`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`HYDRITE CHEMICAL CO.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SOLENIS TECHNOLOGIES, L.P.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01592
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,962,059
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE
`
`TO
`
`PATENT OWNER’S IDENTIFICATION OF
`
`NEW EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT IN PETITIONER’S REPLY PAPERS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`As authorized in the Board’s Order (Paper No. 24), Petitioner presents the
`
`following itemized identification of material contained in the Patent Owner’s
`
`Response that triggered or caused each item listed by Patent Owner to be included
`
`in Petitioner’s Reply. Given the limited specificity1 and breadth of Patent Owner’s
`
`contentions, in combination with the inherent subjectivity in characterizing
`
`arguments, Petitioner has endeavored to respond in-kind, but submits that the
`
`following may not be an exhaustive listing of all causal triggers.
`
`I. MATERIAL FROM PETITIONER’S REPLY (PAPER 21)
`1.
`Patent Owner’s Response at pages 1–2 and 14–17: discussing the
`
`level of ordinary skill as to obviousness at the time of invention.
`
`2.
`
`Patent Owner’s Response at pages 5–13, 24, and 38: discussing ICI
`
`and predicting surfactant effectiveness.
`
`3.
`
`Patent Owner’s Response at pages 22–26 and 38: challenging the use
`
`of HLB to predict surfactant effectiveness.
`
`
`1 For example, item I.2. of Patent Owner’s list refers to Claims 1–19 (as opposed to
`
`Claims 1–16 at issue in IPR2015-01592). In addition, item I.3. of Patent Owner’s
`
`list refers to page 13 of Patent Owner’s Reply, which does not appear to be
`
`relevant to the statements made by Patent Owner—in an attempt to earnestly
`
`respond, Petitioner has presumed Patent Owner is referring to page 15.
`
`1
`
`
`
`II. MATERIAL FROM REPLY DECLARATION (EX. 1025)
`1.
`Patent Owner’s Response at pages 22–26 and 38: challenging the use
`
`of HLB to predict surfactant effectiveness.
`
`2.
`
`Patent Owner’s Response at pages 25–26: discussing Dr. Rockstraw’s
`
`testimony regarding oil-soluble structures.
`
`
`
`
`
`/Joel A. Austin/
`Joel A. Austin
`Reg. No. 59,712
`Back-up Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: August 22, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`HYDRITE CHEMICAL CO.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SOLENIS TECHNOLOGIES, L.P.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01592
`Patent 8,962,059
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`Filed via PRPS
`
`Dear Board:
`
`
`
`I hereby certify on this 22nd day of August 2016, that a true and correct
`
`copy of
`
`the PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF NEW EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT
`
`IN
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY PAPERS was electronically mailed in its entirety to:
`
`IPR2015-01592@bakerlaw.com
`
`jlucci@bakerlaw.com
`
`dfarsiou@bakerlaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: August 22, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/Michael Piery/
`Michael Piery
`Reg. No. 71,915
`
`
`
`
`
`2