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. 8,615,968
`Issued: December 31, 2013
`Filed: April 3, 2013
`Husnu M. Kalkanoglu and Stephen A. Koch
`
`Inventors:
`
`Title: SHINGLE WITH REINFORCEMENT LAYER
`
`Inter Partes Review No. 2014-01404
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`FAST FELT 2030, pg. 1
`Owens Corning v. Fast Felt
`IPR2015-00650
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,615,968
`
`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 .......... 7
`3. The Prior Art Taught Thin Reinforcement Material ................. 10
`Laminated Shingles Including Multiple Reinforcement
`Layers Were Known ................................................................. 12
`
`4.
`
`B.
`
`General Overview Of The ’968 Patent ................................................ 14
`The ’968 Patent Recognizes the Basic Asphalt Shingle
`1.
`Was Known ............................................................................... 14
`2. Only a Rear Exterior Surface Reinforcement Layer Is
`Disclosed in the ’968 Patent ..................................................... 15
`The Reinforcement Layer Is "Adhered" to the Surface
`in All the Claims ....................................................................... 17
`
`3.
`
`FAST FELT 2030, pg. 2
`Owens Corning v. Fast Felt
`IPR2015-00650
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,615,968
`
`4. The Reinforcing Layer Provides Strength and Stability ........... 17
`
`Co
`
`Prosecution History and Effective Filing Date of the ’968 Patent ...... 18
`
`2.
`
`1.
`
`Prosecution of the ’968 Patent .................................................. 18
`Prosecution of Related Patent Applications .............................. 18
`U.S. Appl. No. 10/871,911 ............................................. 18
`a.
`U.S. Appl. No. 12/857,868 ............................................. 19
`b.
`3. Effective Filing Date of the Claims .......................................... 22
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ..................................................... 23
`
`D.
`
`go
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Construction of Terms Used in the Claims ......................................... 23
`Elements (a)-(d) of Claim 1 ...................................................... 23
`"said shingle" ............................................................................ 24
`"adhered to an exterior surface of said shingle" ....................... 27
`"reinforcement... layer" .......................................................... 30
`"substantially thinner" .............................................................. 30
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`IV.
`
`Precise Reasons for Relief Requested ........................................................... 31
`
`No
`
`Claims 1-18 Are Unpatentable Over Venrick 1939 (Ex. 1013 .......... 31
`Venrick 1939 Anticipates Claim 1 Of The ’968 Patent ............ 31
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Venrick 1939 Anticipates Claim 11 Of The ’968 Patent .......... 36
`Venrick 1939 Anticipates Claims 2 and 12 Of The
`’968 Patent ................................................................................ 36
`
`Venrick 1939 Renders Obvious Claims 3 and 13 Of
`The ’968 Patent ......................................................................... 37
`
`Venrick 1939 Renders Obvious Claims 4 and 5 Of
`The ’968 Patent ......................................................................... 38
`Venrick 1939 Anticipates Claims 8 and 9 Of The
`’968 Patent ................................................................................ 38
`
`7. Venrick 1939 Anticipates Claims 14 and 15 Of The
`’968 Patent ................................................................................ 38
`
`8.
`
`Venrick 1939 Anticipates Claims 10 and 16 Of The
`’968 Patent ................................................................................ 38
`
`ii
`
`FAST FELT 2030, pg. 3
`Owens Corning v. Fast Felt
`IPR2015-00650
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,615,968
`
`°
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`Venrick 1939 Anticipates Claim 6 Of The ’968 Patent ............ 39
`Venrick 1939 Anticipates Claim 7 Of The ’968 Patent ............ 39
`
`Venrick 1939 Renders Obvious Claim 17 Of The
`’968 Patent ................................................................................ 39
`
`Venrick 1939 Renders Obvious Claim 18 Of The
`’968 Patent ................................................................................ 40
`
`go
`
`Venrick 1939 (Ex. 1013) in View of Frankoski 1998 (Ex. 1010)
`Renders Obvious the Claims ............................................................... 40
`1.
`
`Venrick 1939 In View Of Frankoski 1998 Renders
`Obvious Claim 1 Of The ’968 Patent ....................................... 41
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`Venrick 1939 In View Of Frankoski 1998 Renders
`Obvious Claim 11 Of The ’968 Patent ..................................... 44
`
`Venrick 1939 In View Of Frankoski 1998 Renders
`Obvious Claims 2 and 12 Of The ’968 Patent .......................... 45
`
`Venrick 1939 In View Of Frankoski 1998 Renders
`Obvious Claim 3 and 13 Of The ’968 Patent ........................... 45
`
`Venrick 1939 In View Of Frankoski 1998 Renders
`Obvious Claims 4 and 5 Of The ’968 Patent ............................ 46
`
`Venrick 1939 In View Of Frankoski 1998 Renders
`Obvious Claims 8 and 9 Of The ’968 Patent ............................ 46
`
`Venrick 1939 In View Of Frankoski 1998 Renders
`Obvious Claims 14 and 15 Of The ’968 Patent ........................ 46
`
`Venrick 1939 In View Of Frankoski 1998 Renders
`Obvious Claims 10 and 16 Of The ’968 Patent ........................ 47
`
`9.
`
`Venrick 1939 In View Of Frankoski 1998 Renders
`Obvious Claim 6 Of The ’968 Patent ....................................... 47
`10. Venrick 1939 In View Of Frankoski 1998 Renders
`Obvious Claim 7 Of The ’968 Patent ....................................... 48
`
`11. Venrick 1939 In View Of Frankoski 1998 Renders
`Obvious Claim 17 Of The ’968 Patent ..................................... 48
`12. Venrick 1939 In View Of Frankoski 1998 Renders
`Obvious Claim 18 Of The ’968 Patent ..................................... 49
`
`iii
`
`FAST FELT 2030, pg. 4
`Owens Corning v. Fast Felt
`IPR2015-00650
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,615,968
`
`Co
`
`Venrick 1939 (Ex. 1013) in View of Kiik 2001 (Ex. 1018)
`Renders Obvious the Claims Of The ’968 Patent ............................... 49
`1.
`
`Venrick 1939 In View Of Kiik 2001 Renders Obvious
`Claim 1 Of The ’968 Patent ...................................................... 50
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`Venrick 1939 In View Of Kiik 2001 Renders Obvious
`Claim 11 Of the ’968 Patent ..................................................... 53
`
`Venrick 1939 In View Of Kiik 2001 Renders Obvious
`Claims 2 and 12 Of The ’968 Patent ......................................... 54
`
`Venrick 1939 In View Of Kiik 2001 Renders Obvious
`Claims 3 and 13 Of The ’968 Patent ......................................... 54
`
`Venrick 1939 In View Of Kiik 2001 Renders Obvious
`Claims 4 and 5 Of The ’968 Patent ........................................... 55
`
`Venrick 1939 In View Of Kiik 2001 Renders Obvious
`Claims 8 and 9 Of The ’968 Patent ........................................... 55
`
`Venrick 1939 In View Of Kiik 2001 Renders Obvious
`Claims 14 and 15 Of The ’968 Patent ....................................... 55
`
`Venrick 1939 In View Of Kiik 2001 Renders Obvious
`Claims 10 and 16 Of The ’968 Patent ....................................... 56
`
`9.
`
`Venrick 1939 In View Of Kiik 2001 Renders Obvious
`Claim 6 Of The ’968 Patent ...................................................... 56
`10. Venrick 1939 In View Of Kiik 2001 Renders Obvious
`Claim 7 Of The ’968 Patent ...................................................... 57
`
`11. Venrick 1939 In View Of Kiik 2001 Renders Obvious
`Claim 17 Of The ’968 Patent .................................................... 57
`12. Venrick 1939 In View Of Kiik 2001 Renders Obvious
`Claim 18 Of The ’968 Patent .................................................... 58
`
`Do
`
`Secondary Considerations Do Not Weigh In Favor of
`Nonobviousness ................................................................................... 58
`
`go
`
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 60
`
`iv
`
`FAST FELT 2030, pg. 5
`Owens Corning v. Fast Felt
`IPR2015-00650
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,615,968
`
`Attachment A. Proof of Service of the Petition
`
`Attachment B. List of Evidence and Exhibits Relied Upon in Petition
`
`V
`
`FAST FELT 2030, pg. 6
`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. 8,615,968 ("the ’968 patent") (Ex. 1038). Neither
`
`Petitioner, nor any party in privity with Petitioner: (i) has filed a civil action
`
`challenging the validity of any claim of the ’968 patent; or (ii) has been served a
`
`complaint alleging infringement of the ’968 patent more than one year prior to the
`
`present date. Also, the ’968 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 ’968 patent on April 22, 2014 resulting in
`
`Civ. A. No. I:14-cv-00510-SLR (D. Del.). 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 2030, pg. 7
`Owens Corning v. Fast Felt
`IPR2015-00650
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,615,968
`
`2. Other Proceedings (§ 42.8(b)(2))
`
`The ’968 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. See Ex.
`
`1045. Patents related to the ’968 patent, by continuation, are the subject of
`
`petitions for interpartes review filed concurrently herewith (IPR Nos. 2014-
`
`01397, -01401, -1402, -1403).
`
`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 1-18 of the ’968 patent are unpatentable. Specifically:
`
`(1) Claims 1-2, 6-12, and 14-16 are anticipated under § 102(b) by
`
`Venrick 1939.
`
`(2) Claims 3-5, 13, and 17-18 would have been obvious under § 103
`
`2
`
`FAST FELT 2030, pg. 8
`Owens Corning v. Fast Felt
`IPR2015-00650
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,615,968
`
`based on Venrick 1939.
`
`(3)
`
`Claims 1-18 would have been obvious under § 103 based on Venrick
`
`1939 in view of Frankoski 1998.
`
`(4)
`
`Claims 1-18 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 the precise
`
`reasons why the claims are unpatentable are provided 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 ¶ 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 ¶¶ 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 ¶ 48. In general, making an
`
`asphalt shingle involves passing a base mat through a coater, where layers of hot
`
`3
`
`FAST FELT 2030, pg. 9
`Owens Corning v. Fast Felt
`IPR2015-00650
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,615,968
`
`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
`
`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, eoatin~ botl~ sides of
`
`the saturated fabric with a bituminous material, surl~aeing tlte
`
`bituminous coating on one side ol~tlte l~abrie witlt mineral gr#, such
`
`as crushed slate, and applFing mica, 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
`
`4
`
`FAST FELT 2030, pg. 10
`Owens Corning v. Fast Felt
`IPR2015-00650
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,615,968
`
`asphalt shingle has a nailing zone or fastening zone for attachment to a roof. Id.
`
`As shown below in the 1997 edition of the ARMA Residential Roofing Manual
`
`(ARMA Manual 1997) (Ex. 1009), at 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".
`
`~
`
`i
`
`_~~ HeadlapArea ]
`
`,
`
`, ....
`
`,,:
`
`.
`
`,
`
`-
`
`~ ~ : ~.~,~:’
`
`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 edges, and
`
`(c) generally intermediate of the upper and lower edges. Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.),
`
`at ¶¶ 57-58.
`
`Claim 1 of the ’968 patent provides: ’°[a]n array of shingles applied to a roof,
`
`by fasteners, in courses, each shingle having front and rear exterior surfaces and
`
`being comprised of shingle material, with the shingle having 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;
`
`FAST FELT 2030, pg. 11
`Owens Corning v. Fast Felt
`IPR2015-00650
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,615,968
`
`(b) a coating of asphaltic material on both front and rear surfaces of
`
`the mat;
`
`(c) coatings of granular material on said both front and rear surfaces
`
`of the mat, which, together with said base layer of mat and coatings of
`
`asphaltic material comprise a first thickness layer; and
`
`(d) a longitudinal fastening zone between right and left shingle edges,
`
`generally intermediate said upper and lower edges.
`
`Ex.
`
`1038 (’968 patent), at col. 7:30-44. 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 ¶¶ 59-68. The ’968 patent acknowledges that
`
`the components of the "basic" asphalt shingle were known in the prior art. Ex.
`
`1038 (’968 patent), at col. 2:56-3:13; Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.), at ¶¶ 59-68.
`
`To the basic asphalt shingle, elements (e)-(f) of claim 1 of the ’968 patent
`
`add and describe a "reinforcement second thickness layer":
`
`(e) and an at least partially externally visible generally longitudinal
`
`reinforcement second thickness layer of a substantially thinner
`
`dimension than said first thickness layer; said reinforcement second
`
`thickness layer being adhered to an exterior surface of said shingle
`
`and extending at least substantially between right and left edges of the
`
`shingle; and
`
`(f) said reinforcement second thickness layer extending at least
`
`partially lower than the fastening zone, toward the lower edge of the
`
`shingle or at least partially into the fastening zone toward the upper
`
`edge of the shingle.
`
`6
`
`FAST FELT 2030, pg. 12
`Owens Corning v. Fast Felt
`IPR2015-00650
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,615,968
`
`Ex. 1038 (’968 patent), at col. 7:45-55; see also id. col. 3:23-25 ("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.) ¶1 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
`
`"reinforcing strip" for "strengthening" to "reduce ... tear," and to "provide a
`
`reinl~oreed 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 11 93-97.
`
`The Venrick 1939 strip, which may be made of, inter alia, felt, metal, or
`
`"layers of roofing tape," Ex. 1013 (Venrick 1939), at 4, col. 2:74-75, also
`
`functions to add "rigidity" to "resist[] the action of the wind." Id. at 5, col. 11-9;
`
`Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.), at 1 94. "[I]mproved resistance to failure upon bending"
`
`is also a function of the reinforcement layer in the ’968 patent. Ex. 1038 (’968
`
`patent), at col. 6:28-29; Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.), at 1 94. The reinforcing strip is
`
`shown in Fig. 1 of Venrick 1939 as 15 on the front surface of a shingle.
`
`/o
`
`7
`
`FAST FELT 2030, pg. 13
`Owens Corning v. Fast Felt
`IPR2015-00650
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,615,968
`
`Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.), at ¶ 95. Venrick 1939 also teaches that the reinforcement
`
`strip can 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 4,
`
`col. 1:32-37, and overlaps with the nailing zone to "give greater nailing strength,"
`
`Ex. 1013 (Venrick 1939), at 4, col. 2:11-23; 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 into the
`
`headlap area. Id. The reinforcement strip clearly forms a second thickness layer.
`
`Id. The strip is also generally longitudinal as would be expected given that
`
`shingles are generally longitudinal. Id.
`
`;;:?.’..: .... .:, : ¯ ....-... ..,... , . ~. .’: . . ~.-.: :::..... ,~..:., .:.: ~
`
`It was known that nailing through multiple layers of shingle material
`
`FAST FELT 2030, pg. 14
`Owens Corning v. Fast Felt
`IPR2015-00650
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,615,968
`
`provided strength and contributed to roofing integrity. Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.), at
`
`1 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 windy conditions."). Because the nailing zone was generally
`
`longitudinal, see Ex. 1009 (ARMA Manual 1997), at Fig. 10, it would 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. Ex. 1013 (Venrick 1939), at 5, col. 1:50-54 ("The shingles
`
`are nailed preferably.., where the raised median strip is.").
`
`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" to
`
`"provide a stiffer shingle which grips the nails .... " Id. at col. 1:55-59; Ex. 1003
`
`(Bryson Decl.), at I 103. Fig. 2 exemplifies a shingle with a reinforcing backing
`
`layer 25. Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.), at 11 103-104. Fig. 3 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.
`
`9
`
`FAST FELT 2030, pg. 15
`Owens Corning v. Fast Felt
`IPR2015-00650
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,615,968
`
`Rohner 1989~ Fig. 2
`
`Rohner 1989~ Fig, 3
`
`V1G. 3
`
`The Rohner 1989 "backing strip" forms a second thickness layer on the rear,
`
`and is longitudinal like the shingle itself. Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.), at ¶¶ 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 ¶ 105.
`
`F!G.5
`
`I ~ ~45
`
`"-B %
`
`~46
`
`50D 46a
`
`Sieling 1999 describes the reinforcing strip as having dimensions which would
`
`have been understood to fall within the nailing zone of the shingle. Ex. 1016
`
`(Sieling 1999), at col. 3:23-28; Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.), at ¶ 106. The reinforcing
`
`strip in Sieling 1999 is on the exterior surface, forms a second thickness layer, and
`
`is longitudinal in orientation. Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.), at ¶ 106.
`
`3. The Prior Art Taught Thin Reinforcement Material
`
`As Venrick 1939, Rohner 1989, and Sieling 1999 show, the concept of using
`
`10
`
`FAST FELT 2030, pg. 16
`Owens Coming v. Fast Felt
`IPR2015-00650
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,615,968
`
`a reinforcing layer on the back of a shingle was not new. Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.),
`
`at ¶7 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
`
`1974 and shows a web layer 16 affixed to the back of an asphalt shingle. Ex. 1003
`
`(Bryson Decl.), at ¶ 99.
`
`A purpose of the web layer is "adding rein(orcement ... and providing
`
`additional tear strength." 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.
`
`U.S. Patent Publ. No. 2001/0055680 to Kiik (Kiik 2001) (Ex. 1018)
`
`discloses an asphalt roof shingle having a "backing material" that can be made of
`
`woven polyester and latex fiber bound by latex, ld. at [0004], [0006]; Ex. 1003
`
`(Bryson Decl.), at ¶ 110. The exemplary materials have a thickness of 13-23
`
`1/1000th of an inch. Ex. 1018 (Kiik 2001), at [Table 1]; Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.),
`
`at ¶ 110. Data in Kiik 2001 show that the reinforced laminated shingles exhibited
`
`11
`
`FAST FELT 2030, pg. 17
`Owens Corning v. Fast Felt
`IPR2015-00650
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,615,968
`
`improved tear strength and nail pull strength. Ex. 1018 (Kiik 2001), at Table 1 and
`
`2; Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.), at ¶ 113. Thus, like Venrick 1939 and Olszyk 1974,
`
`Kiik 2001 showed that thin material could be affixed to the back of an asphalt
`
`shingle to provide reinforcing properties. Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.), at ¶ 113.
`
`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 ¶ 71. The ’968 patent incorporates by
`
`reference Frankoski 1998 and says that the "basic" asphalt shingle can be made
`
`according to its teachings. Ex. 1038 (’968 patent), at col. 3:10-13.
`
`Frankoski 1998 (Ex. 1010) discloses a laminated shingle, which is
`
`exemplified by Figures 1 and 2 of the reference. Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.), at ¶ 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).
`
`5
`
`The shingle comprises an upper layer 5 and a lower layer 7, which are glued
`
`together with a sealant 9. Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.), at ¶ 72. The upper layer has a
`
`headlap area 10 and a number of tabs (shown as 35). Id. The lower layer is
`
`12
`
`FAST FELT 2030, pg. 18
`Owens Corning v. Fast Felt
`IPR2015-00650
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,615,968
`
`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 add
`
`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.
`
`Fie. Z
`
`7~
`
`Scrim is thin material that can be made from any number of different fabrics,
`
`synthetic, or composite materials. Id. The scrim layer "provides a superior
`
`strength and nail pull-through resistance to withstand, for example, hurricane force
`
`13
`
`FAST FELT 2030, pg. 19
`Owens Corning v. Fast Felt
`IPR2015-00650
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,615,968
`
`winds." Ex. 1010 (Frankoski 1998), at col. 3:20-24; Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.), at ¶
`
`78. Frankoski 1998 (Ex. 1010) states that the reinforcing scrim preferably extends
`
`the entire length of the shingle. Id. at col. 5:27-28. This would be understood to
`
`mean 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 ’968 Patent
`
`The ’968 patent issued on Decemer 31, 2013, to Kalkanoglu and Koch. The
`
`title is "Shingle With Reinforcement Layer." Ex. 1038 (’968 patent), at col. 1:1.
`
`1.
`
`The ’968 Patent Recognizes the Basic Asphalt Shingle Was
`Known
`
`The ’968 patent acknowledges that the basic components of an asphalt
`
`shingle were known in the prior art. Ex. 1038 (’968 patent), at col. 2:56-3:13.
`
`14
`
`FAST FELT 2030, pg. 20
`Owens Corning v. Fast Felt
`IPR2015-00650
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,615,968
`
`Referring to Fig. 1, the ’968 patent describes the "prior art shingle" as being made
`
`of a mat covered with asphalt on "each exposed surface" with "granular material"
`
`on the upper exposed surface to withstand weather and "smaller granules" on the
`
`"undersurface." Id. at col. 2:56-66. The ’968 patent states that the "basic" prior art
`
`shingle can be made by the methods disclosed in, among other references,
`
`Frankoski 1998. Id. at col. 3:10-11; Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.), at 1 70.
`
`2.
`
`Only a Rear Exterior Surface Reinforcement Layer Is
`Disclosed in the ’968 Patent
`
`The person of ordinary skill would understand that the reinforcement layer
`
`disclosed in the ’968 patent is affixed to the rear surface of the asphalt shingle, and
`
`nowhere else. Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.), at 1 223.
`
`The specification states: the "present invention is directed toward providing
`
`a shingle, wherein a separate, exterior reinforcement layer is provided outside the
`
`rear surl~ace of the shingle .... " Ex. 1038 (’968 patent), at col. 1:53-57 (emphasis
`
`added); Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.), at 11 137,208,223.
`
`The figures provided in the ’968 patent show the reinforcement layer to be
`
`located on the rear surface of the shingle. Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.), at 11 138-143,
`
`208, 223. Fig. 2 shows a prior art shingle with "reinl~orcement laFer applied to the
`
`rear surl~aee thereof, in accordance with the present invention." Ex. 1068, at col.
`
`2:19-21 (emphasis added); Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.), at 11 139,208, 223. Fig. 3
`
`also shows the "rear surface." Ex. 1003 (Bryson Decl.), at 11 141,208,223.
`
`15
`
`FAST FELT 2030, pg. 21
`Owens Corning v. Fast Felt
`IPR2015-00650
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,615,968
`
`The specification consistently emphasizes that the reinforcement layer