claim 8 ............................................ 42
`
`Venrick 1939
`
`Renders Obvious Claim 9 .................................. 43
`
`go
`
`Claims 1-9 Are Unpatentable Over Venrick 1939 in View of
`Frankoski 1998 .................................................................................... 44
`
`Venrick 1939 in View of Frankoski 1998 Renders
`Obvious Claim 1 ....................................................................... 44
`
`ii
`
`FAST FELT 2026, pg. 3
`Owens Corning v. Fast Felt
`IPR2015-00650
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,781,046
`
`o
`
`o
`
`o
`
`o
`
`°
`
`°
`
`°
`
`°
`
`Venrick 1939 in View of Frankoski 1998 Renders
`Obvious Claim 2 ....................................................................... 47
`
`Venrick 1939 in View of Frankoski 1998 Renders
`Obvious Claim 3 ....................................................................... 48
`
`Venrick 1939 in View of Frankoski 1998 Renders
`Obvious Claim 4 ....................................................................... 48
`
`Venrick 1939 in View of Frankoski 1998 Renders
`Obvious Claim 5 ....................................................................... 49
`
`Venrick 1939 in View of Frankoski 1998 Renders
`Obvious Claim 6 ....................................................................... 49
`
`Venrick 1939 in View of Frankoski 1998 Renders
`Obvious Claim 7 ....................................................................... 50
`
`Venrick 1939 in View of Frankoski 1998 Renders
`Obvious Claim 8 ....................................................................... 50
`
`Venrick 1939 in View of Frankoski 1998 Renders
`Obvious Claim 9 ....................................................................... 51
`
`Co
`
`Claims 1-9 Are Unpatentable Over Venrick 1939 in View of
`Kiik 2001 ............................................................................................. 51
`1.
`
`Venrick 1939 in View of Kiik 2001 Renders Obvious
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 51
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Venrick 1939 in View of Kiik 2001 Renders Obvious
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 54
`
`Venrick 1939 in View of Kiik 2001 Renders Obvious
`Claim 3 ...................................................................................... 55
`
`Venrick 1939 in View of Kiik 2001 Renders Obvious
`Claim 4 ...................................................................................... 55
`
`Venrick 1939 in View of Kiik 2001 Renders Obvious
`Claim 5 ...................................................................................... 56
`
`6. Venrick 1939 in View of Kiik 2001 Renders Obvious
`Claim 6 ...................................................................................... 57
`
`7.
`
`Venrick 1939 in View of Kiik 2001 Renders Obvious
`Claim 7 ...................................................................................... 57
`
`iii
`
`FAST FELT 2026, pg. 4
`Owens Corning v. Fast Felt
`IPR2015-00650
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,781,046
`
`Venrick 1939 in View of Kiik 2001 Renders Obvious
`Claim 8 ...................................................................................... 57
`
`Venrick 1939 in View of Kiik 2001 Renders Obvious
`Claim 9 ...................................................................................... 58
`
`Do
`
`Secondary Considerations Do Not Weigh In Favor of
`Nonobviousness ................................................................................... 59
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 60
`
`Attachment A. Proof of Service of the Petition
`
`Attachment B. List of Evidence and Exhibits Relied Upon in Petition
`
`iv
`
`FAST FELT 2026, pg. 5
`Owens Corning v. Fast Felt
`IPR2015-00650
`
`

`
`I.
`
`Compliance with Requirements of an InterPartes Review Petition
`
`A.
`
`Certification that the Patent May Be Contested via InterPartes
`Review by the Petitioner
`
`Petitioner certifies it is not barred or estopped from requesting interpartes
`
`review of U.S. Patent No. 7,781,046 ("the ’046 patent") (Ex. 1001). Neither
`
`Petitioner, nor any party in privity with Petitioner: (i) has filed a civil action
`
`challenging the validity of any claim of the ’046 patent; or (ii) has been served a
`
`complaint alleging infringement of the ’046 patent more than one year prior to the
`
`present date. Also, the ’046 patent has not been the subject of a prior interpartes
`
`review or a finally concluded district court litigation involving Petitioner.
`
`Petitioner also certifies this petition for interpartes review is filed in
`
`compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Petitioner Owens Coming was served a
`
`complaint alleging infringement of the ’046 patent on April 22, 2014 resulting in
`
`Civ. A. No. I:14-cv-00510-SLR (D. Del.). See Ex. 1045 (Complaint).
`
`B. Fee for Inter Partes Review (§ 42.15(a))
`
`The Director is authorized to charge Deposit Account No. 50-1597.
`
`C. Mandatory Notices (37 CFR § 42.8(b))
`
`1. Real Party in Interest (§ 42.8(b)(1))
`
`The real party in interest is Owens Coming, located at One Owens Coming
`
`Parkway, Toledo, OH 43659.
`
`FAST FELT 2026, pg. 6
`Owens Corning v. Fast Felt
`IPR2015-00650
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,781,046
`
`2. Other Proceedings (§ 42.8(b)(2))
`
`The ’046 patent is the subject of litigation in the District of Delaware (Cir.
`
`A. No. I:14-cv-00510-SLR), which names Owens Coming as defendant. Patents
`
`related to the ’046 patent, by continuation, are the subject of petitions for inter
`
`partes review filed concurrently herewith (IPR Nos. 2014-01401-1404).
`
`3.
`
`Lead and Backup Lead Counsel (§ 42.8(b)(3))
`
`Lead Counsel
`Jeffrey P. Kushan
`Reg. No. 43,401
`j kushan~sidley.com
`(202) 736-8914
`
`Backup Lead Counsel
`Peter S. Choi
`Reg. No. 54,033
`peter.choi(~sidley.com
`(202) 736-8076
`
`4.
`
`Service on Petitioner
`
`Service on Petitioner may be made by mail or hand delivery to: Sidley
`
`Austin LLP, 1501 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005. The fax number for
`
`Petitioner’s counsel is (202) 736-8711.
`
`D.
`
`Proof of Service (§§ 42.6(e) and 42.105(a))
`
`Proof of service of this petition is provided in Attachment A.
`
`II.
`
`Identification of Claims Being Challenged (§ 42.104(b))
`
`Claims 1-9 of the ’046 patent are unpatentable. Specifically:
`
`(1)
`(2)
`
`(3)
`
`Claims 1-8 are anticipated under § 102(b) by Venrick 1939.
`
`Claim 9 would have been obvious under § 103 based on Venrick
`
`1939.
`
`Claims 1-9 would have been obvious under § 103 based on Venrick
`
`1939 in view of Frankoski 1998.
`
`2
`
`FAST FELT 2026, pg. 7
`Owens Corning v. Fast Felt
`IPR2015-00650
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,781,046
`
`(4) Claims 1-9 would have been obvious under § 103 based on Venrick
`1939 in view of Kiik 2001.
`
`Petitioner’s proposed claim construction, the evidence relied upon, and precise
`
`reasons why the claims are unpatentable are provided in § IV, below. A list of
`
`evidence relied upon in support of this petition is set forth in Attachment B.
`
`III. Relevant Information Concerning the Contested Patent
`
`A.
`
`Background of the Technology
`
`1.
`
`The Basic Asphalt Shingle Coated on Both Sides with
`Asphalt and Granules Had Been Known for Decades
`
`Asphalt shingles have been used to cover roofs since the late-1800s. See,
`
`e.g., Ex. 1005, Cash, "Asphalt Roofing Shingles," Proc. 11t5 Conf. Roofing Tech.
`
`(1995) (Cash 1995), at 1; Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.), at 1 46. By the mid-1990s,
`
`three styles predominated: (1) the individual shingle; (2) the strip shingle (with or
`
`without tabs), and (3) the laminated shingle. Ex. 1005 (Cash 1995), at Figs. 10-12;
`
`Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.), at 11 46-47.
`
`Asphalt waterproofs the shingle. Ex. 1007, Noone, "Asphalt-Shingles - A
`
`Century of Success and Improvement," Proc. 11t5 Conf. Roofing Tech. (1993)
`
`(Noone 1993), at 2; Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.), at 1 48. In general, making an
`
`asphalt shingle involves passing a base mat through a coater, where layers of hot
`
`asphalt are applied to the top and back surfaces. Ex. 1007 (Noone 1993), at 2; Ex.
`
`1003 (Bryson Decl.), at 1 48. Colored or non-colored granules are then dropped on
`
`3
`
`FAST FELT 2026, pg. 8
`Owens Corning v. Fast Felt
`IPR2015-00650
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,781,046
`
`the front surface and other granular materials are applied to the back. Ex. 1007
`
`(Noone 1993), at 2, 5; Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.), at 1 48. The granular material on
`
`the front adds color and texture. Finely ground talc and sand or other granular
`
`materials are added on the back to prevent sticking during storage and shipment.
`
`Ex. 1007 (Noone 1993), at 2, 5-6; Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.), at 1 48.
`
`The basic steps for making an asphalt shingle, including coating both sides
`
`of the base mat (i. e., substrate) with asphalt and applying granular material on both
`
`sides, have remained the same for decades. Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.), at 11 49-50.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 2,099,131 to Miller (issued in 1937) (Miller 1937) (Ex. 1008)
`
`states, for example:
`
`It has heretofore been common practice to manufacture prepared
`
`roofing by saturating a suitable absorbant fabric, such as roofing felt,
`
`with a liquid bituminous material, e.g., asphalt, coating botl~ sides of
`
`the saturated fabric with a bituminous material, surl~aeing tlte
`
`bituminous coating on one side ol~tlte l~abrie witlt mineral grit, such
`
`as crushed slate, and applFing miea~ soapstone~ or otlter anti-stick
`
`material to tlte coating on tlte otlter side ol~tlte l~abrie.
`
`!d. at 4, col. 1:13-24 (emphasis added); Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.), at 1 50.
`
`A typical strip shingle includes a plurality of tabs (i. e., flaps) that extend
`
`downwardly from a headlap area. Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.), at 11 56-57. Each
`
`asphalt shingle has a nailing zone or fastening zone for attachment to a roof. !d.
`
`As shown below in the 1997 edition of the ARMA Residential Roofing Manual
`
`4
`
`FAST FELT 2026, pg. 9
`Owens Corning v. Fast Felt
`IPR2015-00650
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,781,046
`
`(ARMA Manual 1997) (Ex. 1009), Fig. 10, the nailing zone typically is located
`
`just above the tabs in the headlap area. Also shown is the generally longitudinal
`
`dimensions of the typical strip shingle, i.e., 36"x 12".
`
`Headlap Area
`
`Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.), at ¶ 57. As shown, the nailing zone is (a) generally
`
`longitudinal like the shingle itself, (b) located between the right and left shingle
`
`edges, and (c) generally intermediate of the upper and lower edges of the shingle.
`
`Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.), at ¶ 57-58.
`
`Claim 1 of the ’046 patent provides: ’°[a] shingle having front and rear
`
`surfaces, a width defined by upper and lower edges and a length defined by right
`
`and left edges." Elements (a)-(d) of claim 1 require the following:
`
`(a) a base layer of mat having front and rear surfaces;
`
`(b) a coating of asphaltic material on both front and rear surfaces of
`
`the mat;
`
`(c) coatings of granular material on both front and rear surfaces and
`
`adhered thereto, which, together with said base layer of mat and
`
`coatings of asphaltic material comprise a first thickness layer; and
`
`FAST FELT 2026, pg. 10
`Owens Corning v. Fast Felt
`IPR2015-00650
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,781,046
`
`(d) a longitudinal fastening zone between right and left shingle edges
`
`generally intermediate said upper and lower edges.
`
`Ex. 1001 (’046 patent), col. 6:30-42.
`
`These elements describe nothing more than the basic asphalt shingle, or what was
`
`"common practice" since at least the 1930s. Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.), at ¶1 59-68.
`
`The ’046 patent acknowledges that the components of the "basic" asphalt shingle
`
`were known in the prior art. Ex. 1001 (’046 patent), at col. 2:38-63; Ex. 1003
`
`(Bryson Decl.), at 11 59-68.
`
`To the basic asphalt shingle, elements (e)-(f) of claim 1 of the ’046 patent
`
`add and describe a "reinforcement second thickness layer":
`
`(e) a generally longitudinal reinforcement second thickness layer of a
`
`substantially thinner dimension than said first thickness layer, adhered
`
`to said shingle and extending at least substantially between right and
`
`left edges of the shingle; and
`
`(f) said reinforcement layer extending at least partially into the
`
`fastening zone.
`
`Ex. 1001 (’046 patent), at col. 6:43-49; see also id. col. 3:5-7 ("the shingle 20 is
`
`similar to that of the [prior art] shingle 10 of FIG. 1, but with a reinforcement
`
`layer"). Reinforcement layers having the claimed features were known in the prior
`
`art. Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.), at 11 69-120.
`
`2.
`
`The Prior Art Disclosed a Generally Longitudinal Second
`Thickness Layer For Reinforcement in the Nailing Zone
`
`U.S. Patent No. 2,161,440 to Venrick (Venrick 1939) describes a
`
`6
`
`FAST FELT 2026, pg. 11
`Owens Corning v. Fast Felt
`IPR2015-00650
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,781,046
`
`"reinforcing strip" for "strengthening," to "reduce... tear," and to "provide a
`
`reinl~orced area for nailing the shingle to the roof." Ex. 1013 (Venrick 1939), at 3,
`
`col. 1:40-46 (emphasis added); Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.), at ¶7 93-97.
`
`The Venrick 1939 strip, which may be made of felt, metal, or "layers of
`
`roofing tape," Ex. 1013 (Venrick 1939), at 4, col. 2:74-75, also functions to add
`
`"rigidity" to the tabs to "resist[] the action of the wind." Id. at 5, col. 1:1-9; Ex.
`
`1003 (Bryson Decl.), at ¶ 94. "[I]mproved resistance to failure upon bending" is
`
`also a function of the reinforcement layer in the ’046 patent. Ex. 1001 (’046
`
`patent), col. 5:28-29; Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.), at ¶ 94. The reinforcing strip is
`
`shown in Fig. 1 of Venrick 1939 as 15 on the front surface of a shingle.
`
`Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.), at ¶ 95. Venrick 1939 also teaches that the
`
`reinforcement strip can be placed on the "undersurface," or rear. Ex. 1013
`
`(Venrick 1939), at 4, col. 2:60-63, see also Figs. 8-14; Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.), at
`
`¶ 96. Also, the strip is preferably "cemented" onto the granule surfacing, Ex. 1013
`
`(Venrick 1939), at 2, col. 1:32-37, and overlaps with the nailing zone to "give
`
`greater nailing strength to the shingle," Ex. 1013 (Venrick 1939), at 4, col. 2:11-
`
`7
`
`FAST FELT 2026, pg. 12
`Owens Corning v. Fast Felt
`IPR2015-00650
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,781,046
`
`23; Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.), at ¶ 96.
`
`Figs. 8 and 9 of Venrick 1939 show the reinforcement strip 45 as a visible
`
`component that is adhered to the exterior rear surface of the shingle. Ex. 1013
`
`(Venrick 1939); Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.), at ¶ 97. It extends at least partially into
`
`the zone having nailing holes 47, and as shown by the hashed lines, it also extends
`
`at least partially lower than the nailing zone (i. e., into the tab portion toward the
`
`lower edge of the shingle). Id. It also extends toward the upper edge of the shingle
`
`into the headlap area. Id. The reinforcement strip clearly forms a second thickness
`
`layer. Id. The strip is also generally longitudinal. Id.
`
`¯ ..::!:,,.:!:.;,,i-.:.,~i:,,:5’ :,:-: ~::,..: ~,...,. .:. ,,-:.. ,. : i,. :,~..,..:,,~: :. 2~.i: !/::i ii.:.:; ..,..:,!:t
`
`:~:-,::~ ::: ~ ~: ~=u~":. }: :-. : ?:r:7:.:"l ~ ,-..: ,:: :~"," ’", ?..!~.~ .:. .~;:.7~. 2:
`
`It was known in the a~ that nailing through multiple layers of shingle
`
`material provided strength and contributed to roofing integrity. Ex. 1003 (Bwson
`
`Decl.), at ~ 98. E.g., U.S. Patent No. 6,145,265 (Ex. 1011), at col. 1:60-62
`
`("[N]ailing through a double layer of material provides strength, which is essential
`
`for roofing integrity in win@ conditions."). Because the nailing zone was
`
`generNly longitudinN, see Ex. 1009 (~ Manual 1997), at Fig. 10, it would
`
`FAST FELT 2026, pg. 13
`Owens Corning v. Fast Felt
`IPR2015-00650
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,781,046
`
`only make sense to make the reinforcement layer generally longitudinal while
`
`extending it at least partially into the nailing zone. Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.), at 1
`
`98. This is what Venrick 1939 teaches. See Ex. 1013 (Venrick 1939), at 5, col.
`
`1:50-54 ("The shingles are nailed preferably.., where the raised median strip is.");
`
`Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.), at 1 98.
`
`Examples of reinforcing layers affixed to the rear surface abound. U.S.
`
`Patent No. 4,875,321 to Rohner (Rohner 1989) (Ex. 1015) discloses a "backing
`
`strip" (Fig. 2, 25) that can be made of "light-weight weather-resistant material"
`
`which functions to "provide a stiffer shingle which grips the nails .... " Id. at col.
`
`1:55-59; Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.), at I 103. Fig. 2 of the reference exemplifies a
`
`shingle with a reinforcing backing layer 25. Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.), at 11 103-
`
`104. Fig. 3 of Rohner 1989 confirms that the rear facing reinforcing layer 25
`
`extends at least partially into the nailing zone 37. Ex. 1015 (Rohner 1989); Ex.
`
`1003 (Bryson Decl.), at 11 103-104.
`
`Rohner 1989, Fig. 2
`
`Rohner i989~ Fig. 3
`
`29
`
`35 I~ 37 ?~
`
`33
`
`17 I,~
`
`FIG. 2
`
`FIG. 3
`
`9
`
`FAST FELT 2026, pg. 14
`Owens Corning v. Fast Felt
`IPR2015-00650
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,781,046
`
`The Rohner 1989 "backing strip" forms a second thickness layer on the rear and is
`
`generally longitudinal. Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.), at ¶1 103-104.
`
`Similarly, U.S. Patent No. 5,860,263 to Sieling (Sieling 1999) (Ex. 1016)
`
`shows a "reinforcement" strip 60 affixed to the back portion of an asphalt shingle.
`
`Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.), at I 105.
`
`FIG.5
`
`Sieling 1999 describes the reinforcing strip as having dimensions which the person
`
`of ordinary skill would understand to fall within the nailing zone of the shingle.
`
`Ex. 1016 (Sieling 1999), at col. 3:23-28; Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.), at I 106. The
`
`reinforcing strip in Sieling 1999 is on the exterior surface of the shingle, forms a
`
`second thickness layer, and is generally longitudinal in orientation, like the shingle
`
`itself. Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.), at I 106.
`
`3. The Prior Art Taught Thin Reinforcement Material
`
`As Venrick 1939, Rohner 1989, and Sieling 1999 show, the concept of using
`
`a reinforcing layer on the back of a shingle was not new. Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.),
`
`at 11 69-120. Nor was the concept of using thin material for reinforcement. Id.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,813,280 to Olszyk (Olszyk 1974) (Ex. 1014) issued in
`
`10
`
`FAST FELT 2026, pg. 15
`Owens Coming v. Fast Felt
`IPR2015-00650
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,781,046
`
`1974 and shows (Fig. 2) a web layer 16 affixed to the back of an asphalt shingle.
`
`Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.), at ¶ 99.
`
`Among other things, the purpose of the web layer in Olszyk 1974 is "adding
`
`reinl~orcement ... and providing additional tear strengtlt." Ex. 1014 (Olszyk
`
`1974), at col. 4:17-27 (emphasis added); Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.), at ¶ 100. The
`
`thickness of the web is on the order of 1/1000th of an inch. Ex. 1014 (Olszyk
`
`1974), at col. 3:59-60 ("a thickness of between 10 mils or less to about 30 mils.");
`
`Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.), at ¶ 101.
`
`Petitioner Owens Coming itself has developed technology to improve the
`
`"impact resistance" of roof shingles by fusing a web coating made of, for example,
`
`thermoplastic polymer fibers, on the rear surface of an asphalt shingle. U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,228,785 to Miller (Miller 2001) (Ex. 1017), which issued on May 8, 2001,
`
`discloses a shingle made of such materials. E.g., id. at col. 2:19-32, col. 4:13-24,
`
`col. 7:4-26; Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.), at ¶ 107. These materials would have been
`
`11
`
`FAST FELT 2026, pg. 16
`Owens Corning v. Fast Felt
`IPR2015-00650
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,781,046
`
`understood to be considerably thinner than the main body of the shingle.
`
`107-108.
`
`The purpose of this material was to provide impact resistance. Id. at
`
`¶108.
`
`U.S. Patent Publ. No. 2001/0055680 to Kiik (Kiik 2001) (Ex. 1018)
`
`published on December 27,2001. Kiik 2001 discloses an asphalt roof shingle
`
`having a "backing material" that can be made of woven polyester and latex fiber
`
`bound by latex. Id. at [0004], [0006]; Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.), at I 110. The
`
`exemplary backing materials have a thickness of 13 or 23 1/1000th of an inch. Ex.
`
`1018 (Kiik 2001), at [Table 1]; Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.), at I 110.
`
`Data in Kiik 2001 show that reinforced laminated shingles exhibited
`
`improved tear strength and nail pull strength. Ex. 1018 (Kiik 2001), at Table 1 and
`
`2; Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.), at I 113. Thus, like Venrick 1939, Olszyk 1974, and
`
`Miller 1998, Kiik 2001 would have provided the person of ordinary skill with the
`
`understanding that thin material could be affixed to the back of an asphalt shingle
`
`to provide reinforcing properties. Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.), at I 113.
`
`Another example of the use of thin material to reinforce shingles is found in
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,571,596 to Johnson (Johnson 1996) (Ex. 1022) issued in 1996.
`
`Johnson 1996 discloses "reinforcement material" made of E-glass fabric
`
`(fiberglass) and Kevlar fabric. Id. at col. 3:48-51; Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.), at 11
`
`119-120. The addition of the reinforcing material did not materially affect the
`
`12
`
`FAST FELT 2026, pg. 17
`Owens Corning v. Fast Felt
`IPR2015-00650
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,781,046
`
`thickness of the shingle because "the mat 20 is much thicker than the
`
`[reinforcement] fabrics 24 and 28." Ex. 1022 (Johnson 1996), at col. 4:54-56
`
`(emphasis added); Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.), at ¶1 119-120. As shown in Fig. 3 of
`
`the patent (Ex. 1022), reinforcing layers 24 and 28 extend into the nailing zone.
`
`Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.), at 11 119-120.
`
`4.
`
`Laminated Shingles Including Multiple Reinforcement
`Layers Were Known
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,822,943 to Frankoski (Frankoski 1998) (Ex. 1010)issued
`
`in 1998. Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.), at 1 71. The ’046 patent incorporates by
`
`reference Frankoski 1998 and says that the "basic" asphalt shingle can be made
`
`according to its teachings. Ex. 1001 (’046 patent), at col. 2:60-63.
`
`Frankoski 1998 (Ex. 1010) discloses a laminated shingle, which is
`
`exemplified by Figures 1 and 2 of the reference. Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.), at 1 71.
`
`A laminated shingle is simply a shingle made of two layers that are glued together.
`
`Id. This is shown in Figure 1 of Frankoski 1998 (Ex. 1010).
`
`1.5 10 FIG. 1
`
`The shingle comprises an upper layer 5 and a lower layer 7, which are glued
`
`13
`
`FAST FELT 2026, pg. 18
`Owens Corning v. Fast Felt
`IPR2015-00650
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,781,046
`
`together with a sealant 9. Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.), at 1 72. The upper layer has a
`
`headlap area 10 and a number of tabs (shown as 35). Id. The lower layer is
`
`generally longitudinal, and extends between the right and left edges. Id.
`
`It was widely known that gluing an extra shingle layer to the back surface of
`
`what was essentially a single layer strip shingle, as in a laminated shingle, provided
`
`reinforcement properties by enabling a roofer to nail through two, rather than one,
`
`layer of material. Id. at 1 76. U.S. Patent No. 6,145,265 (Malarkey 2000) (Ex.
`
`1011) explains this common sense principle by noting that "nailin~ tltrou~lt a
`
`double layer ol~material provides strengtlt." Id. at col. 1:54-62 (emphasis added);
`
`Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.), at 1 76. Laminated shingles, which by the late 1990s and
`
`early 2000s were among the most popular shingles made and sold, therefore
`
`utilized a second thickness layer of material that was recognized to provide
`
`reinforcement. Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.), at 1 76.
`
`Fig. 2 of Frankoski 1998 (Ex. 1010) also shows a scrim layer 60 in the
`
`laminated shingle. Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.), at 11 77-78.
`
`7O
`
`FIO. 2
`
`Scrim is thin material that can be made from any number of different fabrics,
`
`14
`
`FAST FELT 2026, pg. 19
`Owens Corning v. Fast Felt
`IPR2015-00650
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,781,046
`
`synthetic, or composite materials. Id. The scrim layer "provides a superior
`
`strength and nail pull-through resistance to withstand, for example, hurricane force
`
`winds." Ex. 1010 (Frankoski 1998), at col. 3:20-24; Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.), at ¶
`
`78. Frankoski 1998 states that the reinforcing scrim preferably extends the entire
`
`length of the shingle. Ex. 1010 (Frankoski 1998), at col. 5:27-28. This would be
`
`understood to mean that the reinforcing scrim is generally longitudinal given that
`
`most shingles were longer than they were wide. Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.), at ¶¶ 78-
`
`81. Frankoski 1998 also states that the scrim should "coincide with at least a
`
`portion of the nail zone." Ex. 1010 (Frankoski 1998), at col. 5:38-39; Ex. 1003
`
`(Bryson Decl.), at ¶ 81.
`
`As discussed infra at § III.C.2., Patent Owner distinguished the alleged
`
`invention over Frankoski 1998 by arguing that the reinforcing layer of the alleged
`
`invention is not "embedded" within the shingle as the scrim 60 is in Frankoski
`
`1998, and that it instead is affixed to the exterior, rear surface of the shingle. At
`
`the time these arguments were made, neither Venrick 1939, Rohner 1989 nor
`
`Sieling 1999 (each discussed above) were before the Patent Office. See generally,
`
`Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.), at §§ III.F. - III.H.
`
`B. General Overview Of The ’046 Patent
`
`The ’046 patent issued on August 24, 2010, to inventors Kalkanoglu and
`
`Koch. The title of the ’046 patent is "Shingle With Reinforcement Layer." Ex.
`
`15
`
`FAST FELT 2026, pg. 20
`Owens Corning v. Fast Felt
`IPR2015-00650
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,781,046
`
`1001 (’046 patent), at col. 1:1.
`
`The ’046 Patent Recognizes the Basic Asphalt Shingle Was
`Known
`
`The ’046 patent acknowledges that the basic components of an asphalt
`
`shingle were known in the prior art. Ex. 1001 (’046 patent), at col. 2:38-63.
`
`Referring to Fig. 1, the ’046 patent describes the "prior art shingle" as follows:
`
`Referring now to the drawings in detail, reference is first made to FIG.
`
`1, wherein a prior art shingle is illustrated as comprising a shingle
`
`generally designated by the numeral 10, constructed as a mat of
`
`preferably fiberglass mesh, having asphalt, or some other form of
`
`bitumen material impregnated therein, and forming layers on each
`
`surface thereof, with a granular material on each exposed surface. On
`
`the upper exposed surface, will be granules of a size desired to resist
`
`sun and other weather conditions, and on the opposite, or undersurface
`
`11, there will be preferably smaller granules of a mica, sand or like
`
`material, for example.
`
`Id. at col. 2:39-59. The ’046 patent states that the "basic" prior art shingle can be
`
`made by the methods disclosed in, among other references, Frankoski 1998. !d. at
`
`col. 2:60-61; Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.), at ¶ 70.
`
`2.
`
`Only a Rear Exterior Surface Reinforcement Layer Is
`Disclosed in the ’046 Patent
`
`The person of ordinary skill would understand that the reinforcement layer
`
`disclosed in the ’046 patent is affixed to the rear surface of the asphalt shingle, and
`
`nowhere else. Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.), at ¶ 135.
`
`16
`
`FAST FELT 2026, pg. 21
`Owens Corning v. Fast Felt
`IPR2015-00650
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,781,046
`
`The abstract of the ’046 patent states: "A shingle and a method of making it
`
`is provided in which tlte rear surface oftlte sltingle is provided with an attached
`
`re